instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN 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., ensures that children with disabilities receive needed special education services. One of its provisions, § 1415(l ), addresses the Act's relationship with other laws protecting those children. Section 1415(l ) makes clear that nothing in the IDEA "restrict[s] or limit[s] the rights [or] remedies" that other federal laws, including antidiscrimination statutes, confer on children with disabilities. At the same time, the section states that if a suit brought under such a law "seek[s] relief that is also available under" the IDEA, the plaintiff must first exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures. In this case, we consider the scope of that exhaustion requirement. We hold that exhaustion is not necessary when the gravamen of the plaintiff's suit is something other than the denial of the IDEA's core guarantee-what the Act calls a "free appropriate public education." § 1412(a)(1)(A).
I
A
The IDEA offers federal funds to States in exchange for a commitment: to furnish a "free appropriate public education"-more concisely known as a FAPE-to all children with certain physical or intellectual disabilities. Ibid. ; see § 1401(3)(A)(i) (listing covered disabilities). As defined in the Act, a FAPE comprises "special education and related services"-both "instruction" tailored to meet a child's "unique needs" and sufficient "supportive services" to permit the child to benefit from that instruction. §§ 1401(9), (26), (29) ; see Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 203, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). An eligible child, as this Court has explained, acquires a "substantive right" to such an education once a State accepts the IDEA's financial assistance. Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1010, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984).
Under the IDEA, an "individualized education program," called an IEP for short, serves as the "primary vehicle" for providing each child with the promised FAPE. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988) ; see § 1414(d). (Welcome to-and apologies for-the acronymic world of federal legislation.) Crafted by a child's "IEP Team"-a group of school officials, teachers, and parents-the IEP spells out a personalized plan to meet all of the child's "educational needs." §§ 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II)(bb), (d)(1)(B). Most notably, the IEP documents the child's current "levels of academic achievement," specifies "measurable annual goals" for how she can "make progress in the general education curriculum," and lists the "special education and related services" to be provided so that she can "advance appropriately toward [those] goals." §§ 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I), (II), (IV)(aa).
Because parents and school representatives sometimes cannot agree on such issues, the IDEA establishes formal procedures for resolving disputes. To begin, a dissatisfied parent may file a complaint as to any matter concerning the provision of a FAPE with the local or state educational agency (as state law provides). See § 1415(b)(6). That pleading generally triggers a "[p]reliminary meeting" involving the contending parties, § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i) ; at their option, the parties may instead (or also) pursue a full-fledged mediation process, see § 1415(e). Assuming their impasse continues, the matter proceeds to a "due process hearing" before an impartial hearing officer. § 1415(f)(1)(A) ; see § 1415(f)(3)(A)(i). Any decision of the officer granting substantive relief must be "based on a determination of whether the child received a [FAPE]." § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i). If the hearing is initially conducted at the local level, the ruling is appealable to the state agency. See § 1415(g). Finally, a parent unhappy with the outcome of the administrative process may seek judicial review by filing a civil action in state or federal court. See § 1415(i)(2)(A).
Important as the IDEA is for children with disabilities, it is not the only federal statute protecting their interests. Of particular relevance to this case are two antidiscrimination laws-Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 -which cover both adults and children with disabilities, in both public schools and other settings. Title II forbids any "public entity" from discriminating based on disability; Section 504 applies the same prohibition to any federally funded "program or activity." 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12132 ; 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). A regulation implementing Title II requires a public entity to make "reasonable modifications" to its "policies, practices, or procedures" when necessary to avoid such discrimination. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) (2016) ; see, e.g., Alboniga v. School Bd. of Broward Cty., 87 F.Supp.3d 1319, 1345 (S.D.Fla.2015) (requiring an accommodation to permit use of a service animal under Title II). In similar vein, courts have interpreted § 504 as demanding certain "reasonable" modifications to existing practices in order to "accommodate" persons with disabilities. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 299-300, 105 S.Ct. 712, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985) ; see, e.g., Sullivan v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist., 731 F.Supp. 947, 961-962 (E.D.Cal.1990) (requiring an accommodation to permit use of a service animal under § 504 ). And both statutes authorize individuals to seek redress for violations of their substantive guarantees by bringing suits for injunctive relief or money damages. See 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) ; 42 U.S.C. § 12133.
This Court first considered the interaction between such laws and the IDEA in Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746. The plaintiffs there sought "to secure a 'free appropriate public education' for [their] handicapped child." Id., at 994, 104 S.Ct. 3457. But instead of bringing suit under the IDEA alone, they appended "virtually identical" claims (again alleging the denial of a "free appropriate public education") under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 1009, 104 S.Ct. 3457 ; see id., at 1016, 104 S.Ct. 3457. The Court held that the IDEA altogether foreclosed those additional claims: With its "comprehensive" and "carefully tailored" provisions, the Act was "the exclusive avenue" through which a child with a disability (or his parents) could challenge the adequacy of his education. Id., at 1009, 104 S.Ct. 3457 ; see id., at 1013, 1016, 1021, 104 S.Ct. 3457.
Congress was quick to respond. In the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 796, it overturned Smith's preclusion of non-IDEA claims while also adding a carefully defined exhaustion requirement. Now codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l ), the relevant provision of that statute reads:
"Nothing in [the IDEA] shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the [ADA], title V of the Rehabilitation Act [including § 504 ], or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under [the IDEA], the [IDEA's administrative procedures] shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under [the IDEA]."
The first half of § 1415(l ) (up until "except that") "reaffirm[s] the viability" of federal statutes like the ADA or Rehabilitation Act "as separate vehicles," no less integral than the IDEA, "for ensuring the rights of handicapped children." H.R.Rep. No. 99-296, p. 4 (1985); see id., at 6. According to that opening phrase, the IDEA does not prevent a plaintiff from asserting claims under such laws even if, as in Smith itself, those claims allege the denial of an appropriate public education (much as an IDEA claim would). But the second half of § 1415(l ) (from "except that" onward) imposes a limit on that "anything goes" regime, in the form of an exhaustion provision. According to that closing phrase, a plaintiff bringing suit under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or similar laws must in certain circumstances-that is, when "seeking relief that is also available under" the IDEA-first exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures. The reach of that requirement is the issue in this case.
B
Petitioner E.F. is a child with a severe form of cerebral palsy, which "significantly limits her motor skills and mobility." App.
to Brief in Opposition 6, Complaint ¶ 19. When E.F. was five years old, her parents-petitioners Stacy and Brent Fry-obtained a trained service dog for her, as recommended by her pediatrician. The dog, a goldendoodle named Wonder, "help[s E.F.] to live as independently as possible" by assisting her with various life activities. Id., at 2, ¶ 3. In particular, Wonder aids E.F. by "retrieving dropped items, helping her balance when she uses her walker, opening and closing doors, turning on and off lights, helping her take off her coat, [and] helping her transfer to and from the toilet." Id., at 7, ¶ 27.
But when the Frys sought permission for Wonder to join E.F. in kindergarten, officials at Ezra Eby Elementary School refused the request. Under E.F.'s existing IEP, a human aide provided E.F. with one-on-one support throughout the day; that two-legged assistance, the school officials thought, rendered Wonder superfluous. In the words of one administrator, Wonder should be barred from Ezra Eby because all of E.F.'s "physical and academic needs [were] being met through the services/programs/accommodations" that the school had already agreed to. Id., at 8, ¶ 33. Later that year, the school officials briefly allowed Wonder to accompany E.F. to school on a trial basis; but even then, "the dog was required to remain in the back of the room during classes, and was forbidden from assisting [E.F.] with many tasks he had been specifically trained to do." Ibid., ¶ 35. And when the trial period concluded, the administrators again informed the Frys that Wonder was not welcome. As a result, the Frys removed E.F. from Ezra Eby and began homeschooling her.
In addition, the Frys filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), charging that Ezra Eby's exclusion of E.F.'s service animal violated her rights under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Following an investigation, OCR agreed. The office explained in its decision letter that a school's obligations under those statutes go beyond providing educational services: A school could offer a FAPE to a child with a disability but still run afoul of the laws' ban on discrimination. See App. 30-32. And here, OCR found, Ezra Eby had indeed violated that ban, even if its use of a human aide satisfied the FAPE standard. See id., at 35-36. OCR analogized the school's conduct to "requir [ing] a student who uses a wheelchair to be carried" by an aide or "requir[ing] a blind student to be led [around by a] teacher" instead of permitting him to use a guide dog or cane. Id., at 35. Regardless whether those-or Ezra Eby's-policies denied a FAPE, they violated Title II and § 504 by discriminating against children with disabilities. See id., at 35-36.
In response to OCR's decision, school officials at last agreed that E.F. could come to school with Wonder. But after meeting with Ezra Eby's principal, the Frys became concerned that the school administration "would resent [E.F.] and make her return to school difficult." App. to Brief in Opposition 10, ¶ 48. Accordingly, the Frys found a different public school, in a different district, where administrators and teachers enthusiastically received both E.F. and Wonder.
C
The Frys then filed this suit in federal court against the local and regional school districts in which Ezra Eby is located, along with the school's principal (collectively, the school districts). The complaint alleged that the school districts violated Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by "denying [E.F.] equal access" to Ezra Eby and its programs, "refus[ing] to reasonably accommodate" E.F.'s use of a service animal, and otherwise "discriminat[ing] against [E.F.] as a person with disabilities." Id., at 15, ¶ 68, 17-18, ¶¶ 82-83. According to the complaint, E.F. suffered harm as a result of that discrimination, including "emotional distress and pain, embarrassment, [and] mental anguish." Id., at 11-12, ¶ 51. In their prayer for relief, the Frys sought a declaration that the school districts had violated Title II and § 504, along with money damages to compensate for E.F.'s injuries.
The District Court granted the school districts' motion to dismiss the suit, holding that § 1415(l ) required the Frys to first exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 50. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the same ground. In that court's view, § 1415(l ) applies if "the injuries [alleged in a suit] relate to the specific substantive protections of the IDEA." 788 F.3d 622, 625 (2015). And that means, the court continued, that exhaustion is necessary whenever "the genesis and the manifestations" of the complained-of harms were "educational" in nature. Id., at 627 (quoting Charlie F. v. Board of Ed. of Skokie School Dist. 68, 98 F.3d 989, 993 (C.A.7 1996) ). On that understanding of § 1415(l ), the Sixth Circuit held, the Frys' suit could not proceed: Because the harms to E.F. were generally "educational"-most notably, the court reasoned, because "Wonder's absence hurt her sense of independence and social confidence at school"-the Frys had to exhaust the IDEA's procedures. 788 F.3d, at 627. Judge Daughtrey dissented, emphasizing that in bringing their Title II and § 504 claims, the Frys "did not allege the denial of a FAPE" or "seek to modify [E.F.'s] IEP in any way." Id., at 634.
We granted certiorari to address confusion in the courts of appeals as to the scope of § 1415(l )'s exhaustion requirement. 579 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2540, 195 L.Ed.2d 867 (2016). We now vacate the Sixth Circuit's decision.
II
Section 1415(l ) requires that a plaintiff exhaust the IDEA's procedures before filing an action under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or similar laws when (but only when) her suit "seek[s] relief that is also available" under the IDEA. We first hold that to meet that statutory standard, a suit must seek relief for the denial of a FAPE, because that is the only "relief" the IDEA makes "available." We next conclude that in determining whether a suit indeed "seeks" relief for such a denial, a court should look to the substance, or gravamen, of the plaintiff's complaint.
A
In this Court, the parties have reached substantial agreement about what "relief" the IDEA makes "available" for children with disabilities-and about how the Sixth Circuit went wrong in addressing that question. The Frys maintain that such a child can obtain remedies under the IDEA for decisions that deprive her of a FAPE, but none for those that do not. So in the Frys' view, § 1415(l )'s exhaustion requirement can come into play only when a suit concerns the denial of a FAPE-and not, as the Sixth Circuit held, when it merely has some articulable connection to the education of a child with a disability. See Reply Brief 13-15. The school districts, for their part, also believe that the Sixth Circuit's exhaustion standard "goes too far" because it could mandate exhaustion when a plaintiff is "seeking relief that is not in substance available" under the IDEA. Brief for Respondents 30. And in particular, the school districts acknowledge that the IDEA makes remedies available only in suits that "directly implicate[ ]" a FAPE-so that only in those suits can § 1415(l ) apply. Tr. of Oral Arg. 46. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the parties' shared view: The only relief that an IDEA officer can give-hence the thing a plaintiff must seek in order to trigger § 1415(l )'s exhaustion rule-is relief for the denial of a FAPE.
We begin, as always, with the statutory language at issue, which (at risk of repetition) compels exhaustion when a plaintiff seeks "relief" that is "available" under the IDEA. The ordinary meaning of "relief" in the context of a lawsuit is the "redress[ ] or benefit" that attends a favorable judgment. Black's Law Dictionary 1161 (5th ed. 1979). And such relief is "available," as we recently explained, when it is "accessible or may be obtained." Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 150 (1993)). So to establish the scope of § 1415(l ), we must identify the circumstances in which the IDEA enables a person to obtain redress (or, similarly, to access a benefit).
That inquiry immediately reveals the primacy of a FAPE in the statutory scheme. In its first section, the IDEA declares as its first purpose "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education." § 1400(d)(1)(A). That principal purpose then becomes the Act's principal command: A State receiving federal funding under the IDEA must make such an education "available to all children with disabilities." § 1412(a)(1)(A). The guarantee of a FAPE to those children gives rise to the bulk of the statute's more specific provisions. For example, the IEP-"the centerpiece of the statute's education delivery system"-serves as the "vehicle" or "means" of providing a FAPE. Honig, 484 U.S., at 311, 108 S.Ct. 592 ; Rowley, 458 U.S., at 181, 102 S.Ct. 3034 ; see supra, at 746 - 747. And finally, as all the above suggests, the FAPE requirement provides the yardstick for measuring the adequacy of the education that a school offers to a child with a disability: Under that standard, this Court has held, a child is entitled to "meaningful" access to education based on her individual needs. Rowley, 458 U.S., at 192, 102 S.Ct. 3034.
The IDEA's administrative procedures test whether a school has met that obligation-and so center on the Act's FAPE requirement. As noted earlier, any decision by a hearing officer on a request for substantive relief "shall" be "based on a determination of whether the child received a free appropriate public education." § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i) ; see supra, at 747. Or said in Latin: In the IDEA's administrative process, a FAPE denial is the sine qua non. Suppose that a parent's complaint protests a school's failure to provide some accommodation for a child with a disability. If that accommodation is needed to fulfill the IDEA's FAPE requirement, the hearing officer must order relief. But if it is not, he cannot-even though the dispute is between a child with a disability and the school she attends. There might be good reasons, unrelated to a FAPE, for the school to make the requested accommodation. Indeed, another federal law (like the ADA or Rehabilitation Act) might require the accommodation on one of those alternative grounds. See infra, at 754 - 755. But still, the hearing officer cannot provide the requested relief. His role, under the IDEA, is to enforce the child's "substantive right" to a FAPE. Smith, 468 U.S., at 1010, 104 S.Ct. 3457. And that is all.
For that reason, § 1415(l )'s exhaustion rule hinges on whether a lawsuit seeks relief for the denial of a free appropriate public education. If a lawsuit charges such a denial, the plaintiff cannot escape § 1415(l ) merely by bringing her suit under a statute other than the IDEA-as when, for example, the plaintiffs in Smith claimed that a school's failure to provide a FAPE also violated the Rehabilitation Act. Rather, that plaintiff must first submit her case to an IDEA hearing officer, experienced in addressing exactly the issues she raises. But if, in a suit brought under a different statute, the remedy sought is not for the denial of a FAPE, then exhaustion of the IDEA's procedures is not required. After all, the plaintiff could not get any relief from those procedures: A hearing officer, as just explained, would have to send her away empty-handed. And that is true even when the suit arises directly from a school's treatment of a child with a disability-and so could be said to relate in some way to her education. A school's conduct toward such a child-say, some refusal to make an accommodation-might injure her in ways unrelated to a FAPE, which are addressed in statutes other than the IDEA. A complaint seeking redress for those other harms, independent of any FAPE denial, is not subject to § 1415(l )'s exhaustion rule because, once again, the only "relief" the IDEA makes "available" is relief for the denial of a FAPE.
B
Still, an important question remains: How is a court to tell when a plaintiff "seeks" relief for the denial of a FAPE and when she does not? Here, too, the parties have found some common ground: By looking, they both say, to the "substance" of, rather than the labels used in, the plaintiff's complaint. Brief for Respondents 20; Reply Brief 7-8. And here, too, we agree with that view: What matters is the crux-or, in legal-speak, the gravamen-of the plaintiff's complaint, setting aside any attempts at artful pleading.
That inquiry makes central the plaintiff's own claims, as § 1415(l ) explicitly requires. The statutory language asks whether a lawsuit in fact "seeks" relief available under the IDEA-not, as a stricter exhaustion statute might, whether the suit "could have sought" relief available under the IDEA (or, what is much the same, whether any remedies "are" available under that law). See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20 (contrasting § 1415(l ) with the exhaustion provision in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ). In effect, § 1415(l ) treats the plaintiff as "the master of the claim": She identifies its remedial basis-and is subject to exhaustion or not based on that choice. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, and n. 7, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). A court deciding whether § 1415(l ) applies must therefore examine whether a plaintiff's complaint-the principal instrument by which she describes her case-seeks relief for the denial of an appropriate education.
But that examination should consider substance, not surface. The use (or non-use) of particular labels and terms is not what matters. The inquiry, for example, does not ride on whether a complaint includes (or, alternatively, omits) the precise words(?) "FAPE" or "IEP." After all, § 1415(l )'s premise is that the plaintiff is suing under a statute other than the IDEA, like the Rehabilitation Act; in such a suit, the plaintiff might see no need to use the IDEA's distinctive language-even if she is in essence contesting the adequacy of a special education program. And still more critically, a "magic words" approach would make § 1415(l )'s exhaustion rule too easy to bypass. Just last Term, a similar worry led us to hold that a court's jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act turns on the "gravamen," or "essentials," of the plaintiff's suit. OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. ----, ----, ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 390, 395, 396, 397, 193 L.Ed.2d 269 (2015). "[A]ny other approach," we explained, "would allow plaintiffs to evade the Act's restrictions through artful pleading." Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 396. So too here. Section 1415(l ) is not merely a pleading hurdle. It requires exhaustion when the gravamen of a complaint seeks redress for a school's failure to provide a FAPE, even if not phrased or framed in precisely that way.
In addressing whether a complaint fits that description, a court should attend to the diverse means and ends of the statutes covering persons with disabilities-the IDEA on the one hand, the ADA and Rehabilitation Act (most notably) on the other. The IDEA, of course, protects only "children" (well, really, adolescents too) and concerns only their schooling. § 1412(a)(1)(A). And as earlier noted, the statute's goal is to provide each child with meaningful access to education by offering individualized instruction and related services appropriate to her "unique needs." § 1401(29) ; see Rowley, 458 U.S., at 192, 198, 102 S.Ct. 3034 ; supra, at 753 - 754. By contrast, Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act cover people with disabilities of all ages, and do so both inside and outside schools. And those statutes aim to root out disability-based discrimination, enabling each covered person (sometimes by means of reasonable accommodations) to participate equally to all others in public facilities and federally funded programs. See supra, at 749 - 750. In short, the IDEA guarantees individually tailored educational services, while Title II and § 504 promise non-discriminatory access to public institutions. That is not to deny some overlap in coverage: The same conduct might violate all three statutes-which is why, as in Smith, a plaintiff might seek relief for the denial of a FAPE under Title II and § 504 as well as the IDEA. But still, the statutory differences just discussed mean that a complaint brought under Title II and § 504 might instead seek relief for simple discrimination, irrespective of the IDEA's FAPE obligation.
One clue to whether the gravamen of a complaint against a school concerns the denial of a FAPE, or instead addresses disability-based discrimination, can come from asking a pair of hypothetical questions. First, could the plaintiff have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a public facility that was not a school-say, a public theater or library? And second, could an adult at the school-say, an employee or visitor-have pressed essentially the same grievance? When the answer to those questions is yes, a complaint that does not expressly allege the denial of a FAPE is also unlikely to be truly about that subject; after all, in those other situations there is no FAPE obligation and yet the same basic suit could go forward. But when the answer is no, then the complaint probably does concern a FAPE, even if it does not explicitly say so; for the FAPE requirement is all that explains why only a child in the school setting (not an adult in that setting or a child in some other) has a viable claim.
Take two contrasting examples. Suppose first that a wheelchair-bound child sues his school for discrimination under Title II (again, without mentioning the denial of a FAPE) because the building lacks access ramps. In some sense, that architectural feature has educational consequences, and a different lawsuit might have alleged that it violates the IDEA: After all, if the child cannot get inside the school, he cannot receive instruction there; and if he must be carried inside, he may not achieve the sense of independence conducive to academic (or later to real-world) success. But is the denial of a FAPE really the gravamen of the plaintiff's Title II complaint? Consider that the child could file the same basic complaint if a municipal library or theater had no ramps. And similarly, an employee or visitor could bring a mostly identical complaint against the school. That the claim can stay the same in those alternative scenarios suggests that its essence is equality of access to public facilities, not adequacy of special education. See supra, at 751 - 752 (describing OCR's use of a similar example). And so § 1415(l ) does not require exhaustion.
But suppose next that a student with a learning disability sues his school under Title II for failing to provide remedial tutoring in mathematics. That suit, too, might be cast as one for disability-based discrimination, grounded on the school's refusal to make a reasonable accommodation; the complaint might make no reference at all to a FAPE or an IEP. But can anyone imagine the student making the same claim against a public theater or library? Or, similarly, imagine an adult visitor or employee suing the school to obtain a math tutorial? The difficulty of transplanting the complaint to those other contexts suggests that its essence-even though not its wording-is the provision of a FAPE, thus bringing § 1415(l ) into play.
A further sign that the gravamen of a suit is the denial of a FAPE can emerge from the history of the proceedings. In particular, a court may consider that a plaintiff has previously invoked the IDEA's formal procedures to handle the dispute-thus starting to exhaust the Act's remedies before switching midstream. Recall that a parent dissatisfied with her child's education initiates those administrative procedures by filing a complaint, which triggers a preliminary meeting (or possibly mediation) and then a due process hearing. See supra, at 748 - 749. A plaintiff's initial choice to pursue that process may suggest that she is indeed seeking relief for the denial of a FAPE-with the shift to judicial proceedings prior to full exhaustion reflecting only strategic calculations about how to maximize the prospects of such a remedy. Whether that is so depends on the facts; a court may conclude, for example, that the move to a courtroom came from a late-acquired awareness that the school had fulfilled its FAPE obligation and that the grievance involves something else entirely. But prior pursuit of the IDEA's administrative remedies will often provide strong evidence that the substance of a plaintiff's claim concerns the denial of a FAPE, even if the complaint never explicitly uses that term.
III
The Court of Appeals did not undertake the analysis we have just set forward.
As noted above, it asked whether E.F.'s injuries were, broadly speaking, "educational" in nature. See supra, at 752; 788 F.3d, at 627 (reasoning that the "value of allowing Wonder to attend [school] with E.F. was educational" because it would foster "her sense of independence and social confidence," which is "the sort of interest the IDEA protects"). That is not the same as asking whether the gravamen of E.F.'s complaint charges, and seeks relief for, the denial of a FAPE. And that difference in standard may have led to a difference in result in this case. Understood correctly, § 1415(l ) might not require exhaustion of the Frys' claim. We lack some important information on that score, however, and so we remand the issue to the court below.
The Frys' complaint alleges only disability-based discrimination, without making any reference to the adequacy of the special education services E.F.'s school provided. The school districts' "refusal to allow Wonder to act as a service dog," the complaint states, "discriminated against [E.F.] as a person with disabilities... by denying her equal access" to public facilities. App. to Brief in Opposition 15, Complaint ¶ 68. The complaint contains no allegation about the denial of a FAPE or about any deficiency in E.F.'s IEP. More, it does not accuse the school even in general terms of refusing to provide the educational instruction and services that E.F. needs. See 788 F.3d, at 631 (acknowledging that the Frys do not "state that Wonder enhances E.F.'s educational opportunities"). As the Frys explained in this Court: The school districts "have said all along that because they gave [E.F.] a one-on-one [human] aide, that all of her... educational needs were satisfied. And we have not challenged that, and it would be difficult for us to challenge that." Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. The Frys instead maintained, just as OCR had earlier found, that the school districts infringed E.F.'s right to equal access-even if their actions complied in full with the IDEA's requirements. See App. to Brief in Opposition 15, 18-19, Complaint ¶¶ 69, 85, 87; App. 34-37; supra, at 751 - 752.
And nothing in the nature of the Frys' suit suggests any implicit focus on the adequacy of E.F.'s education. Consider, as suggested above, that the Frys could have filed essentially the same complaint if a public library or theater had refused admittance to Wonder. See supra, at 756. Or similarly, consider that an adult visitor to the school could have leveled much the same charges if prevented from entering with his service dog. See ibid. In each case, the plaintiff would challenge a public facility's policy of precluding service dogs (just as a blind person might challenge a policy of barring guide
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue presented in this case is whether the Supremacy Clause bars the State of Ohio from subjecting a private contractor operating a federally owned nuclear production facility to a state-law workers’ compensation provision that provides an increased award for injuries resulting from an employer’s violation of a state safety regulation.
I — i
This case arises from an accident involving a worker at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a nuclear production facility located near Piketon, Ohio. The plant is owned by the United States, but at all times relevant to this action it was operated by a private company, appellant Goodyear Atomic Corporation, under contract with the Department of Energy (DOE). On July 30, 1980, appellee Esto Miller, a maintenance mechanic employed by Goodyear at the Portsmouth plant, fell from a scaffold while performing routine maintenance work and fractured his left ankle. His fall apparently was caused when his glove caught on a bolt protruding from the guardrail of the scaffolding. Miller applied to the Ohio Industrial Commission for an award under the State’s workers’ compensation program, for which Goodyear pays premiums to cover its Portsmouth employees. He received about $9,000 in workers’ compensation.
After returning to work, Miller filed an application for an additional award on the ground that his injury had resulted from Goodyear’s violation of a state safety requirement. Miller alleged that his fall was caused by Goodyear’s failure to comply with Ohio Admin. Code §4121:1-5-03(D)(2) (1987), which provides that “[e]xposed surfaces [on scaffolds] shall be free from sharp edges, burrs or other projecting parts.” The Ohio Constitution provides that when an injury is caused by an employer’s failure to comply with a specific state safety requirement, the Industrial Commission shall provide an additional award of 15% to 50% of the benefits already received. Ohio Const., Art. II, § 35. The state insurance fund recoups these additional payments by increasing the premium paid by the employer. Ibid.
The Ohio Industrial Commission denied Miller’s claim for a supplemental award. The Commission held that “the [Ohio] Codes of Specific Safety Requirements . . . may not be applied to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant under the doctrine of federal preemption.” Claim No. 80-19975 (Mar. 8, 1983), App. 18. Miller filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Court of Appeals, seeking an order directing the Industrial Commission to consider his application. The court held that “[u]ntil it is clear that the federal government has preempted the field of safety regulation for safety hazards unrelated to radiation, . . . state specific safety regulations that give rise to an award for violation thereof are equally applicable to an entity that contracts with the federal government for operation of a nuclear power facility owned exclusively by the federal government.” No. 84AP-208 (July 25, 1985), App. 17. The court therefore ordered the Industrial Commission to consider Miller’s claim that he was due an additional award because his injury was caused by a violation of a state safety regulation.
A divided Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio Industrial Comm’n, 26 Ohio St. 3d 110, 497 N. E. 2d 76 (1986) (per curiam). Relying on the federal pre-emption analysis of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238 (1984), the court held that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2011 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. IV), did not pre-empt Ohio from applying workers’ compensation safety requirements unrelated to radiation hazards to nuclear facilities. 26 Ohio St. 3d, at 111-112, 497 N. E. 2d, at 77-78. In dissent, Justice Wright agreed with Goodyear’s separate claim, not addressed by the majority, that in the absence of clearly expressed authorization from Congress, the Supremacy Clause barred the application of the state workers’ compensation safety requirements to a federally owned facility. Justice Wright argued that Congress had not provided the necessary clear authorization to justify the application of the Ohio workers’ compensation scheme. Id., at 112-115, 497 N. E. 2d, at 78-80. We noted probable jurisdiction of Goodyear’s appeal, 483 U. S. 1004 (1987), and now affirm the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court on different reasoning.
r-H l-H
Although neither party contests our appellate jurisdiction over this case, we must independently determine as a threshold matter that we have jurisdiction. See Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 305-306 (1962). Title 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2) gives this Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments by the highest court of a State where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution and the decision is in favor of its validity. “[A] state statute is sustained within the meaning of § 1257(2) when a state court holds it applicable to a particular set of facts as against the contention that such application is invalid on federal grounds.” Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U. S. 434, 441 (1979). In this case, the additional-award provision of Ohio’s workers’ compensation statute, as applied to the Portsmouth facility, was drawn in question on the ground that it violated the Supremacy Clause, and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the statute’s application.
The more difficult question is whether the judgment is “final” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2), even though further proceedings are anticipated before the Ohio Industrial Commission. The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court requires that the Industrial Commission consider appellee’s claim that his injury was caused by a failure to comply with a state safety regulation. In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), we recognized four situations in which this Court views a judgment as final under § 1257(2) although further state proceedings are contemplated. In the fourth category are cases
“where the federal issue has been finally decided in the state courts with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review here might prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action rather than merely controlling the nature and character of, or determining the admissibility of evidence in, the state proceedings still to come. In these circumstances, if a refusal immediately to review the state-court decision might seriously erode federal policy, the Court has entertained and decided the federal issue, which itself has been finally determined by the state courts for purposes of the state litigation.” Id., at 482-483.
We believe the present case falls within this fourth category. The federal question whether the additional workers’ compensation award is barred by federal law has been finally determined by the Ohio Supreme Court, and a reversal of the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding would preclude any further proceedings. In addition, even if appellant prevails before the Industrial Commission on nonfederal grounds, for example, if the Commission determines that there was no violation of the state safety regulation, the unreviewed decision of the Ohio Supreme Court might seriously erode federal policy in the area of nuclear production. The federal pre-emption analysis of the Ohio court sanctions direct state regulation of nonradiological hazards at the Portsmouth facility, the only nuclear facility producing nuclear fuel for the Navy’s nuclear fleet. Moreover, the decision has important implications for the regulation of federally owned nuclear production facilities in other States. Following our “pragmatic approach” to the question of finality, Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, supra, at 486, we therefore conclude that the Ohio decision on the federal issue is a final judgment for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2).
H-i I — I
It is well settled that the activities of federal installations are shielded by the Supremacy Clause from direct state regulation unless Congress provides “clear and unambiguous” authorization for such regulation. EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U. S. 200, 211 (1976); accord, Hancock v. Train, 426 U. S. 167, 178-179 (1976); Mayo v. United States, 319 U. S. 441, 445 (1943). As an initial matter, therefore, we consider whether the federally owned Portsmouth facility is likewise shielded from direct state regulation even though the facility is operated by a private party under contract with the United States. We believe this question was answered in Hancock v. Train, 426 U. S., at 168, in which we faced the issue whether a State could enforce its pollution emission limitations against “federally owned or operated installations” by requiring that such installations obtain a state permit. One of the facilities at issue in Hancock was the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which, like the Portsmouth facility, is a federally owned nuclear production facility operated by a private contractor. Id., at 174, n. 23. Nuclear production facilities such as the Paducah and Portsmouth plants are authorized by statute to carry out a federal mission, with federal property, under federal control. The Court struck down the permit requirement in Hancock, reasoning that without clear congressional authorization, “‘the federal function must be left free’ of [state] regulation.” Id., at 179, quoting Mayo v. United States, supra, at 447. Hancock thus establishes that a federally owned facility performing a federal function is shielded from direct state regulation, even though the federal function is carried out by a private contractor, unless Congress clearly authorizes such regulation.
In this case, however, we are not presented with a direct state regulation of the operation of the Portsmouth facility. Rather, the case involves the imposition of a supplemental award of workers’ compensation, chargeable against Goodyear, for an injury caused by Goodyear’s failure to comply with a state safety regulation. Appellant and the Solicitor General argue that the application of the Ohio additional award provision is nonetheless tantamount to a regulation of the Portsmouth facility and is thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause. We need not decide this issue, however, for we conclude that even if the provision is sufficiently akin to direct regulation of the Portsmouth facility to be potentially barred by the Supremacy Clause, ch. 822, 49 Stat. 1938, 40 U. S. C. §290, provides the requisite clear congressional authorization for the application of the provision to workers at the Portsmouth facility.
Section 290 provides in relevant part:
“Whatsoever constituted authority of each of the several States is charged with the enforcement of and requiring compliances with the State workmen’s compensation laws of said States and with the enforcement of and requiring compliance with the orders, decisions, and awards of said constituted authority of said States shall have the power and authority to apply such laws to all lands and premises owned or held by the United States of America by deed or act of cession, by purchase or otherwise, which is within the exterior boundaries of any State and to all projects, buildings, constructions, improvements, and property belonging to the United States of America, which is within the exterior boundaries of any State, in the same way and to the same extent as if said premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State within whose exterior boundaries such place may be.”
Both appellant and the Solicitor General concede that the initial workers’ compensation award received by respondent Miller is authorized by § 290. They contend, however, that § 290 does not authorize the supplemental award provided in Ohio’s workers’ compensation law when an employer violates a specific state safety regulation. At bottom, appellant and the Solicitor General argue that the phrase “workmen’s compensation laws” in §290, which is not defined, was not intended to include the additional-award provision in Ohio’s workers’ compensation law. Appellant claims that in the absence of a precise definition, we should infer that Congress envisioned the typical workers’ compensation Act, under which workers are automatically entitled to certain benefits when they suffer a work-related injury, without regard to the employer’s fault. A State’s authority to enforce its workers’ compensation laws under § 290, appellant continues, should be limited to such standard awards.
We do not believe appellant’s construction of § 290 can be squared with the statute’s language and history. Section 290 provides that a state authority charged with enforcing “workmen’s compensation laws,” which in Ohio is the Industrial Commission, “shall have the.power and authority to apply such laws” to federal premises “in the same way and to the same extent as if said premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.” This language places no express limitation on the type of workers’ compensation scheme that is authorized. On its face, §290 compels the same workers’ compensation award for an employee injured at a federally owned facility as the employee would receive if working for a wholly private facility. In addition, at the time of the passage of § 290 in 1936, workers’ compensation laws provided a wide variety of compensation schemes that do not fit neatly within appellant’s view of the “typical” scheme. At least 15 States provided remedies in addition to basic workers’ compensation awards when an employee was injured because of specified kinds of employer misconduct. Eight of these States, including Ohio, provided supplemental awards when the employer violated a specific safety regulation. We generally presume that Congress is knowledgeable about existing law pertinent to the legislation it enacts. See Director, OWCP v. Perini North River Associates, 459 U. S. 297, 319-320 (1983). In the absence of affirmative evidence in the language or history of the statute, we are unwilling to assume that Congress was ignorant of the substantial number of States providing additional workers’ compensation awards when a state safety regulation was violated by the employer. Indeed, Congress appears to have recognized the diversity of workers’ compensation schemes when it provided that workers’ compensation would be awarded to workers on federal premises “in the same way and to the same extent” as provided by state law. The meaning of “workmen’s compensation laws” in §290, of course, is not infinitely elastic. We need not address the outer boundaries of that term in this case, however, because we believe it is clear that Congress intended Ohio’s law and others of its ilk, which were solidly entrenched at the time of the enactment of § 290, to apply to federal facilities “to the same extent” that they apply to private facilities within the State.
The only evidence in the legislative history of §290 that appellant and the Solicitor General muster in support of their position is that Congress rejected a proposal that would have authorized States to apply state safety and insurance laws directly to federal projects. See S. Rep. No. 2294, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1936). But Congress’ reluctance to allow direct state regulation of federal projects says little about whether Congress was likewise concerned with the incidental regulatory effects arising from the enforcement of a workers’ compensation law, like Ohio’s, that provides an additional award when the injury is caused by the breach of a safety regulation. The effects of direct regulation on the operation of federal projects are significantly more intrusive than the incidental regulatory effects of such an additional award provision. Appellant may choose to disregard Ohio safety regulations and simply pay an additional workers’ compensation award if an employee’s injury is caused by a safety violation. We believe Congress may reasonably determine that incidental regulatory pressure is acceptable, whereas direct regulatory authority is not. Cf. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S., at 266 (Congress was willing to accept regulatory consequences of application of state tort law to radiation hazards even though direct state regulation of safety aspects of nuclear energy was pre-empted). Because the permission of incidental regulation is consistent with the preclusion of direct regulation, the legislative history relied on by appellant and the Solicitor General does not undermine the plain language of § 290. We conclude that the additional award provision of Ohio’s workers’ compensation law is unambiguously authorized by §290 and therefore does not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause. Accordingly, the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Ohio Supreme Court in this case failed to consider the fundamental distinction between state regulation of private facilities and state regulation of federal facilities. When dealing with state regulation of private facilities, analysis under the Supremacy Clause centers on whether Congress has taken affirmative action to pre-empt the state regulation in question. See Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 712-713 (1985). On the other hand, because the Supremacy Clause immunizes the activities of the Federal Government from state interference, Mayo v. United States, 319 U. S. 441, 445 (1943), direct state regulation of federal facilities is allowed only to the extent that Congress has clearly authorized such regulation.
With certain limited exceptions, the DOE, as agent of the United States, is the exclusive owner of all nuclear production facilities. See 42 U. S. C. § 2061(a); see also Department of Energy Organization Act, 91 Stat. 577, 42 U. S. C. § 7151(a) (transferring responsibility to DOE from the Energy Research and Development Administration). The DOE is authorized to contract with private parties to operate its facilities, but these private contractors are subject to the direction and supervision of the DOE. See 42 U. S. C. §2061(b); H. R. Rep. No. 2181, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1954) (“In connection with its own production facilities, . . . the Commission is permitted to have the actual operation carried on by other persons under contract to it and under its direction and control”). This federal control over the production of nuclear material is an important aspect of federal nuclear energy policy. See 42 U. S. C. § 2013(c).
Appellees and amici argue that Hancock should be read as applying only to situations in which the state regulation may act to prohibit the operation of the federally owned facility. Although Hancock involved a state regulation requiring an operating permit, the central issue presented was the power of the State to enforce its emissions regulations. See Hancock v. Train, 426 U. S., at 181. Under the Supremacy Clause, we discern no important difference between the authority to order compliance with state regulations and the authority to require a permit prior to operating a facility. In both settings the State is claiming the authority to dictate the manner in which the federal function is carried out.
Although the language and history of § 290 indicate that it is addressed to federal enclaves, areas over which the United States has assumed exclusive jurisdiction under U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 17, see S. Rep. No. 2294, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. (1936), both appellant and the Solicitor General concede, and we agree, that it authorizes the application of workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities like the Portsmouth plant that are not federal enclaves.
There is no doubt that the supplemental award provision is an integral part of the Ohio workers’ compensation statute. The provision was enacted in 1923 as an amendment to the existing workers’ compensation scheme. The amendment abolished the right to bring an action at law when the employer failed to comply with specific safety requirements and substituted the additional percentage award in the event of such a failure. State ex rel. Bailey v. Krise, 18 Ohio St. 2d 191, 195-197, 249 N. E. 2d 55, 58-59 (1969).
See 1925 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 83, § 65 (option to sue if injury from employer’s “wilful misconduct”); 1917 Cal. Stats., ch. 586, § 6(b) (50% increase in compensation, not to exceed $2,500, if injury caused by serious and willful misconduct of employer); 1916 Ky. Acts, ch. 33, §§ 3, 29 (option to sue for intentional injury and 15% increase for intentional failure to comply with statute); 1911 Mass. Acts, ch. 751, pt. 2, § 3 (100% increase if injury caused by employer’s serious and willful misconduct); 1925 Mo. Laws, § 3 (15% increase for failure to comply with any statute); 1929 N. M. Laws, ch. 113, § 7 (50% increase if employer fails to provide safety devices required by law); 1929 N. C. Sess. Laws, ch. 120, § 13 (10% increase for willful failure to comply with any statutory requirement); Ohio Const., Art. 2, § 35 (15% to 50% increase for violation of specific safety requirement); 1921 Ore. Laws, ch. 311, § 6 (option to sue for intentional injury by employer); 1936 S. C. Acts, No. 610, § 13 (10% increase for willful failure to comply with statute); 1917 Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 103, § 5 (option to sue for “willful act or omission” or “gross negligence” of employer); 1921 Utah Laws, eh. 67, § 1 (15% increase for willful failure to comply with any statute); 1911 Wash. Laws, ch. 74, § 6 (option to sue for intentional injury); 1913 W. Va. Acts, ch. 10, §28 (option to sue for intentional injury); 1915 Wis. Laws, ch. 378, § l{h) (15% increase for violation of statute); see also 2A A. Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation §69.10 (1987).
See 1916 Ky. Acts, ch. 33, § 29; 1925 Mo. Laws § 3; 1929 N. M. Laws, ch. 113, § 7; 1929 N. C. Sess. Laws, ch. 120, § 13; Ohio Const., Art. II, §35; 1936 S. C. Acts, No. 610, § 13; 1921 Utah Laws, ch. 67, § 1; 1915 Wis. Laws, ch. 378, § 1 (h). For the present versions of these laws, see Ky. Rev. Stat. §342.165 (1983); Mo. Rev. Stat. §287.120(4) (1986); N. M. Stat. Ann. §52-1-10(B) (1978); N. C. Gen. Stat. §97-12 (1985); Ohio Const., Art. II, §35; S. C. Code §42-9-70 (1976); Utah Code Ann. §35-1-12 (1953); Wis. Stat. § 102.57 (1985-1986).
Prior to enacting § 290, Congress had authorized recovery of damages under state tort law by persons injured or killed on federal enclaves. See ch. 15, 45 Stat. 54, 16 U. S. C. § 457. Thus, at the time § 290 was enacted, Congress already had evinced a willingness to have state law exert incidental regulatory pressures on federal facilities.
Appellant also argues that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2011 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. IV), and the DOE’s health and safety regulations promulgated under the 1954 Act, pre-empt the award of additional compensation based on state health and safety regulations. Nothing in the 1954 Act, however, expresses an intent to repeal § 290 as applied to nuclear production facilities, nor can we read the 1954 Act as implicitly repealing § 290 because the two are not inconsistent. Section 290 is therefore as effective an authorization to apply state workers’ compensation laws after the passage of the 1954 Act as before.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether the appropriation of funds into a Treasury account pursuant to 31 U. S. C. §724a (1976 ed., Supp. V) constitutes “payment” under § 22(a) of the Indian Claims Commission Act, 60 Stat. 1055, 25 U. S. C. § 70u(a) (1976 ed.).
r-H
This case is an episode in a longstanding conflict between the United States and the Shoshone Tribe over title to lands in the western United States. In 1951 certain members of the Shoshone Tribe sought compensation for the loss of aboriginal title to lands located in California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Eleven years later, the Indian Claims Commission entered an interlocutory order holding that the aboriginal title of the Western Shoshone had been extinguished in the latter part of the 19th century, Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 11 Ind. Cl. Comm’n 387, 416 (1962), and later awarded the Western Shoshone in excess of $26 million in compensation. Western Shoshone Identifiable Group v. United States, 40 Ind. Cl. Comm’n 318 (1977). The Court of Claims affirmed this award. Temoak Band of Western Shoshone Indians v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 346, 593 F. 2d 994 (1979). On December 6, 1979, the Clerk of the Court of Claims certified the Commission’s award to the General Accounting Office. Pursuant to 31 U. S: C. §724a (1976 ed., Supp. V), this certification automatically appropriated the amount of the award and deposited it for the Tribe in an interest-bearing trust account in the Treasury of the United States.
Under 25 U. S. C. § 1402(a) and § 1403(a), the Secretary of the Interior is required, after consulting with the Tribe, to submit to Congress within a specified period of time a plan for the distribution of the fund. In this case, the Secretary has yet to submit a plan of distribution of the $26 million owing to the refusal of the Western Shoshone to cooperate in devising the plan. The fund apparently has now grown to $43 million. Reply Brief for United States 20.
In 1974, the United States brought an action in trespass against two sisters, Mary and Carrie Dann, members of an autonomous band of the Western Shoshone, alleging that the Danns, in grazing livestock without a permit from the United States, were acting in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U. S. C. §315b. The 5,120 acres at issue in the suit are located in the northeast corner of Nevada. In response to the United States’ suit, the Danns claimed that the land has been in the possession of their family from time immemorial and that their aboriginal title to the land precluded the Government from requiring grazing permits. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada rejected the Danns’ argument and ruled that aboriginal title had been extinguished by the collateral-estoppel effect of the Indian Claims Commission’s judgment in 1962. United States v. Mary and Carrie Dann, Civil No. R-74-60 (Jan. 5, 1977). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, however, on the ground that “[wjhatever may have been the implicit assumptions of both the United States and the Shoshone Tribes during the litigation . . . , the extinguishment question was not necessarily in issue, it was not actually litigated, and it has not been decided.” United States v. Dann, 572 F. 2d 222, 226-227 (1978).
On remand, the District Court held that aboriginal title was extinguished when the final award of the Indian Claims Commission was certified for payment on December 6, 1979. Civil No. R-74-60 (Apr. 25, 1980). On appeal, the Government defended the judgment of the District Court,on the ground that the “full discharge” language of § 22(a) of the Indian Claims Commission Act, see n. 2, supra, precluded the Danns from raising the defense of aboriginal title. Although Congress had not yet approved a plan for the distribution of the funds to the Western Shoshone, the United States maintained that the requirement of “payment” under § 22(a) was satisfied by the congressional appropriation of the $26 million award into the Treasury account. The Danns argued that until Congress approved a plan for the distribution of the money to the Tribe, “payment” was not satisfied.
The Court of Appeals held that “payment” had not occurred within the meaning of § 22(a) and reversed the District Court. 706 F. 2d 919, 926 (1983). The court reasoned that until a plan of distribution was adopted by the Congress, there remained “significant legal blocks in the way of delivery to the payee,” and thus the “ordinary meaning” of payment was not satisfied. We granted certiorari to resolve the question of whether the certification of the award and appropriation under § 724a constitutes payment under § 22(a). 467 U. S. 1214 (1984). We reverse.
HH
H-H
The legislative purposes of the Indian Claims Commission Act arid the principles of payment under the common law of trust as they have been applied to the context of relations between native American communities and the United States require that we hold that “payment” occurs under § 22(a) when funds are placed by the United States into an account in the Treasury of the United States for the Tribe pursuant to 31 U. S. C. §724a (1976 ed., Supp. V).
A
The Indian Claims Commission Act had two purposes. The “chief purpose of the [Act was] to dispose of the Indian claims problem with finality.” H. R. Rep. No. 1466, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1945). This purpose was effected by the language of § 22(a): “When the report of the Commission determining any claimant to be entitled to recover has been filed with Congress, such report shall have the effect of a final judgment of the Court of Claims . . . .” Section 22(a) also states that the “payment of any claim . . . shall be a full discharge of the United States of all claims and demands touching any of the matters involved in the controversy.” To hold, as the court below has, that payment does not occur until a final plan of distribution has been approved by Congress would frustrate the purpose of finality by postponing the preclusive effects of § 22(a) while subjecting the United States to continued liability for claims and demands that “touch” the matter previously litigated and resolved by the Indian Claims Commission.
The second purpose of the Indian Claims Commission Act was to transfer from Congress to the Indian Claims Commission the responsibility for determining the merits of native American claims. In the course of hearings on the creation of the Indian Claims Commission, Congressman Henry Jackson, Chairman of the House Committee on Indian Affairs, made this clear:
. . [T]he very purpose of this act, the reason we are coming to Congress, is that we are being harassed constantly by various individual pieces of legislation. I do not want to act on separate legislation and Congress is being told to act on those bills, without knowing the facts, and the purpose of this legislation will be to dispose of all those routine claims and let the commission decide what the obligation is of this Government to the Indians; and, acting upon those findings made by the Commission, Congress will appropriate the money.” Hearings on H. R. 1198 and H. R. 1341 before the House Committee on Indian Affairs, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 68 (1945).
During the floor debate on the Act, Congressman Jackson observed that the House was acting in response to a study by the Brookings Institution that had concluded that “there ought to be a prompt and final settlement of all claims between the Government and its Indian citizens, and that the best way to accomplish this purpose is to set up temporarily an Indian Claims Commission which will sift all these claims, subject to appropriate judicial review, and bring them to a conclusion once and for all.” 92 Cong. Rec. 5312 (1946).
Prior to the adoption of the Indian Claims Commission Act by the House of Representatives, Attorney General Clark issued the following warning:
“The bill would provide that when the report of the Commission determining any claimant to be entitled to recover has been filed with the Congress, such report would have the effect of a final judgment to be paid in like manner as are judgments of the Court of Claims. This provision would make the Commission virtually a court with the power to determine claims based both upon legal and moral grounds rather than a fact finding body as an aid to Congress. In view of the vague basis upon which many of the claims presented to the Commission would be predicated, and the extremely novel character of the functions delegated to the Commission, the question is raised of whether or not the recognition of the claims should not rest finally with Congress. The provision making the findings of the Commission binding upon Congress would constitute a surrender by Congress of its very necessary prerogative to sift and control this unusual type of claim against the Government.” Id., at 5311 (letter to Congressman John Cochran in response to his request for the Attorney General’s “views with respect to the bill (H. R. 4497) to create a Indian Claims Commission.” Id., at 5310).
Despite this warning, the House left the language of the Act unchanged. The Senate, however, deleted from the House bill the language that Attorney General Clark asserted would give the decisions of the Indian Claims Commission the effect of a final judgment binding upon Congress. The Conference adopted the House version “in order to make perfectly clear the intention of both houses that the determinations of the Commission should, unless reversed [by the Court of Claims], have the same finality as judgments of the Court of Claims.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2693, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 8 (1946). As enacted, the Indian Claims Commission Act explicitly incorporated this standard of finality in § 22(a).
The court below justified its decision on the ground that in making “payment” turn on the submission and approval of a final plan of distribution, Congress would have one last opportunity to review the merits of claims litigated before the Indian Claims Commission. 706 F. 2d, at 927. This justification for delay obviously conflicts with the purpose of relieving Congress of the burden of having to resolve these claims.
B
Aside from its departure from the purposes of the Indian Claims- Commission Act, the Court of Appeals’ interpretation is in conflict with the accepted legal uses of the word “payment” — uses we assume Congress intended to adopt when it enacted § 22(a). To accept the argument of the Court of Appeals would give the word “payment” a meaning that differs markedly from its common-law meaning, which has long been applied by this Court to the relations between native American tribes and the United States.
The common law recognizes that payment may be satisfied despite the absence of actual possession of the funds by the creditor. Funds transferred from a debtor to an agent or trustee of the creditor constitute payment, and it is of no consequence that the creditor refuses to accept the funds from the agent or the agent misappropriates the funds. The rationale for this is that fiduciary obligations and the rules of agency so bind the trustee or agent to the creditor (i. e., the beneficiary or principal) as to confer effective control of the funds upon the creditor.
The Court has applied these principles to relations between native American communities and the United States. In Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U. S. 286 (1942), the United States was obligated by treaty to pay annual annuities to members of the Seminole Nation. Instead, the Government transferred the money to the Seminole General Council. Members of the Tribe argued that because the Seminole General Council had- misappropriated the money, the Government had not satisfied its obligation to pay the individual members of the Tribe. In disposing of the case, the Court relied upon the rule that “a third party who pays money to a fiduciary for the benefit of the beneficiary, with knowledge that the fiduciary intends to misappropriate the money or otherwise be false to his trust, is a participant in the breach of trust and liable therefor to the beneficiary.” Id., at 296. The Court’s holding was based on its recognition of the traditional rule that a debtor’s payment to a fiduciary of the creditor satisfies the debt. Absent actual knowledge of the fraudulent intent of the trustee — or some other recognized exception to the general rule — the Government’s payment to the Council would have discharged its treaty obligations. Ibid. The order remanding the case for purposes of determining whether the Government had fraudulent intent, id., at 300, would have made sense only if the Court believed that, absent such knowledge, the Government’s treaty obligations were discharged.
The Court’s reliance on the general rule in Seminole Nation is authority for our holding that the United States has made “payment” under § 22(a). The final award of the Indian Claims Commission placed the Government in a dual role with respect to the Tribe: the Government was at once a judgment debtor, owing $26 million to the Tribe, and a trustee for the Tribe responsible for ensuring that the money was put to productive use and ultimately distributed in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Tribe. In short, the Indian Claims Commission ordered the Government qua judgment debtor to pay $26 million to the Government qua trustee for the Tribe as the beneficiary. Once the money was deposited into the trust account, payment was effected.
Ill
The Danns also claim to possess individual as well as tribal aboriginal rights and that because only the latter were before the Indian Claims Commission, the “final discharge” of § 22(a) does not bar the Danns from raising individual aboriginal title as a defense in this action. Though we have recognized that individual aboriginal rights may exist in certain contexts, this contention has not been addressed by the lower courts and, if open, should first be addressed below. We express no opinion as to its merits.
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The statute provided:
“There are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the payment, not otherwise provided for, as certified by the Comptroller General, of final judgments, awards, and compromise settlements, which are payable in accordance with the terms of . . . awards rendered by the Indian Claims Commission . . . .”
The statute provided:
“When the report of the Commission determining any claimant to be entitled to recover has been filed with Congress, such report shall have the effect of a final judgment of the Court of Claims, and there is authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to pay the final determination of the Commission.
“The payment of any claim, after its determination in accordance with this Act, shall be a full discharge of the United States of all claims and demands touching any of the matters involved in the controversy.”
The Indian Claims Commission was terminated on September 30, 1978, pursuant to 25 U. S. C. § 70v (1976 ed.).
For a discussion of aboriginal title, see Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661, 667 (1974); Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 573-574 (1823); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 17 (1831); F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 486-493 (1982). On the theoretical origins of aboriginal rights, see J. Scott, The Spanish Origin of International Law: Francisco de Vitoria and His Law of Nations (1934); Cohen, Spanish Origin of Indian Rights, 31 Geo. L. J. 1 (1942); Cohen, Original Indian Title, 32 Minn. L. Rev. 28 (1947).
Section 2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act, 60 Stat. 1050, as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 70a (1976 ed.), authorized claims to be brought on behalf of “any Indian tribe, band, or other identifiable group of American Indians” for “claims arising from the taking by the United States, whether as the result of a treaty of cession or otherwise, of lands owned or occupied by the claimant without the payment for such lands of compensation agreed to by the claimant. . . .”
Section 20(b) of the Indian Claims Commission Act, 60 Stat. 1054, as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 70s(b) (1976 ed.), provided for an appeal to the Court of Claims from any “final determination” of the Indian Claims Commission.
The statute provides:
“Within one year after appropriation of funds to pay a judgment of the Indian Claims Commission. . . , the Secretary of the Interior shall prepare and submit to Congress a plan for the use and distribution of the funds.”
The statute provides:
“The Secretary shall prepare a plan which shall best serve the interests of all those entities and individuals entitled to receive funds of each Indian judgment. Prior to the final preparation of the plan, the Secretary shall—
“(1) receive and consider any resolution or communication, together with any suggested use or distribution plan, which any affected Indian tribe may wish to submit to him; and
“(2) hold a hearing of record, after appropriate public notice, to obtain the testimony of leaders and members of the Indian tribe which may receive any portion, or be affected by the use or distribution, of such funds . . . .”
See Steward, The Foundations of Basin-Plateau Shoshonean Society, in Languages and Cultures of Western North America 113, 115 (E. Swanson ed. 1970) (“ ‘[B]and’ can have no precise definition. Although it generally signifies cohesion and interaction between families that constitute a group of permanent membership, it may range in size from a few families that are closely related to many families which include some not related, or it may be structured on unilineal or bilateral principles, and interaction between the families may take many forms”).
The statute provides:
“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue or cause to be issued permits to graze livestock on such grazing districts to such bona fide settlers, residents, and other stock owners as under his rules and regulations are entitled to participate in the use of the range, upon the payment annually of reasonable fees in each case to be fixed or determined from time to time in accordance with governing law.”
On the finality of judgments of the Court of Claims, see 28 U. S. C. §2519 (1976 ed.) (“A final judgment of the Court of Claims against any plaintiff shall forever bar any further claim, suit, or demand against the United States arising out of the matters involved in the case or controversy”); United States v. O’Grady, 22 Wall. 641, 647 (1875); W. Cowen, P. Nichols, & M. Bennett, The United States Court of Claims, Part II, pp. 22-25 (1978).
See G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 902 (2d rev. ed. 1982) (footnotes omitted) (“[I]t is now universally the law that the purchaser of trust property from the trustee . . . may pay the purchase money to the trustee without making any inquiry as to the use to which the trustee intends to put the money. The purchaser, in the absence of notice to the contrary, may safely assume that the price will be applied in an appropriate manner as trust property”); 4 A. Scott, Law of Trusts § 321 (3d ed. 1967); Stone, Some Legal Problems Involved in the Transmission of Funds, 21 Colum. L. Rev. 507 (1921). See also, the Uniform Fiduciaries Act § 2, 7A U. L. A. 135 (1978) (“A person who in good faith pays or transfers to a fiduciary any money or other property which the fiduciary as such is authorized to receive, is not responsible for the proper application thereof by the fiduciary; and any right or title acquired from the fiduciary in consideration of such payment or transfer is not invalid in consequence of a misapplication by the fiduciary”).
The Court’s acknowledgment of this general rule is apparent from its citation to 4 G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 901 (1935), which stated: “It is now the law that the purchaser of trust property from the trustee, where the trustee has a power to sell and has properly executed his power, may pay the purchase money to the trustee without making any inquiry as to the use to which the trustee intends to put the money. The purchaser may safely assume that the price will be applied in an appropriate manner as trust property, unless special circumstances come to his notice indicating the opposite.”
In suggesting that significant obstacles to the distribution of the money remain despite the transfer of the fund into a trust account, the Court of Appeals failed to recognize the legal strictures ensuring that the money will be applied to the benefit of the Tribe. We have, for example, held that the United States, as a fiduciary, is obligated to make the funds productive and is fully accountable if those funds are converted or mismanaged. See, e. g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 226 (1983); United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U. S. 371, 408-409 (1980); United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U. S. 111, 115-116 (1938); Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U. S. 476, 497 (1937).
Cramer v. United States, 261 U. S. 219, 227 (1923); United States v. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co., 314 U. S. 339, 357-358 (1941); see generally Cohen, Original Indian Title, 32 Minn. L. Rev., at 53-54.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1947 petitioner Michelson was convicted of bribing a federal revenue agent. The Government proved a large payment by accused to the agent for the purpose of influencing his official action. The defendant, as a witness on his own behalf, admitted passing the money but claimed it was done in response to the agent’s demands, threats, solicitations, and inducements that amounted to entrapment. It is enough for our purposes to say that determination of the issue turned on whether the jury should believe the agent or the accused.
On direct examination of defendant, his own counsel brought out that, in 1927, he had been convicted of a misdemeanor having to do with trading in counterfeit watch dials. On cross-examination it appeared that in 1930, in executing an application for a license to deal in second-hand jewelry, he answered “No” to the question whether he had theretofore been arrested or summoned for any offense.
Defendant called five witnesses to prove that he enjoyed a good reputation. Two of them testified that their acquaintance with him extended over a period of about thirty years and the others said they had known him at least half that long. A typical examination in chief was as follows:
“Q. Do you know the defendant Michelson?
“A. Yes.
“Q. How long do you know Mr. Michelson?
“A. About 30 years.
“Q. Do you know other people who know him?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Have you had occasion to discuss his reputation for honesty and truthfulness and for being a law-abiding citizen?
“A. It is very good.
“Q. You have talked to others?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And what is his reputation?
“A. Very good.”
These are representative of answers by three witnesses ; two others replied, in substance, that they never had heard anything against Michelson.
On cross-examination, four of the witnesses were asked, in substance, this question: “Did you ever hear that Mr. Michelson on March 4, 1927, was convicted of a violation of the trademark law in New York City in regard to watches?” This referred to the twenty-year-old conviction about which defendant himself had testified on direct examination. Two of them had heard of it and two had not.
To four of these witnesses the prosecution also addressed the question the allowance of which, over defendant’s objection, is claimed to be reversible error:
“Did you ever hear that on October 11, -1920, the defendant, Solomon Michelson, was arrested for receiving stolen goods?”
None of the witnesses appears to have heard of this.
The trial court asked counsel for the prosecution, out of presence of the jury, “Is it a fact according to the best information in your possession, that Michelson was arrested for receiving stolen goods?” Counsel replied that it was, and to support his good faith exhibited a paper record which defendant’s counsel did not challenge.
The judge also on three occasions warned the jury, in terms that are not criticized, of the limited purpose for which this evidence was received.
Defendant-petitioner challenges the right of the prosecution so to cross-examine his character witnesses. The Court of Appeals held that it was permissible. The opinion, however, points out that the practice has been severely criticized and invites us, in one respect, to change the rule. Serious and responsible criticism has been aimed, however, not alone at the detail now questioned by the Court of Appeals but at common-law doctrine on the whole subject of proof of reputation or character. It would not be possible to appraise the usefulness and propriety of this cross-examination without consideration of the unique practice concerning character testimony, of which such cross-examination is a minor part.
Courts that follow the common-law tradition almost unanimously have come to disallow resort by the prosecution to any kind of evidence of a defendant’s evil character to establish a probability of his guilt. Not that the law invests the defendant with a presumption of good character, Greer v. United States, 245 U. S. 559, but it simply closes the whole matter of character, disposition and reputation on the prosecution’s case-in-chief. The state may not show defendant’s prior trouble with the law, specific criminal acts, or ill name among his neighbors, even though such facts might logically be persuasive that he is by propensity a probable perpetrator of the crime. The inquiry is not rejected because character is irrelevant; on the contrary, it is said to weigh too much with the jury and to so overpersuade them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular charge. The overriding policy of excluding such evidence, despite its admitted probative value, is the practical experience that its disallowance tends to prevent confusion of issues, unfair surprise and undue prejudice.
But this line of inquiry firmly denied to the State is opened to the defendant because character is relevant in resolving probabilities of guilt. He may introduce affirmative testimony that the general estimate of his character is so favorable that the jury may infer that he would not be likely to commit the offense charged. This privilege is sometimes valuable to a defendant for this Court has held that such testimony alone, in some circumstances, may be enough to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt and that in the federal courts a jury in a proper case should be so instructed. Edgington v. United States, 164 U. S. 361.
When the defendant elects to initiate a character inquiry, another anomalous rule comes into play. Not only is he permitted to call witnesses to testify from hearsay, but indeed such a witness is not allowed to base his testimony on anything but hearsay. What commonly is called “character evidence” is only such when “character” is employed as a synonym for “reputation.” The witness may not testify about defendant's specific acts or courses of conduct or his possession of a particular disposition or of benign mental and moral traits; nor can he testify that his own acquaintance, observation, and knowledge of defendant leads to his own independent opinion that defendant possesses a good general or specific character, inconsistent with commission of acts charged. The witness is, however, allowed to summarize what he has heard in the community, although much of it may have been said by persons less qualified to judge than himself. The evidence which the law permits is not as to the personality of defendant but only as to the shadow his daily life has cast in his neighborhood. This has been well described in a different connection as “the slow growth of months and years, the resultant picture of forgotten incidents, passing events, habitual and daily conduct, presumably honest because disinterested, and safer to be trusted because prone to suspect .... It is for that reason that such general repute is permitted to be proven. It sums up a multitude of trivial details. It compacts into the brief phrase of a verdict the teaching of many incidents and the conduct of years. It is the average intelligence drawing its conclusion.” Finch, J., in Badger v. Badger, 88 N. Y. 546, 552.
While courts have recognized logical grounds for criticism of this type of opinion-based-on-hearsay testimony, it is said to be justified by “overwhelming considerations of practical convenience” in avoiding innumerable collateral issues which, if it were attempted to prove character by direct testimony, would complicate and confuse the trial, distract the minds of jurymen and befog the chief issues in the litigation. People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 419, 82 N. E. 718, 721.
Another paradox in this branch of the law of evidence is that the delicate and responsible task of compacting reputation hearsay into the “brief phrase of a verdict” is one of the few instances in which conclusions are accepted from a witness on a subject in which he is not an expert. However, the witness must qualify to give an opinion by showing such acquaintance with the defendant, the community in which he has lived and the circles in which he has moved, as to speak with authority of the terms in which generally he is regarded. To require affirmative knowledge of the reputation may seem inconsistent with the latitude given to the witness to testify when all he can say of the reputation is that he has “heard nothing against defendant.” This is permitted upon assumption that, if no ill is reported of one, his reputation must be good. But this answer is accepted only from a witness whose knowledge of defendant’s habitat and surroundings is intimate enough so that his failure to hear of any relevant ill repute is an assurance that no ugly rumors were about.
Thus the law extends helpful but illogical options to a defendant. Experience taught a necessity that they be counter-weighted with equally illogical conditions to keep the advantage from becoming an unfair and unreasonable one. The price a defendant must pay for attempting to prove his good name is to throw open the entire subject which the law has kept closed for his benefit and to make himself vulnerable where the law otherwise shields him. The prosecution may pursue the inquiry with contradictory witnesses to show that damaging rumors, whether or not well-grounded, were afloat— for it is not the man that he is, but the name that he has which is put in issue. Another hazard is that his own witness is subject to cross-examination as to the contents and extent of the hearsay on which he bases his conclusions, and he may be required to disclose rumors and reports that are current even if they do not affect his own conclusion. It may test the sufficiency of his knowledge by asking what stories were circulating concerning events, such as one’s arrest, about which people normally comment and speculate. Thus, while the law gives defendant the option to show as a fact that his reputation reflects a life and habit incompatible with commission of the offense charged, it subjects his proof to tests of credibility designed to prevent him from profiting by a mere parade of partisans.
To thus digress from evidence as to the offense to hear a contest as to the standing of the accused, at its best opens a tricky line of inquiry as to a shapeless and elusive subject matter. At its worst it opens a veritable Pandora’s box of irresponsible gossip, innuendo and smear. In the frontier phase of our law’s development, calling friends to vouch for defendant’s good character, and its counterpart — calling the rivals and enemies of a witness to impeach him by testifying that his reputation for veracity was so bad that he was unworthy of belief on his oath — were favorite and frequent ways of converting an individual litigation into a community contest and a trial into a spectacle. Growth of urban conditions, where one may never know or hear the name of his next-door neighbor, have tended to limit the use of these techniques and to deprive them of weight with juries. The popularity of both procedures has subsided, but courts of last resort have sought to overcome danger that the true issues will be obscured and confused by investing the trial court with discretion to limit the number of such witnesses and to control cross-examination. Both propriety and abuse of hearsay reputation testimony, on both sides, depend on numerous and subtle considerations difficult to detect or appraise from a cold record, and therefore rarely and only on clear showing of prejudicial abuse of discretion will Courts of Appeals disturb rulings of trial courts on this subject.
Wide discretion is accompanied by heavy responsibility on trial courts to protect the practice from any misuse. The trial judge was scrupulous to so guard it in the case before us. He took pains to ascertain, out of presence of the jury, that the target of the question was an actual event, which would probably result in some comment among acquaintances if not injury to defendant’s reputation. He satisfied himself that counsel was not merely taking a random shot at a reputation imprudently exposed or asking a groundless question to waft an unwarranted innuendo into the jury box.
The question permitted by the trial court, however, involves several features that may be worthy of comment. Its form invited hearsay; it asked about an arrest, not a conviction, and for an offense not closely similar to the one on trial; and it concerned an occurrence many years past.
Since the whole inquiry, as we have pointed out, is calculated to ascertain the general talk of people about defendant, rather than the witness’ own knowledge of him, the form of inquiry, “Have you heard?” has general approval, and “Do you know?” is not allowed.
A character witness may be cross-examined as to an arrest whether or not it culminated in a conviction, according to the overwhelming weight of authority. This rule is sometimes confused with that which prohibits cross-examination to credibility by asking a witness whether he himself has been arrested.
Arrest without more does not, in law any more than in reason, impeach the integrity or impair the credibility of a witness. It happens to the innocent as well as the guilty. Only a conviction, therefore, may be inquired about to undermine the trustworthiness of a witness.
Arrest without more may nevertheless impair or cloud one’s reputation. False arrest may do that. Even to be acquitted may damage one’s good name if the community receives the verdict with a wink and chooses to remember defendant as one who ought to have been convicted. A conviction, on the other hand, may be accepted as a misfortune or an injustice, and even enhance the standing of one who mends his ways and lives it down. Reputation is the net balance of so many debits and credits that the law does not attach the finality to a conviction, when the issue is reputation, that is given to it when the issue is the credibility of the convict.
The inquiry as to an arrest is permissible also because the prosecution has a right to test the qualifications of the witness to bespeak the community opinion. If one never heard the speculations and rumors in which even one’s friends indulge upon his arrest, the jury may doubt whether he is capable of giving any very reliable conclusions as to his reputation.
In this case the crime inquired about was receiving stolen goods; the trial was for bribery. The Court of Appeals thought this dissimilarity of offenses too great to sustain the inquiry in logic, though conceding that it is authorized by preponderance of authority. It asks us to substitute the Illinois rule which allows inquiry about arrest, but only for very closely similar if not identical charges, in place of the rule more generally adhered to in this country and in England. We think the facts of this case show the proposal to be inexpedient.
The good character which the defendant had sought to establish was broader than the crime charged and included the traits of “honesty and truthfulness” and “being a law-abiding citizen.” Possession of these characteristics would seem as incompatible with offering a bribe to a revenue agent as with receiving stolen goods. The crimes may be unlike, but both alike proceed from the same defects of character which the witnesses said this defendant was reputed not to exhibit. It is not only by comparison with the crime on trial but by comparison with the reputation asserted that a court may judge whether the prior arrest should be made subject of inquiry. By this test the inquiry was permissible. It was proper cross-examination because reports of his arrest for receiving stolen goods, if admitted, would tend to weaken the assertion that he was known as an honest and law-abiding citizen. The cross-examination may take in as much ground as the testimony it is designed to verify. To hold otherwise would give defendant the benefit of testimony that he was honest and law-abiding in reputation when such might not be the fact; the refutation was founded on convictions equally persuasive though not for crimes exactly repeated in the present charge.
The inquiry here concerned an arrest twenty-seven years before the trial. Events a generation old are likely to be lived down and dropped from the present thought and talk of the community and to be absent from the knowledge of younger or more recent acquaintances. The court in its discretion may well exclude inquiry about rumors of an event so remote, unless recent misconduct revived them. But two of these witnesses dated their acquaintance with defendant as commencing thirty years before the trial. Defendant, on direct examination, voluntarily called attention to his conviction twenty years before. While the jury might conclude that a matter so old and indecisive as a 1920 arrest would shed little light on the present reputation and hence propensities of the defendant, we cannot say that, in the context of this evidence and in the absence of objection on this specific ground, its admission was an abuse of discretion.
We do not overlook or minimize the consideration that “the jury almost surely cannot comprehend the judge’s limiting instruction,” which disturbed the Court of Appeals. The refinements of the evidentiary rules on this subject are such that even lawyers and judges, after study and reflection, often are confused, and surely jurors in the hurried and unfamiliar movement of a trial must find them almost unintelligible. However, limiting instructions on this subject are no more difficult to comprehend or apply than those upon various other subjects; for example, instructions that admissions of a co-defendant are to be limited to the question of his guilt and are not to be considered as evidence against other defendants, and instructions as to other problems in the trial of conspiracy charges. A defendant in such a case is powerless to prevent his cause from being irretrievably obscured and confused; but, in cases such as the one before us, the law foreclosed this whole confounding line of „ inquiry, unless defendant thought the net advantage from opening it up would be with him. Given this option, we think defendants in general and this defendant in particular have no valid complaint at the latitude which existing law allows to the prosecution to meet by cross-examination an issue voluntarily tendered by the defense. See Greer v. United States, 245 U. S. 559.
We end, as we began, with the observation that the law regulating the offering and testing of character testimony may merit many criticisms. England and some states have overhauled the practice by statute. But the task of modernizing the long-standing rules on the subject is one of magnitude and difficulty which even those dedicated to law reform do not lightly undertake.
The law of evidence relating to proof of reputation in criminal cases has developed almost entirely at the hands of state courts of last resort, which have such questions frequently before them. This Court, on the other hand, has contributed little to this or to any phase of the law of evidence, for the reason, among others, that it has had extremely rare occasion to decide such issues, as the paucity of citations in this opinion to our own writings attests. It is obvious that a court which can make only infrequent sallies into the field cannot recast the body of case law on this subject in many, many years, even if it were clear what the rules should be.
We concur in the general opinion of courts, textwriters . and the profession that much of this law is archaic, paradoxical and full of compromises and compensations by which an irrational advantage to one side is offset by a poorly reasoned counterprivilege to the other. But somehow it has proved a workable even if clumsy system when moderated by discretionary controls in the hands of a wise and strong trial court. To pull one misshapen stone out of the grotesque structure is more likely simply to upset its present balance between adverse interests than to establish a rational edifice.
The present suggestion is that we adopt for all federal courts a new rule as to cross-examination about prior arrest, adhered to by the courts of only one state and rejected elsewhere. The confusion and error it would engender would seem too heavy a price to pay for an almost imperceptible logical improvement, if any, in a system which is justified, if at all, by accumulated judicial experience rather than abstract logic.
The judgment is
Affirvied.
The first count charged petitioner with bribing in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 91 (now 18 U. S. C. § 201) and the affirmance of his conviction on this count by the Court of Appeals, 165 F. 2d 732, is the judgment here under review. The second count charged “offering” the bribe as a violation of the same statute but his conviction on this count was reversed by the Court of Appeals and is not here involved.
Details appear in the Court of Appeals opinion, 165 F. 2d 732.
In ruling on the objection when the question was first asked, the Court said:
“. . . I instruct the jury that what is happening now is this: the defendant has called character witnesses, and the basis for the evidence given by those character witnesses is the reputation of the defendant in the community, and since the defendant tenders the issue of his reputation the prosecution may ask the witness if she has heard of various incidents in his career. I say to you that regardless of her answer you are not to assume that the incidents, asked about actually took place. All that is happening is that this witness’ standard of opinion of the reputation of the defendant is being tested. Is that clear?”
In overruling the second objection to the question the Court said:
“Again I say to the jury there is no proof that Mr. Michelson was arrested for receiving stolen goods in 1920, there isn’t any such proof. All this witness has been asked is whether he had heard of that. There is nothing before you on that issue. Now would you base your decision on the case fairly in spite of the fact that that question has been asked? You would? All right.”
The charge included the following:
“In connection with the character evidence in the case I permitted a question whether or not the witness knew that in 1920 this defendant had been arrested for receiving stolen goods. I tried to give you the instruction then that that question was permitted only to test the standards of character evidence that these character witnesses seemed to have. There isn’t any proof in the case that could be produced before you legally within the rules of evidence that this defendant was arrested in 1920 for receiving stolen goods, and that fact you are not to hold against him; nor are you to assume what the consequences of that arrest were. You just drive it from your mind so far as he is concerned, and take it into consideration only in weighing the evidence of the character witnesses.”
Footnote 8 to that court’s opinion reads as follows:
“Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 988, after noting that ‘such inquiries are almost universally admitted,’ not as ‘impeachment by extrinsic testimony of particular acts of misconduct,’ but as means of testing the character ‘witness’ grounds of knowledge,’ continues with these comments: ‘But the serious objection to them is that practically the above distinction — between rumors of such conduct, as affecting reputation, and the fact of it as violating the rule against particular facts — cannot be maintained in the mind of the jury. The rumor of the misconduct, when admitted, goes far, in spite of all theory and of the judge’s charge, towards fixing the misconduct as a fact upon the other person, and thus does three improper things,— (1) it violates the fundamental rule of fairness that prohibits the use of such facts, (2) it gets at them by hearsay only, and not by trustworthy testimony, and (3) it leaves the other person no means of defending himself by denial or explanation, such as he would otherwise have had if the rule had allowed that conduct to be made the subject of an issue. Moreover, these are not occurrences of possibility, but of daily practice. This method of inquiry or cross-examination is frequently resorted to by counsel for the very purpose of injuring by indirection a character which .they are forbidden directly to attack in that way; they rely upon the mere putting of the question (not caring that it is answered negatively) to convey their covert insinuation. The value of the inquiry for testing purposes is often so small and the opportunities of its abuse by underhand ways are so great that the practice may amount to little more than a mere subterfuge, and should be strictly supervised by forbidding it to counsel who do not use it in good faith.’
“Because, as Wigmore says, the jury almost surely cannot comprehend the judge’s limiting instruction, the writer of this opinion wishes that the United States Supreme Court would tell us to follow what appears to be the Illinois rule, i. e., that such questions are improper unless they relate to offenses similar to those for which the defendant is on trial. See Aiken v. People, 183 Ill. 215, 55 N. E. 695; cf. People v. Hannon, 381 Ill. 206, 44 N. E. (2d) 923.”
A judge of long trial and appellate experience has uttered a warning which, in the opinion of the writer, we might well have heeded in determining whether to grant certiorari here:
“. . . evidence of good character is to be used like any other, once it gets before the jury, and the less they are told about the grounds for its admission, or what they shall do with it, the more likely they are to use it sensibly. The subject seems to gather mist which discussion serves only to thicken, and which we can scarcely hope to dissipate by anything further we can add.” L. Hand in Nash v. United States, 54 F. 2d 1006, 1007.
In opening its cyclopedic review of authorities from many jurisdictions, Corpus Juris Secundum summarizes that the rules regulating proof of character “have been criticized as illogical, unscientific, and anomalous, explainable only as archaic survivals of compurgation or of states of legal development when the jury personally knew the facts on which their verdict was based.” 32 C. J. S. Evidence §433.
See Maguire, Evidence: Common Sense and Common Law (1947). Compare pp. 203-209 and pp. 74-76.
Greer v. United States, 245 U. S. 559; 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) §57; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (11th ed., 1935) § 330. This was not the earlier rule in English common law and is not now the rule in some civil law countries. 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., § 1940) § 193.
This would be subject to some qualification, as when a prior crime is an element of the later offense; for example, at a trial for being an habitual criminal. There are also well-established exceptions where evidence as to other transactions or a course of fraudulent conduct is admitted to establish fraudulent intent as an element of the crime charged. See, e. g., Fall v. United States, 60 App. D. C. 124, 49 F. 2d 506, certiorari denied, 283 U. S. 867; Hatem v. United States, 42 F. 2d 40, certiorari denied, 282 U. S. 887; Williamson v. United States, 207 U. S. 425; Allis v. United States, 155 U. S. 117; Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342.
As long ago as 1865, Chief Justice Cockburn said, “The truth is, this part of our law is an anomaly. Although, logically speaking, it is quite clear that an antecedent bad character would form quite as reasonable a ground for the presumption and probability of guilt as previous good character lays the foundation of innocence, yet you cannot, on the part of the prosecution, go into evidence as to bad character.” Reg. v. Rowton, 10 Cox’s Criminal Cases 25, 29-30. And see 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) § 55.
1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) § 57.
1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) §56; Underhill, Criminal Evidence (4th ed., 1935) § 165; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (11th ed., 1935) §§ 330, 336.
5 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) § 1609; Underhill, Criminal Evidence (4th ed., 1935) § 170; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (11th ed., 1935) § 333.
People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 420, 82 N. E. 718, 722. The law apparently ignores the existence of such human ciphers as Kipling’s Tomlinson, of whom no ill is reported but no good can be recalled. They win seats with the righteous for character evidence purposes, however hard their lot in literature.
Id,.; 5 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) §1614; Underhill, Criminal Evidence (4th ed., 1935) § 171; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (11th ed., 1935) § 334.
1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) §58; Underhill, Criminal Evidence (4th ed., 1935) § 167; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (11th ed., 1935) § 330.
A classic example in the books is a character witness in a trial for murder. She testified she grew up with defendant, knew his reputation for peace and quiet, and that it was good. On cross-examination she was asked if she had heard that the defendant had shot anybody and, if so, how many. She answered, “three or four,” and gave the names of two but could not recall the names of the others. She still insisted, however, that he was of “good character.” The jury seems to have valued her information more highly than her judgment, and on appeal from conviction the cross-examination was held proper. People v. Laudiero, 192 N. Y. 304, 309, 85 N. E. 132. See also People v. Elliott, 163 N. Y. 11, 57 N. E. 103.
See, e. g., Mannix v. United States, 140 F. 2d 250. It has been held that the question may not be hypothetical nor assume unproven facts and ask if they would affect rhe conclusion, Little v. United States, 93 F. 2d 401; Pittman v. United States, 42 F. 2d 793; Filippelli v. United States, 6 F. 2d 121; and that it may not be so asked as to detail evidence or circumstances of a crime of which defendant was accused. People v. Marendi, 213 N. Y. 600, 107 N. E. 1058. It has been held error to use the question to get before the jury a particular derogatory newspaper article. Sloan v. United, States, 31 F. 2d 902. The proof has been confined to general reputation and that among a limited group such as fellow employees in a particular building held inadmissible. Williams v. United States, 168 U. S. 382.
This procedure was recommended by Wigmore. But analysis of his innovation emphasizes the way in which law on this subject has evolved from pragmatic considerations rather than from theoretical consistency. The relevant information that it is permissible to lay before the jury is talk or conversation about the defendant’s being arrested. That is admissible whether or not an actual arrest had taken place; it might even be more significant of repute if his neighbors were ready to arrest him in rumor when the authorities were not in fact. But before this relevant and proper inquiry can be made, counsel must demonstrate privately to the court an irrelevant and possibly unprovable fact — the reality of arrest. From this permissible inquiry about reports of arrest, the jury is pretty certain to infer that defendant had in fact been arrested and to draw its own conclusions as to character from that fact. The Wigmore suggestion thus limits legally relevant inquiries to those based on legally irrelevant facts in order that the legally irrelevant conclusion which the jury probably will draw from the relevant questions will not be based on unsupported or untrue innuendo. It illustrates Judge Hand’s suggestion that the system may work best when explained least. Yet, despite its theoretical paradoxes and deficiencies, we approve the procedure as calculated in practice to hold the inquiry within decent bounds.
See Stewart v. United States, 70 App. D. C. 101, 104 F. 2d 234; Little v. United States, 93 F. 2d 401; Filippelli v. United States, 6 F. 2d 121.
See Mannix v. United States, 140 F. 2d 250; Josey v. United States, 77 U. S. App. D. C. 321, 135 F. 2d 809; Spalitto v. United States, 39 F. 2d 782, and authorities there cited.
The Supreme Court of Illinois, in considering its own rule which we are urged to adopt, recognized that “the rule adhered to in this State is not consistent with the great weight of authority in this country and in England.” People v. Hannon, 381 Ill. 206, 209, 44 N. E. 2d 923. Authorities in all states are collected in 71 A. L. R. 1504.
Criminal Evidence Act, 61 & 62 Vict., c. 36. See also 51 L. Q. Rev. 443, for discussion of right to cross-examine about prior arrests. For review of English and state legislation, see 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) § 194, et seq. The Pennsylvania statute (Act of March 15, 1911, P. L. 20, § 1) discussed by Wigmore has been amended (Act of July 3, 1947, P. L. 1239, § 1, 19 PS §711). The current statute and Pennsylvania practice were considered recently by the Superior Court of that state. Commonwealth v. Hurt, 163 Pa. Super. 232, 60 A. 2d 828.
The American Law Institute, in promulgating its “Model Code of Evidence,” includes the comment, “Character, wherever used in these Rules, means disposition not reputation. It denotes what a person is, not what he is reputed to be. No rules are laid down as to proof of reputation, when reputation is a fact to be proved. When reputation is a material matter, it is provable in the same manner as is any other disputed fact.” Rule 304. The latter sentence may seem an oversimplification in view of the decisions we have reviewed.
See note 21.
It must not be overlooked that abuse of cross-examination to test credibility carries its own corrective. Authorities on practice caution the bar of the imprudence as well as the unprofessional nature of attacks on witnesses or defendants which are likely to be resented by the jury. Wellman, Art of Cross-Examination (1927) p. 167, et seq.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves a labor dispute over safety conditions between Gateway Coal Co. and United Mine Workers of America. The questions presented are of considerable importance to the development of federal policy regarding arbitration of safety disputes and enforcement of a contractual duty not to strike.
I
Gateway Coal Co. (the company) owns and operates a large underground coal mine known as the Gateway Mine, in Greene County, Pennsylvania. Some 550 production and maintenance workers, employed by the company, are represented for purposes of collective bargaining by United Mine Workers of America (the union), including its administrative division, District No. 4, and Local No. 6330.
On the morning of April 15, 1971, shortly before the daylight shift at the mine reported for work, a shuttle car operator on the departing midnight shift noticed an unusually low airflow in his section of the mine. His foreman made an anemometer check and discovered an airflow of only 11,000 cubic feet per minute, less than half the normal rate of 28,000 cubic feet per minute. The company evacuated the men from the mine and ordered the day-shift employees to stand by on the surface. An ensuing investigation revealed that the collapse of a ventilation structure had partially blocked an- intake airway. Immediate repairs restored normal airflow, and underground mining operations resumed. In the meantime, however, some 100 of the 226 day-shift employees had disregarded the company’s instructions to stand by and had gone home.
The following morning the union requested reporting pay for those employees who did not stand by as ordered on April 15, but the company refused. The union rejected the company’s offer to arbitrate this dispute, and the miners on all three shifts walked off the job.
On April 17, pursuant to a union request, state and federal inspectors visited the mine to determine the adequacy of the repairs. The investigation revealed that, although collapse of the ventilation structure apparently occurred between 4 and 4:30 on the morning of April 15, records of the anemometer checks purportedly made by three foremen sometime between 5 a. m. and 8 a. m. disclosed no reduction in airflow. The state inspector impounded the book of entries and notified the company that he would press criminal charges against the three foremen for falsification of the records. The company immediately suspended two of the men but decided against suspension of the third because he had reported the trouble.
On Sunday, April 18, about-200 company miners attended a special union meeting and voted not to work unless the company suspended all three foremen. The company acquiesced in this demand, and the following Monday the miners returned to work. Criminal prosecutions were instituted against the three foremen, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources undertook consideration of possible decertification proceedings against them.
On May 29, while the criminal charges were still pending, the company received word from the Department that it was at liberty to return the three foremen to work if it so desired. One of the three had retired during his suspension, but the company reinstated the other two and scheduled them to resume work on the midnight shift on June 1. On that date, miners on all three shifts struck to protest the alleged safety hazard created by the presence of the two foremen in the mines. On June 8, the company formally offered to arbitrate this dispute, but the union refused. Subsequently, the two foremen pleaded nolo contendere to the criminal charges for falsification of the records and paid fines of $200 each.
Faced with a continuing strike and a refusal to arbitrate, the company invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 166, 29 U. S. C. § 185. It argued that the broad arbitration clause of the collective-bargaining agreement governed this dispute and requested an injunction against continuance of the strike. In a temporary restraining order later converted into a preliminary injunction, the District Court required the union to end the_ strike and to submit the dispute to an impartial umpire without delay. The order further providéd for suspension of the two foremen pending the umpire's decision and prospectively required both parties to abide by his resolution of the controversy.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with one judge dissenting, reversed the judgment of the District Court and vacated the preliminary injunction. 466 F. 2d 1157 (1972). The court intimated that a special provision of the collective-bargaining agreement involved here might be construed to remove safety disputes from the coverage of the general arbitration clause and reasoned that, in any event, the usual federal policy favoring arbitration of labor relations disputes did not apply to questions concerning safety. Id., at 1159-1160. Relying in part on § 502 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 143, the court found that there was a public policy disfavoring compulsory arbitration of safety disputes. Since it was “neither particularly stated nor unambiguously agreed in the labor contract that the parties shall submit mine safety disputes to binding arbitration,” the Court of Appeals concluded that the union had no contractual duty to submit this controversy to arbitration and hence no implied obligation not to strike. 466 F. 2d, at 1159. Perceiving no wrong to enjoin, the court found it unnecessary to consider whether injunctive relief in this case was appropriate under the traditional considerations of equity set forth by this Court in Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S. 235 (1970). We granted certiorari, 410 U. S. 953 (1973).
This case presents three questions. First, did the collective-bargaining agreement then in force between these parties impose on them a compulsory duty to submit safety disputes to arbitration by an impartial umpire? Second, if so, did that d'uty to arbitrate give rise to an implied no-strike obligation supporting issuance of a Boys Markets injunction? Third, did the circumstances of this case satisfy the traditional equitable considerations controlling the availability of injunctive relief? We answer all three questions in the affirmative and accordingly reverse the judgment below.
II
No obligation to arbitrate a labor dispute arises solely by operation of law. The law compels a party to submit his grievance to arbitration only if he has contracted to do so. At all times material to this case, the parties were bound by the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1968 (the agreement). The section of the agreement entitled “Settlement of Local and District Disputes” provides for resolution of grievances by direct negotiation between the parties and ultimately, should such negotiations fail, for arbitration by an impartial umpire “mutually agreed upon by the operator or operators affected and . . . the United Mine Workers of America.” The section further states that the “decision of the umpire shall be final.” This arbitration clause governs disputes “as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this agreement,” disputes “about matters not specifically mentioned in this agreement,” and “any local trouble of any kind aris[ing] at the mine.” Paragraph 3 of the “Miscellaneous” section of the agreement states that both parties “agree and affirm . . . that all disputes and claims which are not settled by agreement shall be settled by the machinery provided in the 'Settlement of Local and District Disputes’ section . . . It excepts from the arbitration obligation only those disputes “national in character.”
This arbitration provision appears sufficiently broad to encompass the instant dispute. The contractual obligation reaches “any local trouble of any kind aris[ing] at the mine,” and the continued presence in Gateway Mine of two particular foremen is plainly a local issue. On its face, this contractual language admits of only one interpretation: that the agreement required the union to submit this dispute to arbitration for resolution by an impartial umpire.
The Court of Appeals avoided this conclusion by reference to an assumed public policy disfavoring arbitration of safety disputes. The majority of that court recognized that the usual federal policy encourages arbitration of labor disputes but reasoned that this presumption of arbitrability applies only to disagreements over “wages, hours, seniority, vacations and other economic matters.” 466 F. 2d, at 1159. The court thought that safety disputes, should be treated as sui generis, and concluded that it should “reject any avoidable construction of a labor contract as requiring final disposition of safety disputes by arbitration.” Id., at 1160. We disagree.
The federal policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes is firmly grounded in congressional command. Section 203 (d) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 173 (d), states in part:
“Final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes arising over the application or interpretation of an existing collective-bargaining agreement.”
In the Steelworkers trilogy, this Court enunciated the now well-known presumption of arbitrability for labor disputes:
“An order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.” United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574, 582-583 (1960).
The Court also elaborated the basis for this policy. It noted that commercial arbitration and labor arbitration have different objectives. In the former case, arbitration takes the place of litigation, while in the latter “arbitration is the substitute for industrial strife.” Id., at 578. A collective-bargaining agreement cannot define every minute aspect of the complex and continuing relationship between the parties. Arbitration provides a method for resolving the unforeseen disagreements that inevitably arise. And in resolving such disputes, the labor arbitrator necessarily and appropriately has resort to considerations foreign to the courts:
“The labor arbitrator’s source of law is not confined to the express provisions of the contract, as the industrial common law — the practices of the industry and the shop — is equally a part of the collective bargaining agreement although not expressed in it. The labor arbitrator is usually chosen because of the parties’ confidence in his knowledge of the common law of the shop and their trust in his personal judgment to bring to bear considerations which are not expressed in the contract as criteria for judgment. The parties expect that his judgment of a particular grievance will reflect not only what the contract says but, insofar as the collective bargaining agreement permits, such factors as the effect upon productivity of a particular result, its consequence to the morale of the shop, his judgment whether tensions will be heightened or diminished. For the parties’ objective in using the arbitration process is primarily to further their common goal of uninterrupted production under the agreement, to make the agreement serve their specialized needs.” Id., at 581-582.
We think these remarks are as applicable to labor disputes touching the safety of the employees as to other varieties of disagreement. Certainly industrial strife may as easily result from unresolved controversies on safety matters as from those on other subjects, with the same unhappy consequences of lost pay, curtailed production, and economic instability. Moreover, the special expertise of the labor arbitrator, with his knowledge of the common law of the shop, is as important to the one case as to the other, and the need to consider such factors as productivity and worker morale is as readily apparent.
The Court of Appeals majority feared that an arbitrator might be too grudging in his appreciation of the workers’ interest in their own safety. We see little justification for the court’s assumption, especially since the parties are always free to choose an arbitrator whose knowledge and judgment they trust. We also disagree with the implicit assumption that the alternative to arbitration holds greater promise for the protection of employees. Relegating safety disputes to the arena of economic combat offers no greater assurance that the ultimate resolution will ensure employee safety. Indeed, the safety of the workshop would then depend on the relative economic strength of the parties rather than on an informed and impartial assessment of the facts.
We therefore conclude that the “presumption of arbi-trability” announced in the Steelworkers trilogy applies to safety disputes, and that the dispute in the instant case is covered by the arbitration clause in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.
Ill
The second question is whether the District Court had authority to enjoin the work stoppage. The answer depends on whether the union was under a contractual duty not to strike. In Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S. 235 (1970), the Court considered the proper accommodation between the literal terms of § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the subsequently enacted provisions of § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The Court noted the shift in congressional emphasis “from protection of the nascent labor movement to the encouragement of collective bargaining and to administrative techniques for the peaceful resolution of industrial disputes.” 398 U. S., at 251. It concluded that § 301 (a) empowers a federal court to enjoin violations of a contractual duty not to strike.
Although the collective-bargaining agreement in Boys Markets contained an express no-strike clause, injunctive relief also may be granted on the basis of an implied undertaking not to strike. In Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962), the Court held that a contractual commitment to submit disagreements to final and binding arbitration gives rise to an implied obligation not to strike over such disputes. Indeed, the strong federal policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes was the linchpin of this Court’s reasoning in Boys Markets. Denial of all equitable relief for breaches of no-strike obligations would have carried “devastating implications for the enforceability of arbitration agreements.” 398 TJ. S., at 247. As Mr. Justice Brennan stated for the Court in that case:
“[A] no-strike obligation, express or implied, is the quid pro quo for an undertaking by the employer to submit grievance disputes to the process of arbitration. . . . Any incentive for employers to enter into such an arrangement is necessarily dissipated if the principal and most expeditious method by which the no-strike obligation can be enforced is eliminated.” Id., at 248. (Citation omitted.)
Thus, an arbitration agreement is usually linked with a concurrent no-strike obligation, but the two issues remain analytically distinct. Ultimately, each depends on the intent of the contracting parties. It would be unusual, but certainly permissible, for the parties to agree to a broad mandatory arbitration provision yet expressly negate any implied no-strike obligation. Such a contract would reinstate the situation commonly existing before our decision in Boys Markets. Absent an explicit expression of such an intention, however, the agreement to arbitrate and the duty not to strike should be construed as having coterminous application.
In the present case, the Court of Appeals identified two provisions which it thought excepted safety disputes from the general no-strike obligation. The first is § (e) of the collective-bargaining agreement, which provides for a union mine safety committee at each mine. As this section was thought central to the outcome of this case, we set forth the relevant provisions in full:
“The mine safety committee may inspect any mine development or equipment used in producing coal. If the committee believes conditions found endanger the life [sic] and bodies of the mine workers, it shall report its findings and recommendations to the management. In those special instances where the committee believes an immediate danger exists and the committee recommends that the manage- . ment remove all mine workers from the unsafe area, the operator is required to follow the recommendation of the committee.
“If the safety committee in closing down an unsafe area acts arbitrarily and capriciously, members of such committee may be removed from the committee. Grievances that may arise as a result of a request for removal of a member of the safety committee under this section shall be handled in accordance with the provisions providing for settlement of disputes.” App. 12a.
The union contends that this- provision reserves to the workers the right to strike over safety disputes and also that the committee’s determination of “immediate danger” may be wholly subjective and without foundation in fact. In short, the safety committee may object to any aspect of mine operation as an “immediate danger” and call the workers off the job to force whatever changes it proposes. The union further argues that since the exercise of this option cannot constitute a breach of the collective-bargaining agreement, the District Court had no wrong to enjoin.
We need not decide whether § (e) is subject to such an expansive reading, for, as the District Court found, that section was never invoked in this controversy. The safety committee did inspect the mine to determine the cause of the ventilation failure, but there was no showing that it ever reported findings or made recommendations to the company management. Nor was there any showing that the committee found conditions dangerous to the “life [sic] and bodies of the mine workers” or which, if any, of its members formed the requisite belief in the existence of “an immediate danger.”
The Court of Appeals majority apparently believed that the vote by the local membership, the body superior to the union safety committee, constituted substantial compliance with the purpose and intent of § (e) and obviated any need for compliance with the formal procedure. As a matter of simple contractual interpretation, we think that proposition doubtful. Under the union’s construction of § (e), the committee’s good-faith belief in the existence of an immediate danger, no matter how unfounded that view, is conclusive. The management’s only recourse against arbitrary and capricious decisions by the committee is to seek removal of the offending members. Circumvention of the procedures of § (e), including a formal vote by the committee members, thus removes the only deterrent to unreasonable action by the committee. Given this circumstance, one would not lightly assume that failure to follow the specific procedures outlined in § (e) is somehow de minimis. In any event, whether the union properly invoked this provision is a substantial question of contractual interpretation, and the collective-bargaining agreement explicitly commits to resolution by an impartial umpire all disagreements “as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this agreement.”
The Court of Appeals majority also based its denial of injunctive relief on § 502 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 143, which provides in part:
“[N]or shall the quitting of labor by an employee or employees in good faith because of abnormally dangerous conditions for work at the place of employment of such employee or employees be deemed a strike under this chapter.”
This section provides a limited exception to an express or implied no-strike obligation. The Court of Appeals held that “a refusal to work because of good faith apprehension of physical danger is protected activity and not enjoinable, even where the employees have subscribed to a comprehensive no-strike clause in their labor contract.” 466 F. 2d, at 1160. We agree with the main thrust of this statement — that a work stoppage called solely to protect employees from immediate danger is authorized by § 502 and cannot be the basis for either a damages award or a Boys Markets injunction.
The Court of Appeals majority erred, however, in eon-eluding that an honest belief, no matter how unjustified, in the existence of “abnormally dangerous conditions for work” necessarily invokes the protection of § 502. If the courts require no objective evidence that such conditions actually obtain, they face a wholly speculative inquiry into the motives of the workers. As Judge Rosenn pointed out in his dissent from the judgment below, the difficulty occasioned by this view is especially apparent where, as here, the claim concerns not some identifiable, presently existing threat to the employees’ safety, but rather a generalized doubt in the competence and integrity of company supervisors. Any employee who believes a supervisor or fellow worker incompetent and who honestly fears that at some future time he may commit some unspecified mistake creating a safety hazard could demand his colleague’s discharge and walk off the job despite the contractual agreement not to do so. Absent the most explicit statutory command, we are unwilling to conclude that Congress intended the public policy favoring arbitration and peaceful resolution of labor disputes to be circumvented by so slender a thread as subjective judgment, however honest it may be. We agree with Judge Rosenn that a union seeking to justify a contractually prohibited work stoppage under § 502 must present “ascertainable, objective evidence supporting its conclusion that an abnormally dangerous condition for work exists.” 466 F. 2d, at 1162. We find this reading of the statute consistent both with common sense and with its previous application. See, e. g., Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. NLRB, 330 F. 2d 492 (CA3), cert, denied sub nom. International Longshoremen’s Assn. v. NLRB, 379 U. S. 833 and 841 (1964); NLRB v. Fruin-Colnon Construction Co., 330 F. 2d 885 (CA8 1964); NLRB v. Knight Morley Corp., 251 F. 2d 753 (CA6 1957), cert. denied, 357 U. S. 927 (1958); Redwing Carriers, Inc., 130 N. L. R. B. 1208 (1961), enf’d as modified, sub nom. Teamsters Local 79 v. NLRB, 117 U. S. App. D. C. 84, 325 F. 2d 1011 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 905 (1964).
IV
On the facts of this case, we think it clear that § 502 did not deprive the District Court of authority to enforce the contractual no-strike obligation. The union inferred from the foremen's failure to record the reduced airflow on the morning of April 15 that their return to the job created an abnormally dangerous working condition. One may doubt whether this assertion alone could suffice to invoke the special protection of § 502. In any event, the District Court resolved the issue by expressly conditioning injunctive relief on the suspension of the two foremen pending decision by the impartial umpire.
For similar reasons, it is also evident that injunctive relief was appropriate in the present case under the equitable principles set forth in Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S., at 254. The District Court found that the union’s continued breach of its no-strike obligation would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner. It eliminated any safety issue by suspending the two foremen pending a final arbitral decision. In these circumstances, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
While this reduced airflow undoubtedly increased the accumulation of coal dust and flammable gas in the mine, it still exceeded the state ventilation requirement of 6,000 cubic feet per minute, Pa. Bituminous Coal Mine Act, Pub. L. 659 (1961), Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 52, § 701-242 (b) (1966), and the federal requirement of 9,000 cubic feet per minute, Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, §303 (b), 83 Stat. 767,' 30 U. S. C. §863 (b).
Section 303 (d)(1) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 30 U. S. C. §863 (d)(1), requires such inspections within three hours immediately prior to the beginning of any shift.
After its investigation, the Department concluded that:
“In view of the satisfactory record and good performance of these foreman [sic] in the past and the pending legal action, we feel that no further action should be taken in this matter. The coal company is at liberty to return the three (3) assistant foreman [sic] to work if it so desires.” App. 16a-17a.
The District Court found that the present work stoppage was occasioned by a safety dispute over the reinstatement of the suspended foremen rather than by an economic dispute over reporting pay for April 15.
While the appeal was pending and prior to the Court of Appeals’ decision, the impartial umpire rendered his decision in favor of the company and determined; inter alia, that the two foremen should be permitted to return to work. 466 F. 2d 1157, 1159.
This section provides, in relevant part:
“Should differences arise between the Mine Workers and the operators as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this agreement, or should differences arise about matters not specifically mentioned in this agreement, or should any local trouble of any kind arise at the mine, an earnest effort shall be made to settle such differences immediately: (The parties will not be represented by legal counsel at any of the steps below.)
“1. Between the aggrieved party and the mine management.
“2. Through the management of the mine and the mine committee.
“3. Through district representatives of the United Mine Workers of America and a commissioner representative (where employed) of the coal company.
“4. By a board consisting of four members, two of whom shall be designated by the Mine Workers and two by the operators. Neither the Mine Workers’ representatives on the board nor the operators’ representatives on the board shall be the same persons who participated in steps (1), (2), or (3) of this procedure.
“5. Should the board fail to agree the matter shall, within twenty (20) days after decision by the board, be referred to an umpire to be mutually agreed upon by the operator or operators affected and by the duly designated representatives of the United Mine Workers of America, and the umpire so agreed upon shall expeditiously and without delay decide said case. The decision of the umpire shall be final. Expenses and salary incident to the services of an umpire shall be paid equally by the operator or operators affected and by the Mine Workers.
“A decision reached at any stage of the proceedings above outlined shall be binding on both parties hereto and shall not be subject to reopening by any other party or branch of either association except by mutual agreement.” App. 13a-14a.
Paragraph 3 provides:
“The United Mine Workers of America and the operators agree and affirm that they will maintain the integrity of this contract and that all disputes and claims which are not settled by agreement shall be settled by the machinery provided in the 'Settlement of Local and District Disputes’ section of this agreement unless national in character in which event the parties shall settle such disputes by free collective bargaining as heretofore practiced in the industry, it being the purpose of this provision to provide for the settlement of all such disputes and claims through the machinery in this contract provided and by collective bargaining without recourse to the courts.” App. 15a.
In finding a public policy disfavoring arbitration of safety disputes, the court reasoned as follows:
“Considerations of economic peace that favor arbitration of ordinary disputes have little weight here. Men are not wont to submit matters of life or death to arbitration and no enlightened society encourages, much less requires, them to do so. If employees believe that correctible circumstances are unnecessarily adding to the normal dangers of their hazardous employment, there is no sound reason for requiring them to subordinate their judgment to that of an arbitrator, however impartial he may be. The arbitrator is not staking his life on his impartial decision. It should not be the policy of the law to force the employees to stake theirs on his judgment.” 466 F. 2d, at 1160.
We find this analysis unpersuasive for the reasons stated in this section of our opinion.
The Court of Appeals also relied on § 502 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 143. Section 502 provides that “the quitting of labor by an employee or employees in good faith because of abnormally dangerous conditions for work” shall not “be deemed a strike under this chapter.” On its face, this section appears to bear more directly on the scope of the no-strike obligation than on the arbitrability of safety disputes. Indeed, there is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that § 502 was intended as a limit on arbitration. See 1 Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, pp. 29, 156, 290, 436, 573, 895 (G. P. O. 1948). For this reason, we reserve our discussion of § 502 until Part III of this opinion. To the extent that § 502 might be relevant to the issue of arbitrability, we find that the considerations favoring arbitrability outweigh the ambiguous import of that section in the present context.
United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593 (1960).
The Court of Appeals also found support for its refusal to order arbitration in § (e) of the collective-bargaining agreement. Section (e) provides for an employee mine safety committee empowered to inspect mine facilities and equipment and to report its findings to the management. If the committee finds an “immediate danger,” it may make a binding recommendation to remove all workers from the unsafe area.
Although the Court of Appeals did not state that § (e) was an express exception to the arbitration clause, it evidently believed that the section created an ambiguity in the agreement which had to be resolved against arbitrability. However, as the Court stated in United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra, “[d]oubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.” 363 U. S., at 583. Thus, “[i]n the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, we think only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail, particularly where, as here, the exclusion clause is vague and the arbitration clause quite broad.” Id., at 584-585. Since § (e) clearly does not constitute an express exception to the arbitration clause, it follows that the safety dispute in the instant case must be deemed to fall within the broad arbitration clause.
The dissent maintains that the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 742, 30 U. S. C. § 801 et seq., pre-empts the field and “displace [s] all agreements to arbitrate safety conditions.” Post, at 394. Respondents have not made this contention, and a fair reading of the Act discloses no congressional intention, either express or implied, to accomplish such a drastic result.
“No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute (as these terms are herein defined) from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts:
“(a) Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment . . . .” 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 104.
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.” 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a).
398 U. S., at 239 n. 3.
Lucas Flour involved a damages action for breach of the implied no-strike obligation, while the present case involves injunctive relief. The policy reasons favoring the availability of injunctive relief, however, are equally compelling. As the Court stated in Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S. 235, 248 (1970):
“[A]n award of damages after a dispute has been settled is no substitute for an immediate halt to an illegal strike. Furthermore, an action for damages prosecuted during or after a labor dispute would only tend to aggravate industrial strife and delay an early resolution of the difficulties between employer and union.”
Respondents also argue that Paragraph 1 of the “Miscellaneous” section of the agreement disavows any intent to impose a no-strike duty. Paragraph 1 provides:
“1. Any and all provisions in either the Appalachian Joint Wage Agreement of June 19, 1941, or the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of April 11, 1945, containing any 'no strike’ or ‘penalty’ clause or clauses or any clause denominated ‘Illegal Suspension of Work’ are hereby rescinded, cancelled, abrogated and made null and void.” App. 14a.
This paragraph effectively rescinds certain no-strike clauses in two prior agreements. It does not, however, purport to negate any no-strike duty created by the present agreement. As we have noted, the agreement makes arbitration the exclusive and compulsory means for finally resolving disputes. Under Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962), this arbitration provision gives rise to an implied no-strike duty. We do not think that Paragraph 1 can be fairly construed as an exception to that no-strike duty. Cf. Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp., 259 F. 2d 346 (CA6 1958) (Stewart, J.), affirmed by an equally divided Court, sub nom. Mine Workers v. Benedict Coal Corp., 361 U. S. 459 (1960).
Judge Rosenn contended with justification that a wholly subjective test would open “new and hazardous avenues in labor relations for unrest and strikes.” He stated:
“This test will require a court to accept the naked assertion of an employee that the presence of one of his fellow employees in a plant constitutes a safety hazard. If employees may label another employee a working risk and thereupon engage in a work stoppage which, because of its characterization as a safety strike, is unreviewable by arbitration or court, no employer can expect stability in labor relations. Moreover, each employee is the possible victim of the attitudes, fancies and whims of his fellow employees. Unions, themselves, will be at the mercy of 'wildcatters.’ ” 466 F. 2d, at 1162.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Each day elementary school teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent, Michael A. Newdow, is an atheist whose daughter participates in that daily exercise. Because the Pledge contains the words “under God,” he views the School District’s policy as a religious indoctrination of his child that violates the First Amendment. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Newdow. In light of the obvious importance of that decision, we granted certiorari to review the First Amendment issue and, preliminarily, the question whether Newdow has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We conclude that Newdow lacks standing and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision.
I
“The very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country,” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 405 (1989), and of its proud traditions “of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations,” id., at 437 (Stevens, J., dissenting). As its history illustrates, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgment of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster, national unity and pride in those principles.
The Pledge of Allegiance was initially conceived more than a century ago. As part of the nationwide interest in commemorating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America, a widely circulated national magazine for youth proposed in 1892 that pupils recite the following affirmation: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” In the 1920’s, the National Flag Conferences replaced the phrase “my Flag” with “the flag of the United States of America.”
In 1942, in the midst of World War II, Congress adopted, and the President signed, a Joint Resolution codifying a detailed set of “rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America.” Ch. 435, 56 Stat. 377. Section 7 of this codification provided in full:
“That the pledge of allegiance to the flag, T pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’, be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart; extending the right hand, palm upward, toward the flag at the words ‘to the flag’ and holding this position until the end, when the hand drops to the side. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute.” Id., at 380.
This resolution, which marked the first appearance of the Pledge of Allegiance in positive law, confirmed the importance of the flag as a symbol of our Nation’s indivisibility and commitment to the concept of liberty.
Congress revisited the Pledge of Allegiance 12 years later when it amended the text to add the words “under God.” Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249. The House Report that accompanied the legislation observed that, “[fjrom the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.” H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). The resulting text is the Pledge as we know it today: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 4 U. S. C. §4.
II
Under California law, “every public elementary school” must begin each day with “appropriate patriotic exercises.” Cal. Educ. Code Ann. § 52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that “[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy” this requirement. Ibid. The Elk Grove Unified School District has implemented the state law by requiring that “[e]ach elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.” Consistent with our case law, the School District permits students who object on religious grounds to abstain from the recitation. See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943).
> In March 2000, Newdow filed suit in the United States 'District Court for the Eastern District of California against the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the State of California, and the School District and its superintendent. App. 24. At the time of filing, Newdow’s daughter was enrolled in kindergarten in the School District and participated in the daily recitation of the Pledge. Styled as a mandamus action, the complaint explains that Newdow is an atheist who was ordained more than 20 years ago in a ministry that “espouses the religious philosophy that the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from reason rather than mythology.” Id., at 42, ¶ 53. The complaint seeks a declaration that the 1954 Act’s addition of the words “under God” violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, as well as an injunction against the School District’s policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge. Id., at 42. It alleges that Newdow has standing to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter as “next friend.” Id., at 26, 56.
The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, whose brief findings and recommendation concluded, “the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.” Id., at 79. The District Court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. App. to Pet. for Cert. 97. The Court of Appeals reversed and issued three separate decisions discussing the merits and Newdow’s standing.
In its first opinion the appeals court unanimously held that Newdow has standing “as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.” Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002) (Newdow I). That holding sustained Newdow’s standing to challenge not only the policy of the School District, where his daughter still is enrolled, but also the 1954 Act of Congress that had amended the Pledge, because his “ ‘injury in fact’ ” was “ ‘fairly traceable’ ” to its enactment. Id., at 603-605. On the merits, over the dissent of one-judge, the court held that both the 1954 Act and the School District’s policy violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Id., at 612.
After the Court of Appeals’ initial opinion was announced, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow’s daughter, filed a motion for leave to intervene, or alternatively to dismiss the complaint. App. 82. She declared that although she and Newdow shared “physical custody” of their daughter, a state-court order granted her “exclusive legal custody” of the child, “including the sole right to represent [the daughter’s] legal interests and make all decision[s] about her education” and welfare. Id., at 82, ¶ ¶ 2 — 3. Banning further stated that her daughter is a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God. Id., at 83, ¶ 4. Banning expressed the belief that her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed, because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her father’s atheist views. Id., at 85, ¶ 10. Banning accordingly concluded, as her daughter’s sole legal custodian, that it was not in the child’s interest to be a party to Newdow’s lawsuit. Id., at 85. On September 25, 2002, the California Superior Court entered an order enjoining Newdow from including his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her “next friend.” That order did not purport to answer the question of Newdow’s Article III standing. See Newdow v. U S. Congress, 313 F. 3d 500, 502 (CA9 2002) (Newdow II).
In a second published opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered Newdow’s standing in light of Banning’s motion. The court noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but unanimously concluded that “the grant of sole legal custody to Banning” did not deprive Newdow, “as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.” Id., at 502-503. The court held that under California law New-dow retains the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if those views contradict the mother’s, and that Banning’s objections as sole legal custodian do not defeat Newdow’s right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests. Id., at 504-505.
On February 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an order amending its first opinion and denying rehearing en banc. Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 468 (CA9 2003) (Newdow III). The amended opinion omitted the initial opinion’s discussion of Newdow’s standing to challenge the 1954 Act and declined to determine whether Newdow was entitled to declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of that Act. Id., at 490. Nine judges dissented from the denial of en banc review. Id., at 471, 482. We granted the School District’s petition for a writ of certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School District’s policy, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the First Amendment. 540 U. S. 945 (2003).
III
In every federal case, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action. “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.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (1975). The standing requirement is born partly of “ ‘an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government.’ ” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984) (quoting Vander Jagt v. O’Neill, 699 F. 2d 1166, 1178— 1179 (CADC 1983) (Bork, J., concurring)).
The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake. Even in cases concededly within our jurisdiction under Article III, we abide by “a series of rules under which [we have] avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon [us] for decision.” Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Always we must balance “the heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction,” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 820 (1976), against the “deeply rooted” commitment “not to pass on questions of constitutionality” unless adjudication of the constitutional issue is necessary, Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105 (1944). See also Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 331 U. S. 549, 568-575 (1947).
Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 559-562 (1992); and prudential standing, which embodies “judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,” Allen, 468 U. S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an “injury in fact” that a favorable judgment will redress. See Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560-561. Although we have not exhaustively defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have explained that prudential standing encompasses “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Allen, 468 U. S., at 751. See also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947, 955-956 (1984). “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.” Worth, 422 U. S., at 500.
One of the principal areas in which this Court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Long ago we observed that “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593-594 (1890). See also Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U. S. 581, 587 (1989) (“[Domestic relations are preeminently matters of state law”); Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S. 415, 435 (1979) (“Family relations are a traditional area of state concern”). So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a “domestic relations exception” that “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689, 703 (1992). We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving “elements of the domestic relationship,” id., at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or ehild custody is not strictly at issue:
“This would be so when a case presents ‘difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar.’ Such might well be the case if a federal suit were filed prior to effectuation of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, and the suit depended on a determination of the status of the parties.” Id., at 705-706 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U. S., at 814).
Thus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see, e. g., Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U. S. 429, 432-434 (1984), in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
As explained briefly above, the extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until August 5, 2002, when Banning filed her motion for leave to intervene or dismiss the complaint following the Court of Appeals’ initial decision. At that time, the child’s custody was governed by a February 6, 2002, order of the California Superior Court. That order provided that Banning had “‘sole legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of’” her daughter. Newdow II, 313 F. 3d, at 502. The order stated that the two parents should “ ‘consult with one another on substantial decisions relating to’ ” the child’s “ ‘psychological and educational needs,’ ” but it authorized Banning to “ ‘exercise legal control’ ” if the parents could not reach “ ‘mutual agreement.’ ” Ibid.
That family court order was the controlling document at the time of the Court of Appeals’ standing decision. After the Court of Appeals ruled, however, the Superior Court held another conference regarding the child’s custody. At a hearing on September 11, 2003, the Superior Court announced that the parents have “joint legal custody,” but that Banning “makes the final decisions if the two ... disagree.” App. 127-128.
Newdow contends that despite Banning’s final authority, he retains “an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughter-free from governmental interference — the atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive.” Id., at 48, ¶ 78. The difficulty with that argument is that Newdow’s rights, as in many cases touching upon family relations, cannot be viewed in isolation. This case concerns not merely Newdow’s interest in inculcating his child with his views on religion, but also the rights of the child’s mother as a parent generally and under the Superior Court orders specifically. And most important, it implicates the interests of a young child who finds herself at the center of a highly public debate over her custody, the propriety of a widespread national ritual, and the meaning of our Constitution.
The interests of the affected persons in this case are in many respects, antagonistic. Of course, legal disharmony in family relations is not uncommon, and in many instances that disharmony poses no bar to federal-court adjudication of proper federal questions. What makes this case different is that Newdow’s standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. In marked contrast to our case law on jus tertii, see, e. g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 113-118 (1976) (plurality opinion), the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict.
Newdow’s parental status is defined by California’s domestic relations law. Our custom on questions of state law ordinarily is to defer to the interpretation of the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the State is located. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346-347 (1976). In this case, the Court of Appeals, which possesses greater familiarity with California law, concluded that state law vests in Newdow a cognizable right to influence his daughter’s religious upbringing. Newdow II, 313 F. 3d, at 504-505. The court based its ruling on two intermediate state appellate cases holding that “while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the child’s religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of a showing that the child will be thereby harmed.” In re Marriage of Murga, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 505, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79, 82 (1980). See also In re Marriage of Mentry, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 268-270, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843, 849-850 (1983) (relying on Murga to invalidate portion of restraining order barring noncustodial father from engaging children in religious activity or discussion without custodial parent’s consent). Animated by a conception of “family privacy” that includes “riot simply a policy of minimum state intervention but also a presumption of parental autonomy,” 142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267-268, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, the state cases create a zone of private authority within which each parent, whether custodial or noncustodial, remains free to impart to the child his or her religious perspective.
Nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdow’s right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, Newdow requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in Mentry and Murga. He wishes to forestall his daughter’s exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion. Mentry and Murga are concerned with protecting “‘the fragile, complex interpersonal bonds between child and parent,’ ” 142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, and with permitting divorced parents to expose their children to the “‘diversity of religious experiences [that] is itself a sound stimulant for a child,’ ” id., at 265, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 847. The cases speak not at all to the problem of a parent seeking to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to restrain the acts of a third party. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the Superior Court’s order has deprived Newdow of that status.
In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’s claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow’s right to communicate with his child — which both California law and the First Amendment recognize— and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, New-dow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
J. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 1892-1992, p. 3 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time, the phrase “one Nation indivisible” had special meaning because the question whether a State could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was unresolved prior to the Civil War. See J. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln 12-24 (rev. ed. 1964). See also W. Rehnquist, Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876, p. 182 (2004).
Elk Grove Unified School District’s Policy AR 6115, App. to Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 2a.
Newdow also named as defendants the Sacramento City Unified School District and its superintendent on the chance that his daughter might one day attend school in that district. App. 48. The Court of Appeals held that Newdow lacks standing to challenge that district's policy because his daughter is not currently a student there. Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 485 (CA9 2003) (Newdow III). Newdow has not challenged that ruling.
The First Amendment provides in relevant part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 1. The Religion Clauses apply to the States by incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940).
Our holding does not rest, as The Chief Justice suggests, see post, at 19-22 (opinion concurring in judgment), on either the domestic relations exception or the abstention doctrine. Rather, our prudential standing analysis is informed by the variety of contexts in which federal courts decline to intervene because, as Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689 (1992), contemplated, the suit “depend[s] on a determination of the status of the parties,” id., at 706. We deemed it appropriate to review the dispute in Palmore because it “raise[d] important federal concerns arising from the Constitution’s commitment to eradicating discrimination based on race.” 466 U. S., at 432. In this case, by contrast, the disputed family law rights are entwined inextricably with the threshold standing inquiry. The Chief Justice in this respect, see post, at 21-22, misses our point: The merits question undoubtedly transcends the domestic relations issue, but the standing question surely does not.
The court confirmed that position in a written order issued January 9, 2004:
“The parties will have joint legal custody defined as follows: Ms. Banning will continue to make the final decisions as to the minor’s health, education, and welfare if the two parties cannot mutually agree. The parties are required to consult with each other on substantial decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of the minor child, including . . . psychological and educational needs of the minor. If mutual agreement is not reached in these areas, then Ms. Banning may exercise legal control of the minor that is not specifically prohibited or is inconsistent with the physical custody.” App. to Reply Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 12a.
Despite the use of the term “joint legal custody” — which is defined by California statute, see Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 3003 (West 1994) — we see no meaningful distinction for present purposes between the custody order issued February 6, 2002, and the one issued January 9, 2004. Under either order, Newdow has the right to consult on issues relating to the child’s education, but Banning possesses what we understand amounts to a tie-breaking vote.
“There are good and sufficient reasons for th[e] prudential limitation on standing when rights of third parties are implicated — the avoidance of the adjudication of rights which those not before the Court may not wish to assert, and the assurance that the most effective advocate of the rights at issue is present to champion them.” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 80 (1978). Banning tells us that her daughter has no objection to the Pledge, and we are mindful in cases such as this that “children themselves have constitutionally protectible interests.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 243 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting). In a fundamental respect, “[i]t is the future of the student, not the future of the parents,” that is at stake. Id., at 245.
Newdow’s complaint and brief cite several additional bases for standing: that Newdow “at times has himself attended — and will in the future attend — class with his daughter,” App. 49, ¶ 80; that he “has considered teaching elementary school students in [the School District],” id,., at 65, ¶ 120; that he “has attended and will continue to attend” school board meetings at which the Pledge is “routinely recited,” id., at 52, ¶ 85; and that the School District uses his tax dollars to implement its Pledge policy, id., at 62-65. Even if these arguments suffice to establish Article III standing, they do not respond to our prudential concerns. As for taxpayer standing, Newdow does not reside in or pay taxes to the School District; he alleges that he pays taxes to the District only “indirectly” through his child support payments to Banning. Brief for Respondent Newdow 49, n. 70. That allegation does not amount to the “direct dollars-and-cents injury” that our strict taxpayer-standing doctrine requires. Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne, 342 U. S. 429, 434 (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: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The main question presented in this case is whether an action under the Jones Act survives the death of the tort-feasor. In Nordquist v. United States Trust Co., 188 F. 2d 776, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit answered this question in the affirmative. In the instant case the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit answered it in the negative, but allowed recovery on the basis of state law, 210 F. 2d 76. We granted certiorari in order to resolve this conflict. 347 U. S. 1009.
Jim Dean was employed as a seaman on the M. V. Wingate, owned and operated by Captain H. C. Farring-ton and Sid Cox, citizens of the United States and residents of Florida. The Wingate sailed on or about December 22, 1949, from Matanzas, Cuba, and while on the high seas foundered and was lost. Captain Farrington's body was washed ashore on the Cuban coast, but no trace was found of Dean or the vessel. Sid Cox died in January 1951 of causes bearing no relation to the disaster.
In October 1952, the respondent, as the administrator of the estate of Jim Dean, brought this action against the petitioners in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint, brought under the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, alleged that Dean was a member of the crew of the Wingate and had lost his life through the negligence of its owners. The petitioners Cox and Thompson are the administrators of the estate of Sid Cox, while Henrietta and Howard Farrington are the distributees of H. C. Farrington. The estates of Cox and Farrington had been probated and that of Farrington closed before this action was filed. Respondent filed no notice of claim in either estate proceeding within the 8-month period required by § 733.16 of the Florida statutes.
The primary difficulty in this case stems from the fact that Congress, in passing the Jones Act, did not specifically enumerate the rights of seamen, but merely extended to them the same rights granted to railway employees by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. While the latter Act contained no clause specifically providing for the survival of actions against deceased tortfeasors, it did provide that the claim of the employee could be prosecuted against “the receiver or receivers or other persons or corporations charged with the duty of the management and operation of the business of a common carrier.” 35 Stat. 66, 45 U. S. C. § 57. Since railroads are rarely, if ever, owned by individuals, and since they are subject to various regulations which prevent their discontinuing business, a clause permitting suit against the personal representative of the individual owner of a railroad was unnecessary. See 41 Stat. 477, 49 U. S. C. § 1 (18). Congress fully provided for the corporate analogues of death when it provided that suit might continue against the receiver or successor corporation of the railroad. But where seamen covered by the Jones Act work aboard vessels owned by individuals, literal application of the words of the FELA would result in the denial of recovery against the personal representative of the tortfeasor. This, we feel, would frustrate the congressional purpose of “the benefit and protection of seamen who are peculiarly the wards of admiralty,” The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U. S. 110, 123. The Jones Act, in providing that a seaman should have the same right of action as would a railroad employee, does not mean that the very words of the FELA must be lifted bodily from their context and applied mechanically to the specific facts of maritime events. Rather, it means that those contingencies against which Congress has provided to ensure recovery to railroad employees should also be met in the admiralty setting. Applying such a rule here, we conclude that Congress, having provided that railroad employees could recover regardless of the “survival” of the tortfeasor railroad, intended that the death of the tortfeasor should not defeat recovery under the Jones Act. As the Court said in Markham v. Cabell, 326 U. S. 404,409, “The policy as well as the letter of the law is a guide to decision. Resort to the policy of a law may be had to ameliorate its seeming harshness or to qualify its apparent absolutes .... The process of interpretation also misses its high function if a strict reading of a law results in the emasculation or deletion of a provision which a less literal reading would preserve.”
The extreme harshness of the old common-law rule abating actions on the death of the tortfeasor flies in the face of the expressed congressional purpose to provide for “the welfare of seamen.” The Jones Act “As welfare legislation ... is entitled to a liberal construction to accomplish its beneficent purposes.” Cosmopolitan Co. v. McAllister, 337 U. S. 783, 790. Since the decision here is confined to an interpretation of the Jones Act, there is no need to consider the “slender basis” for the general admiralty rule against such survivorship of actions. See Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383, 387, n. 4. Nevertheless, in considering the harshness of the rule sought to be imposed under the Jones Act, we do note that advancing civilization and social progress have brought 43 of our States to include in their general law the principle of the survival of causes of action against deceased tortfeasors, and that such recovery, rather than being exceptional, has now become the rule in almost every common-law jurisdiction. See the discussion by Roscoe Pound on death statutes as part of the general law, 13 NACCA L. J. 188-189 (May 1954).
Petitioners make the further claim that even if the Jones Act is interpreted to allow an action to proceed against the personal representatives of the tortfeasors, this suit must fail because respondent did not comply with the Florida statute governing the distribution of decedents’ estates. The short answer to this is that Congress, within its constitutional power, decreed a 3-year statute of limitations uniformly throughout the Nation, Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 392, and no state statute can diminish this period.
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), a state drug-trafficking conviction qualifies as “a serious drug offense” if “a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law” for the “offense.” The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “the maximum term of imprisonment... prescribed by law” must be determined without taking recidivist enhancements into account. 464 F. 3d 1072,1082 (2006). We reverse.
I
At issue in this case is respondent’s sentence on his 2004 conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1). Respondent had two prior state convictions in California for residential burglary and three state convictions in Washington for delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Wash. Rev. Code §§69.50.401(a)(l)(ii)-(iv) (1994). Respondent’s three Washington drug convictions occurred on the same day but were based on deliveries that took place on three separate dates. Sentencing Order in No. CR-03-142RHW (ED Wash., Sept. 3, 2004), p. 5, App. 245, 250 (hereinafter Sentencing Order). At the time of respondent’s drug offenses, the Washington statute that respondent was convicted of violating stated that, upon conviction, a defendant could be “imprisoned for not more than five years,” §§ 69.50.401(a)(l)(ii)-(iv), but another provision specified that “[a]ny person convicted of a second or subsequent offense” could “be imprisoned for a term up to twice the term otherwise authorized,” § 69.50.408(a). Thus, by virtue of this latter, recidivist, provision respondent faced a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years. The judgment of conviction for each of the drug-delivery charges listed the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense as “ten years,” App. 16, 42, 93, but the state court sentenced respondent to concurrent sentences of 48 months’ imprisonment on each count, id., at 21, 47, 98.
In the federal felon-in-possession case, the Government asked the District Court to sentence respondent under ACC A, which sets a 15-year minimum sentence “[i]n the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of [Title 18] and has three previous convictions... for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another....” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V). The Government argued that respondent’s two prior California burglary convictions were for “ Violent felonies.’” Pet. for Cert. 4. See § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000 ed.) (listing “burglary” as a “violent felony”). The District Court agreed, and that ruling is not at issue here.
The Government also argued that at least two of respondent’s Washington drug convictions were for “serious drug offense[s].” Under ACC A, a “serious drug offense” includes:
“an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U. S. C. 802)), for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added).
Because the maximum term that respondent faced on at least two of the Washington charges was 10 years, the Government contended that these convictions had to be counted under ACCA. The District Court disagreed, holding that respondent’s drug-trafficking convictions were not convictions for “serious drug offense[s]” under ACCA because the “maximum term of imprisonment” for the purposes of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) is determined without reference to recidivist enhancements. Sentencing Order, at 9, App. 254.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying its prior precedent in United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F. 3d 1201 (2002) (en banc), affirmed. 464 F. 3d 1072. The court recognized that its decision conflicted with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Henton, 374 F. 3d 467, 469-470, cert. denied, 543 U. S. 967 (2004), and was “in tension” with decisions of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits. 464 F. 3d, at 1082, n. 6; see Mutascu v. Gonzales, 444 F. 3d 710, 712 (CA5 2006) (per curiam); United States v. Williams, 326 F. 3d 535, 539 (CA4 2003). We granted the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, 551 U. S. 1191 (2007).
II
The question that we must decide is whether the “maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law” in this case is, as respondent maintains and the Ninth Circuit held, the 5-year ceiling for first offenses or, as the Government contends, the 10-year ceiling for second or subsequent offenses. See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 69.50.401(a)(1)(ii)-(iv), 69.50.408(a).
The Government’s reading is compelled by the language of ACCA. For present purposes, there are three key statutory terms: “offense,” “law,” and “maximum term.” The “offense” in each of the drug-delivery cases was a violation of §§ 69.50.401(a)(l)(ii)-(iv). The relevant “law” is set out in both that provision, which prescribes a “maximum term” of 5 years for a first “offense,” and § 69.50.408(a), which prescribes a “maximum term” of 10 years for a second or subsequent “offense.” Thus, in this case, the maximum term prescribed by Washington law for at least two of respondent’s state drug offenses was 10 years.
The Ninth Circuit’s holding that the maximum term was five years contorts ACCA’s plain terms. Although the Washington state court sentenced respondent to 48 months’ imprisonment, there is no dispute that § 69.50.408(a) permitted a sentence of up to 10 years. On the Ninth Circuit’s reading of ACCA, even if respondent had been sentenced to, say, six years’ imprisonment, “the maximum term of imprisonment” prescribed by law still would have been five years. It is hard to accept the proposition that a defendant may lawfully be sentenced to a term of imprisonment that exceeds the “maximum term of imprisonment... prescribed by law,” but that is where the Ninth Circuit’s reading of the statute leads.
The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is also inconsistent with the way in which the concept of the “maximum term of imprisonment” is customarily understood by participants in the criminal justice process. Suppose that a defendant who indisputably had more than three prior convictions for “violent felon[ies]” or “serious drug offense[s]” was charged in federal court with violating the felon-in-possession statute. Under ACCA, this defendant would face a sentence of “not less than 15 years.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V). Suppose that the defendant asked his or her attorney, “What’s the maximum term I face for the new offense?” An attorney aware of ACCA would surely not respond, “10 years,” even though 10 years is the maximum sentence without the ACCA enhancement. See § 924(a)(2) (2000 ed.).
Suppose that the defendant then pleaded guilty to the felon-in-possession charge. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(H), the trial judge would be required to advise the defendant of the “maximum possible penalty.” If the judge told the defendant that the maximum possible sentence was 10 years and then imposed a sentence of 15 years based on ACCA, the defendant would have been sorely misled and would have a ground for moving to withdraw the plea. See United States v. Gonzalez, 420 F. 3d 111, 132 (CA2 2005); United States v. Harrington, 354 F. 3d 178, 185-186 (CA2 2004). In sum, a straightforward application of the language of ACCA leads to the conclusion that the “maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law” in this case was 10 years.
Ill
A
In an effort to defend the Ninth Circuit’s decision, respondent offers both a textual argument and a related argument based on the “manifest purpose” of ACCA. Brief for Respondent 8.
Respondent’s textual argument is as follows. The term “offense” “generally is understood to describe the elements constituting the crime.” Id., at 10. Because prior convictions required for recidivist enhancements are not typically offense elements, they should not be considered part of the “offense” under ACCA. Thus, the “maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law” for the drug convictions at issue was the maximum term prescribed for simply committing the elements of the drug offense and was therefore five years. Id., at 10-11.
Respondent’s argument is not faithful to the statutory text. Respondent reads ACCA as referring to “the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law” for a defendant with no prior convictions that trigger a recidivist enhancement, but that is not what ACCA says. ACCA instead refers to “the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law” for “an offense,” and, as previously explained, in this case, the maximum term prescribed by Washington law for each of respondent’s two relevant offenses was 10 years.
Respondent’s argument based on ACCA’s “manifest purpose” must also be rejected. Respondent argues that ACCA uses “the maximum penalty specified for the offense by state law as a short-hand means of identifying conduct deemed sufficiently ‘serious’ to trigger [the] mandatory penalty.” Id., at 9. According to respondent, “[t]he nature of [a defendant’s] conduct, the elements of the offense, and the impact of the crime... are the characteristics that typically are used to gauge the ‘seriousness’ of an offense,” and a defendant’s “status as a recidivist has no connection to whether the offense committed by the defendant was a ‘serious’ one.” Id., at 11.
This argument rests on the erroneous proposition that a defendant’s prior record of convictions has no bearing on the seriousness of an offense. On the contrary, however, an offense committed by a repeat offender is often thought to reflect greater culpability and thus to merit greater punishment. Similarly, a second or subsequent offense is often regarded as more serious because it portends greater future danger and therefore warrants an increased sentence for purposes of deterrence and incapacitation. See Witte v. United States, 515 U. S. 389, 403 (1995); Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 570 (1967) (Warren, C. J., dissenting in two judgments and concurring in one).
If respondent were correct that a defendant’s record of prior convictions has no bearing on the seriousness of an offense, then it would follow that any increased punishment imposed under a recidivist provision would not be based on the offense of conviction but on something else — presumably the defendant’s prior crimes or the defendant’s “status as a recidivist,” Brief for Respondent 11. But we have squarely rejected this understanding of recidivism statutes. In Nichols v. United States, 511 U. S. 738 (1994), we explained that “ ‘[t]his Court consistently has sustained repeat-offender laws as penalizing only the last offense committed by the defendant.’” Id., at 747 (quoting Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U. S. 222, 232 (1980) (Powell, J., dissenting)). When a defendant is given a higher sentence under a recidivism statute — or for that matter, when a sentencing judge, under a guidelines regime or a discretionary sentencing system, increases a sentence based on the defendant’s criminal history — 100% of the punishment is for the offense of conviction. None is for the prior convictions or the defendant’s “status as a recidivist.” The sentence “is a stiffened penalty for the latest crime, which is considered to be an aggravated offense because [it is] a repetitive one.” Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728, 732 (1948).
B
Respondent argues that our interpretation of ACCA produces “a sort of perverse bootstrapping” under which a defendant is “punished under federal law for being treated as a recidivist under state law,” Brief for Respondent 20 (emphasis deleted), but the fact that ACCA is itself a recidivist statute bolsters our reading. Since ACCA is a recidivist statute, Congress must have had such provisions in mind and must have understood that the “maximum penalty prescribed by [state] law” in some cases would be increased by state recidivism provisions.
Contrary to respondent’s suggestion, United States v. LaBonte, 520 U. S. 751 (1997), supports our interpretation of ACCA. The statute at issue in LaBonte, a provision of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 994(h), directed the United States Sentencing 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 held that the phrase “maximum term authorized” “refers to all applicable statutes,” including recidivist enhancements. 520 U. S., at 758, n. 4.
Respondent claims that LaBonte supports his position because ACCA, unlike 28 U. S. C. § 994(h), does not refer to “categories of” offenders. Respondent suggests that Congress’ failure to include such language in ACCA means that Congress intended to refer to a “maximum term” that does not depend on whether a defendant falls into the first-time-offender or recidivist “category.” Respondent does not explain how 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(A) could have easily been reworded to mirror 28 U. S. C. § 994(h). But in any event, the language used in ACCA, for the reasons explained above, is more than clear enough.
Respondent argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is supported by the so-called “categorical” approach that we used in Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575 (1990), in determining which offenses qualify as “violent felon[ies]” under 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) provides that four enumerated crimes — burglary, arson, extortion, and offenses involving the use of explosives — are “violent felonies]” for ACCA purposes. In Taylor, we held that Congress intended for these crimes to have a “uniform definition” that was “independent of the labels employed by the various States’ criminal codes.” 495 U. S., at 592. According to respondent, “[t]he categorical approach rests on the congressional intent — reflected in the statutory language— to focus the ACCA inquiry on the offense of conviction, rather than on collateral matters unrelated to the definition of the crime.” Brief for Respondent 12.
We see no connection, however, between the issue in Taylor (the meaning of the term “burglary” in § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)) and the issue here (the meaning of the phrase “maximum term of imprisonment... prescribed by law” under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)). Taylor held that the meaning of “burglary” for purposes of ACCA does not depend on the label attached by the law of a particular State, 495 U. S., at 600-601, but the “maximum penalty prescribed by law” for a state offense necessarily depends on state law.
For a similar reason, we reject respondent’s argument that, under our interpretation, offenses that are not really serious will be included as “serious drug offense[s]” because of recidivist enhancements. In § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), Congress chose to rely on the “maximum term of imprisonment... prescribed” by state law as the measure of the seriousness of state offenses involving the manufacture, distribution, or possession of illegal drugs. Congress presumably thought — not without reason — that if state lawmakers provide that a crime is punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, the lawmakers must regard the crime as “serious,” and Congress chose to defer to the state lawmakers’ judgment. Therefore, our interpretation poses no risk that a drug-trafficking offense will be treated as “serious” without satisfying the standard that Congress prescribed.
C
Respondent argues that it will often be difficult to determine whether a defendant faced the possibility of a recidivist enhancement in connection with a past state drug conviction and that therefore our interpretation of ACCA will require the federal courts to “engage in difficult inquiries regarding novel questions of state law and complex factual determinations about long-past proceedings in state courts.” Brief for Respondent 21. Respondent greatly exaggerates the problems to which he refers.
First, in some cases, a defendant will have received a recidivist enhancement, and this will necessarily be evident from the length of the sentence imposed. Second, as the present case illustrates, see App. 16, 42, 93, the judgment of conviction will sometimes list the maximum possible sentence even where the sentence that was imposed did not exceed the top sentence allowed without any recidivist enhancement. Third, as respondent himself notes, some jurisdictions require that the prosecution submit a formal charging document in order to obtain a recidivist enhancement. See Brief for Respondent 33. Such documents fall within the limited list of generally available documents that courts already consult for the purpose of determining if a past conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U. S. 13, 20 (2005). Fourth, in those cases in which the defendant pleaded guilty to the state drug charges, the plea colloquy will very often include a statement by the trial judge regarding the maximum penalty. This is mandated by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(H), and many States have similar requirements. Finally, in those cases in which the records that may properly be consulted do not show that the defendant faced the possibility of a recidivist enhancement, it may well be that the Government will be precluded from establishing that a conviction was for a qualifying offense. The mere possibility that some future cases might present difficulties cannot justify a reading of ACCA that disregards the clear meaning of the statutory language.
D
Respondent’s last argument is that if recidivist enhancements can increase the “maximum term” of imprisonment under ACCA, it must follow that mandatory guidelines systems that cap sentences can decrease the “maximum term” of imprisonment. Brief for Respondent 38. In each situation, respondent argues, the “maximum term” of imprisonment is the term to which the state court could actually have sentenced the defendant. Respondent concedes that he has waived this argument with respect to his own specific state-court convictions. See Brief in Opposition 15, n. 7. He argues, however, that Congress cannot have wanted to make the “maximum term” of imprisonment for ACCA purposes dependent on the complexities of state sentencing guidelines. We conclude, however, that the phrase “maximum term of imprisonment... prescribed by law” for the “offense” was not meant to apply to the top sentence in a guidelines range.
First, the top sentence in a guidelines range is generally not really the “maximum term... prescribed by law” for the “offense” because guidelines systems typically allow a sentencing judge to impose a sentence that exceeds the top of the guidelines range under appropriate circumstances. The United States Sentencing Guidelines, for example, permit “upward departures,” see United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0 (Nov. 2007), and essentially the same characteristic was shared by all of the mandatory guidelines systems in existence at the time of the enactment of the ACCA provision at issue in this case. (Following this pattern, Washington law likewise provided at the time of respondent’s state convictions that a sentencing judge could “impose a sentence outside the standard sentence range” upon a finding “that there [were] substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.120(2) (1994).)
Second, the concept of the “maximum” term of imprisonment or sentence prescribed by law was used in many statutes that predated the enactment of ACCA and the federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, §211, 98 Stat. 1987, and in all those statutes the concept necessarily referred to the maximum term prescribed by the relevant criminal statute, not the top of a sentencing guidelines range. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 3 (1982 ed.) (“[A]n accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment... for the punishment of the principal”); § 3575(b) (allowing for an increased sentence for dangerous special offenders “not disproportionate in severity to the maximum term otherwise authorized by law for” the underlying felony); see also §371 (the punishment for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor “shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor”); §3651 (allowing for confinement and suspension of sentence upon conviction of an offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment “if the maximum sentence for such offense is more than six months”); § 3653 (referring to the “maximum probation period”).
It is instructive that, even in the Sentencing Reform Act, the concept of the “maximum term of imprisonment” prescribed for an offense was used in this sense. See § 212, 98 Stat. 1991-1992 (new 18 U. S. C. § 3559 classifying offenses based on “the maximum term of imprisonment authorized... by the statute describing the offense”); § 235(b)(1)(F), 98 Stat. 2032 (“The maximum term of imprisonment in effect on the effective date [of the Sentencing Reform Act]” remains in effect for five years after the effective date “for an offense committed before the effective date”); § 1003(a), id., at 2138 (solicitation to commit a crime of violence punishable by “one-half the maximum term of imprisonment... prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited”). In light of this established pattern and the relative newness of sentencing guidelines systems when the ACCA provision at issue here was added, we conclude that Congress meant for the concept of the “maximum term of imprisonment” prescribed by law for an “offense” to have the same meaning in ACCA.
Our decision in United States v. R. L. C., 503 U. S. 291 (1992), is not to the contrary. The statutory provision there, 18 U. S. C. § 5037(c) (2000 ed.), set out the term of official detention for a juvenile found to be a delinquent. This provision was amended by the Sentencing Reform Act, see § 214, 98 Stat. 2013, and then amended again two years later, see §§21(a)(2)-(4), 100 Stat. 3596. As thus amended, the provision did not refer to the “maximum term of imprisonment” prescribed for an “offense.” Rather, the provision focused on the particular juvenile being sentenced. It provided that, “fin the case of a juvenile who is less than eighteen years old,’” official detention could not extend beyond the earlier of two dates: the juvenile’s 21st birthday or “‘the maximum term of imprisonment that would be authorized if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an adult.’” United States v. R. L. C., supra, at 295-296, n. 1 (quoting 18 U. S. C. § 5037(c)). Because this provision clearly focuses on the circumstances of the particular juvenile and not on the offense, 503 U. S., at 299, it is not analogous to the ACCA provision that is before us in this case.
* * *
For these reasons, we hold that the “maximum term of imprisonment... prescribed by law” for the state drug convictions at issue in this case was the 10-year maximum set by the applicable recidivist provision. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.
The Court chooses one reading of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S. C. § 924(e) (2000 ed. and Supp. V), over another that would make at least as much sense of the statute’s ambiguous text and would follow the counsel of a tradition of lenity in construing perplexing criminal laws. The Court’s choice, moreover, promises hard times for the trial courts that will have to make the complex sentencing calculations this decision demands. I respectfully dissent.
I
The ACCA mandates a 15-year minimum sentence for anyone convicted of violating § 922(g) (2000 ed.) who “has three previous convictions [for] a serious drug offense” among his prior crimes. § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V). Section 924(e)(2)(A) (2000 ed.) defines “serious drug offense” as an offense under state or federal drug laws, “for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” This limitation leaves open the question whether a given conviction qualifies as “serious” by reference to the penalty for the acts making up the basic offense, regardless of who commits it, or whether account must also be taken of further facts (such as an offender’s criminal record that qualified him for an enhanced penalty at the time of that earlier conviction). If the first alternative is the reading Congress intended, a sentencing judge needs to look only to the penalty specified for the basic offense committed by a first-time offender. But if the second is the intended one, a judge may have to consider sentencing variations (for using a gun, say, or for repeating the offense) set out in other provisions.
It all turns on the meaning of the word “offense,” to which the “maximum term” is tied. One can naturally read “an offense” at a general level as synonymous with “a crime,” which would tend to rule out reference to máximums adjusted for other facts; we do not usually speak of a crime of “burglary while having a criminal record and while out on bail.” Those details would come up only if we were speaking about a specific instance, described as a burglary “committed by someone with a record while out on bail,” in which case the other facts may “enhance” his sentence beyond what would have been the maximum term for burglary. The trouble is that “offense” could easily refer to a specific occurrence, too; looking at it that way would make it less jarring to suggest that the circumstances around an event that authorize higher penalty ranges (such as the use of a gun) or the defendant’s history (like a prior conviction) ought to count in identifying the maximum penalty for the offense committed on the given day, at the given place, by the particular offender, in a given way. Either reading seems to offer a plausible take on the “offense” for which the ACCA court will have to identify or calculate “maximum” penalties, under state law.
We get no help from imagining the circumstances in which a sentencing court would ask which reading to adopt. The choice of answer would be easy if the question arose in the mind of a lawyer whose client is thinking about a guilty plea and asks what maximum term he faces. See ante, at 383. His lawyer knows that he means the maximum term for him in his case. When a repeat offender wants to know, counsel understands that the penalty prescribed for the basic crime without the recidivist add-on is not the baseline for comparison that may make or break the potential plea agreement. And if the repeat offender faces a further statutory enhancement for carrying a gun during the offense, or for being out on bail, his lawyer would not tell him the maximum term for repeat offenders without guns or bail restrictions. By the same token, if the offender faced (as Rodriquez did) a lower sentence ceiling than what the statute says, by grace of mandatory sentencing guidelines, his lawyer would know enough to tell him that his maximum was capped in this way.
When the issue comes up not in a particular client’s questions about his own prospects, however, but in a trial judge’s mind wondering about the meaning of the general statute, context gives no ready answer. Nor does it break the tie to say, as the Court does, that taking “maximum” to refer to the basic offense would mean that a recidivist with add-ons could be sentenced above the ACCA “maximum,” see ante, at 383 (“[E]ven if respondent had been sentenced to, say, six years’ imprisonment, ‘the maximum term of imprisonment’ prescribed by law still would have been five years”). That description, after all, might be just a verbal quirk showing the statutory design in proper working order: if Congress meant an offense to be viewed generically and apart from offender characteristics, a gap between the maximum for ACCA purposes, and a heavier, actual sentence accounting for a defendant’s history is to be expected.
The text does not point to any likelier interpretive choices, and as between these alternatives, it is simply ambiguous. Because I do not believe its ambiguity is fairly resolved in the Government’s favor, I would affirm.
II
A
None of the Court’s three principal points or ripostes solves the puzzle. To begin with, there is something arbitrary about trying to resolve the ambiguity by rejecting the maximum-for-basic-offense option while declining to consider an entire class of offender-based sentencing adjustments. If offender characteristics are going to count in identifying the relevant maximum penalty, it would seem to follow that in jurisdictions with mandatory sentencing guidelines, the maximum “prescribed by law” would be what the guidelines determine. The original Federal Guidelines, and the mandatory state guidelines I am aware of, were established under statutory authority that invests a guideline with the same legal status as a customary penalty provision. Cf. United States v. R. L. C., 503 U. S. 291, 297 (1992) (“The answer to any suggestion that the statutory character of a specific penalty provision gives it primacy over administrative sentencing guidelines is that the mandate to apply the Guidelines is itself statutory”).
The Court tries to deflect the implication of its position by denying that state sentencing guidelines really do set maximum penalties, since typically they allow a judge to depart from them, up or down, when specified conditions are met. See ante, at 390-391. But while this is true, the objection stands. However a particular mandatory guideline scheme works, it sets a maximum somewhere; if it includes conditions affecting what would otherwise be a guideline maximum, the top of the range as affected should be the relevant maximum on the Court’s reading of the statute. Indeed, the factual conditions involved are usually offender characteristics, and if the ACCA is going to count them under offense-defining statutes or freestanding recidivism laws, those same facts ought to count under a guideline rule (whether setting, or authorizing a departure from, a particular limit). There is no practical difference whether máximums are adjusted by a statute, a statutorily mandated guideline, or a guideline-specified departure; wherever a “prescription] by law” resides, it ought to be honored by the ACCA court.
If we were to follow the Court’s lights, then, I think we would have to accept the complication that guidelines schemes present, and face the difficulty of calculating enhanced máximums in guidelines jurisdictions. What we cannot do is resolve statutory ambiguity by looking to the sentencing range for an imaginary offender who meets statutory conditions for altering the basic sentence, but is artificially stripped of any characteristic that triggers a guideline rule also “prescribed by law.”
B
The more fundamental objection, though, goes to the Court’s basic conclusion that it makes the better sense to read the ACCA as resting the federal treatment of recidivists on the maximum sentence authorized by state recidivist schemes, in cases where state law must be considered. The Court says it would have been natural for Congress to think in terms of state judgments about repeat criminals when thinking about what to do at the national level, and the Court is quite possibly right about this; the fact that the federal penalty may turn on a state felony classification at all shows that Congress was thinking about state law. But the chances are at least equally good that the Court is wrong; it is odd to think that Congress would have piggybacked the federal system on state repeat-offender schemes, given the extraordinary and irreconcilable variations among state policies on the subject.
For one thing, the States’ recidivism schemes vary in their methods for augmenting sentences. Iowa’s law, for example, subjects repeat drug offenders to triple penalties, Iowa Code § 124.411(1) (2005); but in Wisconsin a repeat drug distributor will see his maximum term increased by a fixed number of years, whatever the starting point, see, e. g., Wis. Stat. § 961.48(l)(b) (2003-2004) (4-year increase for Class H felony such as selling one kilogram of marijuana).
More striking than differing structures, though, are the vast disparities in severity from State to State: under Massachusetts drug laws, a third conviction for selling a small amount of marijuana carries a maximum of 2.5 years. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 94C, §32C(b) (West 2006). In Delaware, a third conviction means a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole. See Del. Code Aun., Tit. 11, § 4214(b) (2007) (third-felony penalty of life without parole for violations of nonnarcotic controlled substances law, Tit. 16, § 4752 (2003)). That Congress might have chosen to defer to state-law judgments about “seriousness” that vary so widely for the same conduct is at least open to doubt. And that doubt only gets worse when we notice that even where two States have similar maximum penalties for a base-level offense, their recidivist enhancements may lead the same conduct to trigger the ACCA sanction in one State but not the other: on the Court’s view, an offender’s second conviction for selling, say, just over two pounds of marijuana will qualify as an ACCA predicate crime if the conviction occurred in Arizona (maximum of 13 years), Iowa (15 years), Utah (15 years), and the District of Columbia (10 years), for example; but it will fall short of the mark in California (8 years), Michigan (8 years), and New York (8 years). Yet in each of these States, the base-level offense has a maximum term falling within a much narrower range (between 3.5 and 5.5 years). With this backdrop of state law, the Government can
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 with reference to the standard by which state searches and seizures must be evaluated (Part I), together with an opinion applying that standard, in which Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White join (Parts II-V), and announced the judgment of the Court.
This case raises séarch and seizure questions under the rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). Petitioners, husband and wife, were convicted of possession of marijuana-in violation of § 11530 of the California Health and Safety Code. The California District Court of Appeal affirmed, 195 Cal. App. 2d 246, 15 Cal. Rptr. 767, despite the contention of petitioners that their arrests in their apartment without warrants lacked probable cause and the evidence seized.incident thereto and introduced at their trial was' therefore inadmissible.. The California Supreme Court denied without opinion a petition for hearing. This being the first case arriving here since our opinion in Mapp which would afford suitable opportunity for further explication of that holding in the light of intervening experience, we granted certiorari. 368 U. S. 974. We affirm the judgment before us.
The state courts’ conviction and affirmance are based on these events, which culminated in the petitioners’ arrests. Sergeant Cook of the Los Angeles County Sber-? iff’s Office, in negotiating the purchase of marijuana from one Terrhagen, accompanied him to a bowling alley about 7 p.' m. on July 26, 1960, where they were to meet Terrhagen’s “connection.” Terrhagen went inside and returned shortly, pointing to a 1946 DeSoto as his “connection’s” automobile and explaining that they were to meet him “up by the oil fields” near Fairfax and Slauson Avenues, in Los Angeles. As they neared that location, Terrhagen again pointed out the DeSoto traveling ahead of them, stating that the “connection” kept his supply of narcotics “somewhere up in the hills.” They parked near some vacant fields in the vicinity of the intersection of Fairfax and Slauson, and, shortly thereafter, the DeSoto reappeared and pulled up beside them. The deputy then recognized the driver as one Roland Murphy,, whose “mug” photograph he had seen and whom he knew from other narcotics officers to be-a large-scale seller of marijuana currently,’out on bail in connection with narcotics charges.
Terrhagen entered the DeSoto and drove off toward the oil fields with Murphy, while the Sergeant waited. They returned shortly, Terrhagen left Murphy’s car carrying a package of marijuana and entered his own vehicle, and they drove to Terrhagen’s residence! There Terrhagen cut one pound of marijuana and gave it to Sergeant Cook, who had previously paid him. The Sergeant later reported this occurrence to Los Angeles County Officers Berman and Warthen, the latter of whom had observed the occurrences as well.
On the following day, July 27, Murphy was placed unde: surveillance. Officer Warthen, who had observed the Terrhagen-Murphy episode the previous night, and Officer Markman were assigned this duty.. At about 7 p. m. that evening they followed Murphy’s DeSoto as he drove to the same bowling alley in which, he had met Terrhagen on the previous evening. Murphy went inside, emerged in about 10 minutes and drove to a house where he made a brief visit. The officers continued to follow him but,’ upon losing sight of his vehicle, proceeded to the vicinity of Fairfax and Slauson Avenues where they parked; There, immediately across the street from the location at which Terrhagen and Sergeant Cook had met Murphy on the previous evening, the officers observed a parked automobile whose lone occupant they later determined to be the petitioner George Douglas Ker.
The officers then saw Murphy drive past them. They followed him but lost sight of him when he extinguished his lights and entered the oil fields. The officers returned to their vantage point and, shortly thereafter, observed Murphy return and park behind Ker.. From their, location approximately 1,000 feet from the two vehicles, they watched through field glasses. Murphy was seen leaving his DeSoto and walking up to the driver’s side of Ker’s car, where he “appeared to have conversation with him.” It was shortly before 9 p. m. and the distance in the twilight was too great for the officers to see anything pass between Murphy and Ker or.whether the former had anything in his hands as he approached.
While Murphy and Ker were talking, the officers had driven past them in order to see their' faces closely and in order to take the license number from. Ker’s vehicle. Soon thereafter Ker drove away and the officers followed him but lost him when he made a U-turn in the middle of the block and drove in the opposite direction. Now, having lost contact with Ker, they checked the registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and ascertained that the automobile was registered to Douglas Ker at 4801 Slauson. They then communicated this information to Officer Berman, within 15 to 30 minutes after observing the meeting between Ker and Murphy. Though officers Warthen and Markman had no previous knowledge of Ker, Berman had received information at various times beginning in November of 1959 that Ker was selling marijuana from his apartment and that “he was possibly securing this Marijuana from Ronnie Murphy who is the alias of Roland Murphy.” In early 1960 Officer Berman had rece'yed a “mug” photograph of Ker from the Inglewood Police Department. He further testified that between May and July 27, 1960, he had received information as to Ker from one Robert Black, who had previously given information leading to at least three arrests and whose information was believed by Berman to be reliable. According to Officer Berman, Black had told him on four or five occasions after May 1960 that Ker and others, including himself, had purchased marijuana from Murphy.
Armed with the knowledge of the meeting.between Ker and Murphy and with Berman’s information as to Ker’s dealings with Murphy, the three officers and a fourth, Officer Love, proceeded immediately to the address which they had obtained through Ker’s license number. They found the automobile which they had been following — and which they had learned was Ker’s — in the parking lot of the multiple-apartment building and also ascertained that there was someone in the Kers’ apartment. They then went to the office of the building manager and obtained from him a passkey to the apartment. Officer Markman was stationed outside the window to intercept any evidence which might be ejected, and the other three officers entered the apartment. Officer Berman unlocked and opened the door, proceeding quietly, he testified, in order to prevent the destruction of evidence, and fouijd petitioner George Ker sitting in the living room. Just as he identified himself, stating that “We are Sheriff’s Narcotics Officers, conducting a narcotics investigation,” petitioner Diane. Ker emerged from thé kitchen. Berman testified that he repeated his identification to her and immediately walked to the kitchen.'Without entering, he observed through the open doorway a small scale atop the kitchen sink, upon which lay a “brick-like — brick-shaped package containing, the green leafy substance”- which he recognized as marijuana. He beckoned the petitioners into the kitchen where, following their denial of knowledge of the contents of the two-and-two-tenths-pofind package and failure to.answer a. question as to its ownership, he placed them under arrest for. suspicion of violating the State Narcotic Law. Officer Markman testified that he entered the apartment approximately “a minute, minute and a half” after the other officers, at which time Officer Berman was placing the petitioners under arrest. As to this sequence of events, petitioner George Ker testified that his arrest took place immediately upon the officers’ entry and before they saw the brick of marijuana in the kitchen.
Subsequent to the arrest and the petitioners’ denial of possession of any other narcotics, the officers, proceeding without search warrants, found a half-ounce package of marijuana in the kitchen cupboard and another atop the bedroom dresser. Petitioners were asked if they had any automobile other than the one observed by the officers, and George Ker replied in the negative, while Diane remained silent. On the next day, having learned that an automobile was registered in the name of Diane Ker, Officer Warthen searched this car without a warrant, finding marijuana and marijuana seeds in the glove compartment and under the rear seat. The marijuana found on the kitchen scale, that found in the kitchen cupboard and in the bedroom, and that found in Diane Ker’s automobile were all introduced into evidence against the petitioners.
The California District Court of Appeal in affirming the convictions found that there was.probable cause for the arrests; that the entry into the apartment was for the purpose of arrest and was not unlawful; and that the search being incident to the arrests was likewise lawful and its fruits admissible in evidence against petitioners.' These conclusions were essential to the affirmance, since the California Supreme Court in 1955 had held that evidence obtained by means of unlawful searches and seizures was inadmissible in criminal trials. People v. Cahan, 44 Cal. 2d 434, 282 P. 2d 905. The court concluded that in view of its findings and the implied findings of the trial court, this Court’s intervening decision in Mapp v. Ohio, supra, did “not justify a change in our original conclusion.” 195 Cal. App. 2d, at 257, 15 Cal. Rptr., at 773.
I.
In Mapp v. Ohio, at 646-647, 657, we followed Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 (1886), which held that the Fourth Amendment, implemented by the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth, forbids the Federal Government to convict a man of crime by using testimony or papers obtained from him by unreasonable searches and seizures as defined in the Fourth Amendment. We specifically held in Mapp that this constitutional prohibition is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. This means, as we said in Mapp, that the Fourth Amendment “is enforceable against them [the states] by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government,” by the application of the same constitutional standard prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures.” 367 U. S., at 655. We now face the specific question as to whether Mapp requires the exclusion, of evidence in this case which the California District Court of Appeal has held to be lawfully seized. It is perhaps ironic that the initial test under the Mapp holding comes from California, whose decision voluntarily to adopt the exclusionary rule in 1955 has been commended by us previously. See Mapp v. Ohio, supra, at 651-652; Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 220 (1960).
Preliminary to our’examination of the search and seizures involved here, it might be helpful for us to indicate what was not decided in Mapp. First, it must be recognized that the “principles governing the admissibility of evidence in federal criminal trials have not been restricted... to those derived solely from the Constitution. In the exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts... this Court has... formulated rules of evidence to be applied in federal criminal prosecutions.” McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 341 (1943); cf. Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 (1958); Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379 (1937). Mapp, however, established no assumption by this Court of supervisory authority over state courts, cf. Cleary v. Bolger, 371 U. S. 392, 401 (1963), and, consequently, it implied no total obliteration of state laws relating to arrests and searches in favor of federal law. Mapp sounded no death knell for our federalism; rather, it echoed the sentiment of Elkins v. United States, supra, at 221, that “a healthy federalism depends upon the avoidance of needless conflict between state and federal courts” by itself urging that “[f]ederal-state cooperation in the solution of crime under constitutional standards will be promoted, if only by recognition of their now mutual obligation to respect the same fundamental criteria in their approaches.” 367 U. S., at 658. (Emphasis added.) Second, Mapp did not attempt the impossible task of laying down a “fixed formula” for the application in specific cases of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures; it recognized that we would be-“met with ‘recurring questions of the reasonableness of searches’ ” and that, “at any.rate, ‘[Reasonableness is in the first instance for the [trial court]... to determine,’ ” id., at 653, thus indicating that the usual weight be given to findings of trial courts.
Mapp, of course, did not lend itself to a detailed explication of standards) since the search involved there was clearly unreasonable and bore no stamp of legality even from the Ohio Supreme Court. Id., at 643-645. This is true also of Elkins v.United States, where all of the courts assumed the unreasonableness of the search in question and this Court “invoked” its “supervisory power over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts,” 364 U. S., at 216, in declaring that the evidence so seized by state officers was inadmissible in a federal prosecution. The prosecution being in a federal court, this Court of course announced that “[t]he test is one of federal law, neither enlarged by what one state court may have countenanced, nor diminished by what another may have color-ably suppressed.” Id., at 224. Significant in thé Elkins holding is the statement, apposite here, that “it can fairly be said that in applying the Fourth Amendment this Court has seldom shown itself unaware of the practical demands of effective criminal investigation and law enforcement.” Id., at 222.
Implicit in the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches'and seizures is its recognition of individual freedom. That safeguard has been declared to be “as of the very essence of constitutional liberty” the guaranty of which “is as important and as imperative as are the guaranties of the other fundamental rights of the individual citizen....” Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 304 (1921); cf. Powell v, Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 65-68 (1932). While the language of the Amendment is “general,” it “forbids every search that is unreasonable; it protects all, those suspected or known to be offenders as well as the innocent, and unquestionably extends to the premises where the search was made....” Go-Bart Importing. Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357 (1931). Mr. Justice Butler there stated for the Court that “[t]he Amendment is to be liberally construed and all owe the duty of vigilance for its effective enforcement lest there shall be impairment of the rights for the protection of which it was adopted.” Ibid. He also recognized that “[t]here is no formula for the determination of reasonableness. Each- case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.” Ibid.; see United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56, 63 (1950); Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253, 255 (1960).
This Court’s long-established recognition that standards of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment are not susceptible of Procrustean application is carried forward when that Amendment’s proscriptions are enforced against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. And, although the standard of reasonableness is the same under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the demands of our federal system compel us to distinguish between evidence held inadmissible because of our supervisory powers over federal courts and that held inadmissible because prohibited by the United States Constitution. We reiterate that the reasonableness of a search is in the first instance a substantive determination to be made by the trial court from the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the “fundamental criteria” laid down by the Fourth Amendment and in opinions of this Court applying that Amendment. Findings of reasonableness, of course, are respected only insofar as consistent with federal constitutional guarantees. As we have stated above and in other cases involving federal constitutional rights, findings of state courts are by no means insulated against examination here. See, e. g., Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, 316 (1959); Thomas v. Arizona, 356 U. S. 390, 393 (1958); Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 358 (1939). While this Court does not sit as in nisi prius to appraise contradictory factual questions, it will, where necessary to the determination of constitutional rights, make an independent examination of the facts, the findings, and the record so that it can determine for itself whether in the decision as tó reasonableness the fundamental — i. e., constitutional — criteria established by this Court have been respected. The States are not thereby precluded from developing workable rules governing arrests, searches and seizures to meet “the practical demands of effective criminal investigation and law enforcement” in the States, provided that those rules do not violate the constitutional proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures and the concomitant command that evidence so seized is inadmissible against one who has standing to complain. See Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960). Such a standard implies no derogation of uniformity in applying federal constitutional guárantees but is only a recognition that conditions and circumstances vary just as do investigative and enforcement techniques.
Applying this federal constitutional standard we proceed to examine the entire record including the findings of California’s courts to determine whether the evidence seized from petitioners was constitutionally admissible under the circumstances of this case.
II.
The evidence at issue, in order to be admissible, must be the product of a search incident to a lawful arrest, since the officers had no search warrant. The lawfulness of the arrest without warrant, in turn, must be based upon probable cause, which exists “where ‘the facts and circumstances within their [the officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant.a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-176 (1949); quoting from Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 (1925); accord, People v. Fischer, 49 Cal. 2d 442, 317 P. 2d 967 (1957); Bompensiero. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. 2d 178, 281 P. 2d 250 (1955). The information within the knowledge of the officers at the time they arrived at the Kers’ apartment, as California’s courts specifically found, clearly furnished grounds for a reasonable belief that., petitioner George Ker had committed and was committing the offense of possession of marijuana. Officers Markman and Warthen observed a rendezvous between Murphy and Ker on the evening of the arrest which was a virtual reenactment of the previous night’s encounter between Murphy, Terrhagen and Sergeant Cook, which concluded in the sale by Murphy to Terrhagen and the Sergeant of a package of marijuana of which the latter had paid Terrhagen for one pound which he received from Terrhagen after the encounter with Murphy. To be sure, the distance and lack of light prevented the officers from seeing and they did not see any substance pass between the two men, but the virtual identity of the surrounding circumstances warranted a strong suspicion that the one remaining element — a sale of narcotics — was a part of this encounter as it was the previous night. But Ker’s arrest does not depend upon this single episode with Murphy. When Ker’s U-turn thwarted the officer’s pursuit, they learned his name and address from the Department of Motor Vehicles and reported the occurrence to Officer Berman. Berman, in turn, revealed information from an informer whose reliability had been tested previously, as well as from other sources, not only that Ker had been selling marijuana from his apartment but also that his likely- source of supply was Murphy himself. That this information was hearsay does not destroy its role in establishing probable cause. Brinegar v. United States, supra. In Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), we held that information from a reliable informer, corroborated by the agents’ observations as to the accuracy of the informer’s description of the accused and of his presence at a particular place, was sufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest without warrant. The corroborative elements in Draper were innocuous in themselves, but here both the informer’s tip and the personal observations connected 'Ker with specific illegal activities involving the same man, Murphy, a known marijuana dealer. To say that this coincidence of information was sufficient to support a reasonable belief of the officers that Ker was illegally in possession of marijuana is to indulge in understatement.
Probable cause for the arres’ of petitioner Diane Ker, while not present at the time the officers entered the apartment to arrest her husband, was nevertheless present. at the time of her arrest. Upon their entry and announcement of their identity, the officers were met not only by George Ker but also by Diane Ker, who was emerging from the kitchen. Officer Berman immediately walked to the doorway from which she emerged and, without entering, observed the brick-shaped package of marijuana in plain view. Even assuming that her presence in a small room with the contraband in a prominent position on the kitchen sink would not alone establish a reasonable ground for the officers’ belief that she was in joint possession with her husband, that fact was accompanied by the officers’ information that Ker had been using his apartment as a base of operations for his narcotics activities. Therefore, we cannot say that at the time- of her arrest there were not sufficient grounds for a reasonable belief that Diane Ker, as well as her husband, was committing the offense of possession of marijuana in the presence of the officers.
HI.
It is contended that the lawfulness of the petitioners’arrests, even if they were based upon probable cause, was vitiated by the method of entry. This Court, in cases under the Fourth Amendment, has long recognized that the lawfulness of arrests for federal offenses is to be determined by reference to state law insofar as it is not violative of the Federal Constitution. Miller v. United States, supra; United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 (1948); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 15, n. 5 (1948). A fortiori, the lawfulness of these arrests by state officers for state offenses is to be determined by California law. California Penal Code, § 844, permits peace officers to break into a dwelling place for the purpose of arrest after demanding admittance and explaining their purpose. Admittedly the officers did not comply with the terms of this statute since they entered quietly and without announcement, in order to prevent the destruction of contraband. The California District Court of Appeal, however, held that the circumstances here came within a judicial exception which had been engrafted upon the statute by a series of decisions, see, e. g., People v. Ruiz, 146 Cal. App. 2d 630, 304 P. 2d 175 (1956); People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 294 P. 2d 6, cert. denied, 352 U. S. 858 (1956), and that the noncompliance was therefore lawful.
Since the petitioners’ federal constitutional'protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by police officers is here to be determined by whether the search was incident to a lawful arrest, we are warranted in examining that arrest to determine whether, notwithstanding its legality under state law, the method of entering the home may offend federal constitutional standards of reasonableness and therefore vitiate the legality of an accompanying search. We find no such offensiveness on the facts here. Assuming that the officers’ entry by use of a key obtained from the manager is the legal equivalent of a “breaking,” see Keiningham v. United States, 109 U. S. App. D. C. 272, 276, 287 F. 2d 126, 130 (C. A. D. C. Cir. 1960), it has been recognized from the early common law that such breaking is permissible in executing an arrest under certain circumstances. See Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 541, 798, 800-806 (1924). Indeed, 18 U. S. C. § 3109, dealing with the execution of search warrants by federal officers, authorizes breaking of doors in words very similar to those of the California statute, both statutes including a requirement of notice of authority and purpose. In Miller v. United States, supra, this Court held unlawful an arrest, and therefore its accompanying search, on the ground that the District of Columbia officers before entering a dwelling did not fully satisfy the requirement of disclosing their identity and purpose. The Court stated that “the lawfulness of the arrest without warrant is to be determined by reference to state law.... By like reasoning the validity of the arrest of petitioner is to be determined by reference to the law of the District of Columbia.” 357 U. S., at 305-306. The parties there conceded and the Court accepted that the criteria for testing the arrest under District of Columbia law were “substantially identical” to the requirements' of § 3109. Id., at 306. Here, however, the criteria under California law clearly include an exception to the notice requirement where exigent circumstances are present. Moreover, insofar as violation of a federal statute required the exclusion of evidence in Miller, the case is inapposite for state prosecutions, where admissibility is governed by constitutional standards. Finally, the basis of the judicial exception to the California statute, as expressed by Justice Traynor in People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d, at 306, 294 P. 2d, at 9, effectively answers the petitioners’ contention:
“It must be borne in mind that the primary purpose of the constitutional guarantees is to prevent unreasonable invasions of the security of the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and when an officer has reasonable cause to enter a dwelling to make an arrest and as an incident to that arrest is authorized to make a reasonable search, his entry and his search are not unreasonable. Suspects have no constitutional right to destroy or dispose of evidence, and no basic constitutional guarantees are violated because' an officer succeeds in getting to a place where he is. entitled to be more quickly than he would, had he complied with section 844. Moreover, since the demand and ex-planation requirements of section 844 are a codification of the common law, they may reasonably be interpreted as limited by the common law rules that compliance is not required if the officer’s peril would have been increased or the arrest frustrated had he demanded entrance and stated his purpose. (Read v. Case, 4 Conn. 166, 170 [10 Am. Dec. 110]; see Rest., Torts, § 206, com. d.). Without the.benefit of hindsight and ordinarily on the spur of the moment, the officer must decide these questions in the first instance.”
No such exigent circumstances as would authorize noncompliance with the California statute were argued in Miller, and the Court expressly refrained from discussing the question, citing the Maddox case without disapproval. 357 U. S., at 309. Here justification for the officers’ failure to give notice is uniquely present. In addition to the officers’ belief that Ker was in possession of narcotics, which could be quickly and easily destroyed, Ker’s furtive conduct in eluding them shortly before the arrest was ground for the belief that he might well have been expecting the poíice. We therefore hold that in the particular circumstances of this case the officers’ method of entry, sanctioned by the law of California, was not unreasonable under the standards of the Fourth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
IV.
Having held the petitioners’ arrests lawful, it remains only to consider whether the search which produced the evidence leading, to their convictions was lawful as incident to those arrests. The doctrine that a search without warrant may be lawfully conducted if incident to a lawful arrest has. long been recognized as consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. See Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192 (1927); Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145 (1947); Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217 (1960); Kaplan, Search and Seizure: A No-Man’s Land in the Criminal Law, 49 Cal. L. Rev. 474, 490-493 (1961). The cases have imposed no requirement that the arrest be under authority of an arrest warrant, but only that it be lawful See Marron v. United States, supra, at 198-199; United States v. Rabinowitz, supra, at 61; cf. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30-31 (1925). The question remains whether the officers’ action here exceeded the recognized bounds of an incidental search.
Petitioners contend that the search was unreasonable in that the officers could practicably have obtained a search warrant. The practicability of obtaining a warrant is not the controlling factor when a search is sought to be justified as incident to arrest, United States v. Rabinowitz, supra; but we need not rest the validity of the search here on Rabinowitz, since we agree with the.California court that time clearly was of the essence. The officers’ observations and their corroboration, which furnished probable cause for George Ker’s arrest, occurred at about' 9 p. m., approximately one hour before the time of arrest. The officers had reason to act quickly because of Ker’s furtive conduct and the likelihood that the marijuana would be distributed or hidden before a warrant could be obtained at that time of night. Thus the facts bear no resemblance to those in Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699 (1948), where federal agents for three weeks had been in possession of knowledge sufficient to secure a search warrant.
The search of the. petitioners’ apartment was well within the limits upheld in Harris v. United States, supra, which also concerned a private apartment dwelling. The evidence here, unlike that in Harris, was the instrumentality of the very crime for which petitioners were arrested, and the record does not indicate that the search here was as extensive in time or in area as that upheld in Harris.
The petitioners’ only remaining contention is that the discovery of the brick of marijuana cannot be justified as incidental to arrest since it preceded the arrest. This contention is of course contrary to George Ker’s testimony, but we reject it in any event. While an arrest may not be used merely as the pretext for a search without warrant, the California court specifically found and the record supports both that the officers entered the apartment for the purpose of arresting George Ker and that they had probable cause to make that arrest prior to the entry. We cannot say that it was unreasonable for Officer Berman, upon seeing Diane Ker emerge from the kitchen, merely to walk to the doorway of that adjacent room. We thus agree with the California court’s holding that the discovery of-the brick of marijuana did not constitute a search, since the officer merely saw what was placed before him in full view. United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559 (1927); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 465 (1932); People v. West, 144 Cal. App. 2d 214, 300 P. 2d 729 (1956). Therefore, while California law does not require that an arrest precede an incidental search as. long as probable cause exists at the outset, Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 2d 291, 294 P. 2d 36 (1956), the California court did not rely on that rule and we need not reach the question of its status under the Federal Constitution.
V.
The petitioners state and the record bears out that the officers searched Diane Ker’s automobile on the day subsequent to her arrest. The reasonableness of that search, however, was not raised in the petition for certiorari, nor was-it discussed in the brief here. Ordinarily “[w]e do not reach for constitutional questions not raised by the parties,” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U. S. 201, 206, n. 5 (1954), nor extend our review beyond those specific federal questions properly raised in the state court. The record gives no indication that the'issue was raised in the trial court or in the District Court of Appeal, the latter court did not adjudicate it and we therefore find no reason to reach it on the record.
For these reasons the judgment of the California District Coúrt of Appeal is
Affirmed
This contention was initially raised^ prior to the trial. Section 995, California Penal Code, provides for a motion to set aside the information on the ground that the defendant has been committed without probable cause. Evidence on that issue was presented out of the presence of the jury, and, following the court’s denial of the motion, the petitioners were tried and convicted by the jury.
During the hearing on the § 995 motion, see note 1, supra, Black testified for the defense, admitting that he knew the petitioners but denying that he gave Officer Berman information about George Ker. Black first denied but then admitted that he had met with Officer Berman and another officer in 'whose presence Berman said the information about Ker was given.
Arresting Officers Berman and Warthen had been attached to the narcotics detail of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office for three and four years, respectively. Each had participated in hundreds of arrests involving marijuana. Warthen testified that on “many, many occasions'' in his experience with narcotics arrests “persons have flushed narcotics down toilets, pushed them down drains and sinks and many other methods of getting rid of them prior to my entrance.. :.''
For the reasons discussed in § V of this opinion, we find that, the validity of the search of the automobile is not before us and we therefore do not pass on it.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
“No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....”
Our holding as to enforceability of this federal constitutional rule against the States had its source in the following declaration in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27-28 (1949):
“The security of one’s privacy against arbitrary instrusion by the police — which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment — is... implicit in ‘the concept of ordered liberty’ and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause.”
In Draper the arrest upon probable cause was authorized under 26 U. S. C. § 7607
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1978 the Secretary of Labor promulgated “interim regulations” to govern the processing of claims for black lung benefits filed between July 1, 1973, and April 1, 1980. See 20 CFR pt. 727 (1987). Section 203 of those regulations prescribes five ways in which a claimant may prove that he is entitled to an “interim presumption” of eligibility. The question in this case concerns the burden of proof that the claimant must satisfy to invoke the presumption. The Court of Appeals held, Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 785 F. 2d 424 (CA4 1986) (en banc), that a single item of qualifying evidence is always sufficient whereas the Secretary of Labor contends that his regulation requires the claimant to establish at least one of the five qualifying facts by a preponderance of the evidence. Because we are not persuaded that the Secretary has misread his own regulation, we reverse.
I
Although some aspects of the black lung benefits program are rather complex, its broad outlines and relevant statutory provisions can be briefly described. Prolonged exposure to coal dust has subjected hundreds of thousands of coal miners to pneumoconiosis — a serious and progressive pulmonary condition popularly known as “black lung.” The tragic consequences of this crippling illness prompted Congress to authorize a special program for the benefit of its victims in 1969. Because that program has been developed through several statutory enactments, different rules govern claims filed during different periods of time. Those filed prior to July 1, 1973, were processed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); when allowed, these “Part B” claims were paid from federal funds. “Part C” claims are those filed on or after July 1, 1973; they are paid by private employers or by a fund to which the employers contribute, and they are administered by the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (the Director) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary). Part C of the program includes two subparts: claims filed after April 1, 1980, which are governed by “permanent criteria,” and those filed prior to April 1, 1980, which are governed by the “interim regulations” at issue in this case. Despite the “interim” designation, these regulations are extremely important because they apply to about 10,000 pending claims.
There is no dispute about the Secretary’s authority to promulgate the interim regulations. Nor is there any suggestion that they violate any express statutory command. The statute does require the Secretary to establish criteria for eligibility that “shall not be more restrictive than” the criteria that the Secretary of HEW had established for the administration of the Part B program, but the Court of Appeals did not hold that § 203 violates this standard. The statute also requires that “all relevant evidence” shall be considered, but it is clear that the regulation is consistent with that requirement — the only dispute is over how much of the relevant evidence may be considered in determining whether the interim presumption shall be invoked. Thus, there is no need to parse statutory language to decide this case.
The Court of Appeals’ holding rests, at bottom, on two propositions: (1) the regulation’s plain language mandates that the presumption be invoked on the basis of a single item of qualifying evidence; and (2) the Secretary’s reading is not faithful to the purposes of the program as reflected in its legislative history. We shall consider each of these propositions after reviewing the substance of the regulation and the facts of the one case that presents the legal question we must decide.
II
Disability benefits are payable to a miner if (a) he or she is totally disabled, (b) the disability was caused, at least in part, by pneumoconiosis, and (c) the disability arose out of coal mine employment. All three of these conditions of eligibility are presumed if the claimant was engaged in coal mine employment for at least 10 years and if the claimant meets one of four medical requirements: (1) a chest X ray establishes the presence of pneumoconiosis; (2) ventilatory studies establish the presence of a respiratory or pulmonary disease — not necessarily pneumoconiosis — of a specified severity; (3) blood gas studies demonstrate the presence of an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lungs to the blood; or (4) other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasonable medical judgment, establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory impairment. It is noteworthy that only the first of the four alternative methods of invoking the presumption requires proof that the claimant’s disease is in fact pneumoconiosis. None of the methods requires proof of causation, and only the fourth requires proof of total disability.
The second paragraph in the regulation describes how the presumption may be rebutted. It first provides that in the adjudication of a claim, “all relevant medical evidence shall be considered. ” It then provides that the presumption is rebutted if the evidence establishes that the claimant is doing or is capable of doing his usual or comparable work, that his disability did not arise, even in part, out of coal mine employment, or that he does not have pneumoconiosis. Thus, in order to rebut the interim presumption the employer has the burden of proving that at least one of the three conditions of eligibility is not satisfied.
Ill
Respondent Ray filed a claim for disability benefits with the Secretary in 1976. At the hearing before the ALJ, he proved that he had 16 years of coal mine employment. The ALJ placed 47 exhibits from the Director’s file into evidence, and the employer introduced four additional exhibits. The record contained one qualifying X-ray interpretation, two qualifying ventilatory studies, and one qualifying physician’s opinion. The record, however, also included seven nonqualifying X-ray interpretations, four nonqualifying ventilatory studies, and five nonqualifying physicians’ opinions. After weighing the X-ray evidence, the ALJ concluded that it did not establish that Ray had pneumoconiosis, and after balancing all the ventilatory studies, he concluded that they did not establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease. Additionally, the ALJ found that the other medical evidence, including documented physicians’ opinions, did not establish the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. He therefore held that Ray was not entitled to the benefit of the interim presumption.
The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s order denying benefits. It first noted that Ray’s “contention that subsection (a)(1) must be invoked where the record contains a single positive X-ray has previously been considered and rejected,” and it agreed with the ALJ’s evaluation of the X-ray evidence and ventilatory studies. Finally, while disagreeing with some of the ALJ’s reasoning, the Board reviewed and approved the ALJ’s weighing of the physicians’ opinions in the employer’s favor.
The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings. It held that the interim presumption had been invoked under § (a)(2) by the two qualifying ventilatory studies and under § (a)(4) by the one qualifying physician’s opinion. The court did not rely on the positive X-ray interpretation because it was not sufficiently identified to satisfy the requirements for X-ray evidence under §718.102(c) of the Secretary’s regulation. The court reversed the Board’s denial of benefits and remanded for the ALJ to determine whether the presumption had been rebutted. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1029 (1987), to resolve the question presented by this case: whether one item of qualifying evidence is always sufficient to invoke the interim presumption and thereby shift the burden of persuasion to the employer.
IV
The Court of Appeals held that “the interim presumption under § 727.203(a)(1), (2), or (3) is established when there is credible evidence that a qualifying X-ray indicates the presence of pneumoconiosis, a single qualifying set of ventilatory studies indicates, pursuant to the regulatory standard, a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease, or a single qualifying set of blood gas studies indicates, pursuant to the regulatory standard, an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lungs to the blood.” 785 F. 2d, at 426. The principal basis for this holding was the court’s view that the plain language of the regulation makes it clear that a single positive X ray necessarily invokes the presumption. In advancing that view, however, the court did not pause to consider the significance of the word “establishes” in § (a)(1). It read § (a)(1) as though it merely required a chest X ray that constitutes evidence of the presence of pneumoconiosis rather than one that actually “establishes” the presence of the disease.
The Secretary’s regulations, however, recognize the difference between an X ray that tends to prove the presence of pneumoconiosis and one that can be said to establish it. Thus, in contrast to the use of the word “establishes” throughout § 727.203(a), the regulation defining the suitable quality of X-ray evidence refers to an X ray that “shall constitute evidence of the presence or absence of pneumoconiosis.” The Court of Appeals read § 203(a)(1) as though it merely required an X ray that “constitutes evidence of the presence of pneumoconiosis.” Had that been the Secretary’s intent, presumably he would have used that language as he did elsewhere to explain that meaning.
There is another reason why § (a)(1) cannot have been intended to refer to a single item of evidence. For the ordinary trier of fact — even an ALJ who has heard many black lung benefit cases — an X ray may well be meaningless unless it is interpreted by a qualified expert. What may be persuasive to the ALJ, then, is not just the X ray itself, but its interpretation by a specialist. And, of course, different experts may provide different readings of the same X ray. As Judge Posner has observed:
“Under the regulation it is not the reading, but the X-ray, that establishes the presumption. If one doctor interprets an X-ray as positive for black-lung disease but 100 equally qualified doctors interpret the same X-ray as negative for the disease, nothing in the regulation requires the administrative law judge to disregard the negative readings.” Cook v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 816 F. 2d 1182, 1185 (CA7 1987).
Thus, it seems perfectly clear that it is not the X ray in isolation that “establishes” the presence of the disease; rather, the regulation must, at a minimum, have reference both to the X ray itself and to other evidence that sheds light on the meaning and significance of the X ray. Just as the ALJ must weigh conflicting interpretations of the same X ray in order to determine whether it tends to prove or disprove the existence of pneumoconiosis, there would seem to be no reason why he must ignore all X rays in a series except one.
The Court of Appeals relied in large part on perceived internal inconsistencies in the Secretary’s interpretation. In the rebuttal section, the regulation provides that in “adjudicating a claim under this subpart, all relevant medical evidence shall be considered.” The Court of Appeals interpreted this statement as requiring all relevant evidence to be considered on rebuttal. Since the Secretary’s reading would make some evidence inadmissible for certain aspects of rebuttal, the Court of Appeals thought that reading violated the requirement that “all relevant medical evidence shall be considered.”
We disagree, for two reasons. First, nothing in the Secretary’s position prevents “all relevant medical evidence” from being considered at some point during the proof process. To understand why this requirement was inserted at the beginning of the rebuttal section, it is important to understand its derivation. After the SSA adopted its interim presumption, its claims approval rate increased, in part due, it is thought, to factfinders failing to consider all of the employers’ relevant medical evidence. To assure that this problem would not infect adjudications under the new Labor interim presumption, the requirement of 30 U. S. C. § 923(b) that all relevant medical evidence be considered in adjudicating SSA claims was explicitly carried over into the Labor presumption’s rebuttal section. Thus, that the “all relevant medical evidence” requirement appears at the beginning of the rebuttal section reflects the genesis of the concern and does not indicate that the drafters intended a more limited evidentiary battle at the invocation stage. As long as relevant evidence will be considered at some point by the AL J, the demand that the decision be made on the complete record is satisfied.
Second, the cited provision refers to “adjudicating a claim under this subpart,” and a “subpart” “may be used to group related sections in a part.” 1 CFR § 21.9(b) (1987). All of 20 CFR § 727.203 (1987), the interim presumption, is within subpart C of part 727. Thus, nothing in the regulation requires all relevant medical evidence to be considered at the rebuttal phase; such evidence must simply be admissible at some point during the proof process.
The Court of Appeals was persuaded as well that some of the rebuttal provisions would be superfluous under the Secretary’s reading. For instance, if the claimant invokes the presumption by establishing the existence of pneumoconiosis under § (a)(1), the employer may not try to disprove pneumoconiosis under § (b)(4). This limitation on rebuttal, according to the Court of Appeals, renders the Secretary’s position internally inconsistent.
Again, we are constrained to disagree. Nothing in the regulation requires each rebuttal subsection to be fully available in each case. As long as the employer can introduce, say, nonqualifying X rays at the invocation stage to oppose invocation under § (a)(1), it has been given the chance to show the nonexistence of pneumoconiosis. If the presumption is nonetheless invoked, the employer can still try to disprove total disability or causality.
Finally, there is some concern that the Secretary’s position might permit a single negative X-ray interpretation to carry the day for the employer, in violation of the statute’s mandate that “no claim for benefits... shall be denied solely on the basis of the results of [an X ray].” § 923(b) (made applicable to Part C adjudications through § 902(f)(2)). The easy answer was provided by the dissent below: “a single negative X-ray may not... be drawn upon either as the sole basis for finding the invocation burden under (a)(1) not carried nor as the sole basis for finding the rebuttal burden under (b)(4) carried.” 785 F. 2d, at 445 (emphases added). Furthermore, in weighing conflicting X-ray readings ALJs will undoubtedly keep in mind the character of the black lung disease:
“Since pneumoconiosis is a progressive and irreversible disease, early negative X-ray readings are not inconsistent with significantly later positive readings.... This proposition is not applicable where the factual pattern is reversed. In a situation... where the more recent X-ray evidence is negative and directly conflicting with earlier positive X-rays it may be weighed with less regard to timing in light of the recognized principle that negative X-ray readings are not a trustworthy indicator of the absence of the disease.” Elkins v. Beth-Elkhorn Corp., 2 BLR 1-683, 1-686 (Ben. Rev. Bd. 1979).
In sum, we find the Secretary’s interpretation of his own regulation entirely consistent with its text.
V
The Court of Appeals’ holding that a single item of qualifying evidence always suffices to carry a claimant’s invocation burden was based in part on its understanding of the legislative history of the black lung benefits statutes. 785 F. 2d, at 457-461. This conclusion is based on the clear congressional mandate for interim presumptions to reduce the number of benefit denials by both the SSA and Labor. While we agree that Congress did intend to ensure fewer benefit denials, we are not persuaded either that that goal has been frustrated by the Secretary’s interpretation of the regulation, or that Congress intended more specifically to require invocation of the presumption based solely on one item of a claimant’s proof.
In the early years of the benefits program, the SSA denied a high number of claims because of a perceived lack of proof of totally disabling pneumoconiosis due to coal mine employment. Congress mandated liberalized standards, and the SSA established an interim presumption to carry out this directive. § 410.490(b). In so doing, the SSA explained the problems with the prior scheme and the virtues of the new one:
“In enacting the Black Lung Act of 1972, the Congress noted that adjudication of the large backlog of claims generated by the earlier law could not await the establishment of facilities and development of medical tests not presently available to evaluate disability due to pneumoconiosis, and that such claims must be handled under present circumstances in the light of limited medical resources and techniques. Accordingly, the Congress stated its expectancy that the Secretary would adopt such interim evidentiary rules and disability evaluation criteria as would permit prompt and vigorous processing of the large backlog of claims consistent with the language and intent of the 1972 amendments and that such rules and criteria would give full consideration to the combined employment handicap of disease and age and provide for the adjudication of claims on the basis of medical evidence other than physical performance tests when it is not feasible to provide such tests. The provisions of this section establish such interim evidentiary rules and criteria. They take full account of the congressional expectation that in many instances it is not feasible to require extensive pulmonary function testing to measure the total extent of an individual’s breathing impairment, and that an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lung alveoli to cellular level can exist in an individual even though his chest roentgenogram (X-ray) or ventilatory function tests are normal.” § 410.490(a).
The SSA implemented this congressional desire to ease claimants’ proof burdens by promulgating the interim presumption that serves as the antecedent to the one at issue in this case. The presumption, applicable to claims filed with the SSA before July 1, 1973, provides that a miner is presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if two conditions are met: First, either “[a] chest... X-ray... establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis” or “[i]n the case of a miner employed for at least 15 years in underground or comparable coal mine employment, ventilatory studies establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease....” § 410.490(b)(1); second, “[t]he impairment established in accordance with [either of these medical requirements] arose out of coal mine employment.” § 410.490(b)(2). Additionally, “a miner who meets the [ventilatory studies] medical requirements... will be presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment... if he has at least 10 years of the requisite coal mine employment.” § 410.490(b)(3).
The SSA’s interim rules further provide that the presumption can be rebutted if either “[t]here is evidence that the individual is, in fact, doing his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work” or “[o]ther evidence, including physical performance tests..., establishes] that the individual is able to do his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work.” § 410.490(c).
As the SSA’s claims approval rate increased, Labor’s remained low, in large part because of the absence of an interim presumption by which a claimant would only have to prove one predicate fact. The interim presumption at issue in this case, promulgated as a result of congressional dissatisfaction with Labor’s low claims approval rate, is substantially similar to the SSA interim presumption. It satisfies Congress’ demand that Labor’s criteria “shall not be more restrictive than the criteria applicable to a claim filed on June 30, 1973,” 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(2), i. e., no more restrictive than the SSA’s interim presumption.
Since Labor’s interim presumption derived so directly from the SSA’s, if the Court of Appeals’ conclusion regarding single-item invocation were correct, one would expect to find SSA AL J decisions permitting invocation in such a manner, and federal court opinions indicating approval. Instead, federal court decisions routinely referred to SSA AL J invocation weighings without objection, and often with explicit approval. Thus, the legislative history of the Labor interim presumption does not establish that invocation must occur on a single piece of qualifying evidence.
VI
Under either the Court of Appeals’ or the Secretary’s interpretation of the regulation, a single item of qualifying evidence may be sufficient to invoke the presumption. Indeed, the authors of the regulation apparently expected that the presumption would regularly be invoked on the basis of a single item of qualifying evidence. Reasoning from that expectation, the Court of Appeals concluded that the presumption must be invoked whenever the record contains a single item of qualifying evidence. But as we have demonstrated above, that conclusion is compelled by neither the text nor the history of the regulation.
Nor is it compelled by the underlying basis for the presumption. For black lung benefits presumptions, no less than any presumption established or recognized in law, are the product of both factual understandings and policy concerns. As a matter of fact, Congress could reasonably have concluded that it is highly probable that a person who engaged in coal mine employment for over a decade is totally disabled as a result of pneumoconiosis arising from that employment if he or she can prove any of the medical requirements specified in the regulation. That degree of probability is not, however, present when the claimant is merely in a position to offer a single item of qualifying evidence that is overcome by more reliable conflicting evidence.
As a matter of policy, Congress was aware that it is difficult for coal miners whose health has been impaired by the insidious effects of their work environment to prove that their diseases are totally disabling and coal mine related, or that those diseases are in fact pneumoconiosis. Rather than merely providing a benefit for those miners who could prove each of the relevant facts by a preponderance of the evidence, Congress intended that those long-term miners who can show that they are truly diseased should have to prove no more. But if a miner is not actually suffering from the type of ailment with which Congress was concerned, there is no justification for presuming that that miner is entitled to benefits. For not only does that miner fall outside the class of those who need the assistance of an interim presumption, but he also is unlikely to be totally disabled from coal mine employment. By requiring miners to show that they suffer from the sort of medical impairment that initially gave rise to congressional concern, and then by requiring employers to shoulder the remainder of the proof burden, the Secretary’s reading of the interim presumption’s invocation burden satisfies both the purposes of the statute and the need for a logical connection between the proven fact and the presumed conclusion.
In the end, the Secretary’s view is not only eminently reasonable but also is strongly supported by the fact that Labor wrote the regulation. The agency’s interpretation, which is deserving of substantial deference “unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation,” Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945), has been, with one exception, consistently maintained through Board decisions. Likewise, prior to the Court of Appeals decision in this ease, the Courts of Appeals had routinely reviewed for substantial evidence the factfinder’s invocation determination under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Accordingly, there is no reason to downgrade the normal deference accorded to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U. S. 29 (1983).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 792, 30 U. S. C. § 801 et seq., was amended by the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 150, 30 U. S. C. §901 et seq., the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977, 92 Stat. 11, the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, 92 Stat. 95, the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981, 95 Stat. 1643, the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1981, 95 Stat. 1635, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99-272, § 13203(a)(d), 100 Stat. 312, 313.
Part B of the Act is codified at 30 U. S. C. § 921 et seq.
Part C is codified at 30 U. S. C. § 931 et seq.
See 20 CFR pt. 718 and § 725.4(a) (1987).
See 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(1). As the Court of Appeals noted:
“The statute... leaves to the Secretary how the presumption is to be triggered and rebutted and how the various burdens of persuasion and production are to be allocated between the claimant and the employer.” Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 785 F. 2d 424, 433 (CA4 1986) (en banc).
See 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(2).
The statute provides, in part:
“In carrying out the provisions of this part, the Secretary shall to the maximum extent feasible (and consistent with the provisions of this part) utilize the personnel and procedures he uses in determining entitlement to disability insurance benefit payments under section 223 of the Social Security Act [42 U. S. C. §423], but no claim for benefits under this part shall be denied solely on the basis of the results of a chest roentgenogram [X ray]. In determining the validity of claims under this part, all relevant evidence shall be considered, including, where relevant, medical tests such as blood gas studies, X-ray examination, electrocardiogram, pulmonary function studies, or physical performance tests, and any medical history, evidence submitted by the claimant’s physician, or his wife’s affidavits, and in the case of a deceased miner, other appropriate affidavits of persons with knowledge of the miner’s physical condition, and other supportive materials.” § 923(b) (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals was of the view that the regulation itself requires all relevant evidence to be considered on rebuttal, and that the Secretary’s reading violated this requirement. See infra, at 149. To the extent that the presumption is made irrebuttable under the Secretary’s reading, see infra, at 149-150, and n. 26, the court thought the statutory requirement that “all relevant evidence” shall be considered violated as well. See 785 F. 2d, at 434. This conclusion is clearly incorrect, for the same reasons that the court’s conclusion regarding the regulation is incorrect. See infra, at 149-150. In short, the opportunity, under the Secretary’s reading, to present relevant evidence at the invocation stage, satisfies the statutory requirement that “all relevant evidence” shall be considered.
The resolution of the legal question apparently will not affect two of the individual respondents. Even though the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that respondent Gerald R. Stapleton had properly invoked the interim presumption, he also concluded that it had been rebutted. The Court of Appeals majority agreed with that analysis, and the dissent, adopting the Secretary’s approach, agreed with the result on the ground that the presumption should not have been invoked. For respondent Glenn Cornett, the ALJ found that the presumption had been properly invoked and that it had not been rebutted. Both the majority and the dissent agreed with those conclusions. With respect to respondent Luke R. Ray, however, the majority disagreed with the ALJ’s determination that the presumption had not been properly invoked, and remanded for a determination whether the presumption was rebutted. The dissent agreed with the ALJ, and would have affirmed the denial of benefits.
We think it helpful at this point to add a note about the posture of the parties to this case. The petitioners, who filed a joint petition pursuant to this Court’s Rule 19.4, are Mullins Coal Co., the Old Republic Insurance Co., and Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. Mullins and Jewell Ridge employed, respectively, respondents Cornett and Ray, both of whom were victorious before the Court of Appeals, but only one of whom, Ray, has filed a brief in this Court. Old Republic is Mullins’ black lung benefits insurance carrier. In addition to Cornett and Ray, respondents are: the Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, who administers the Department of Labor’s (Labor) black lung benefits program and whose brief lays out the Secretary’s position challenging the Court of Appeals’ conclusion regarding a claimant’s invocation burden; Gerald R. Stapleton, whose benefits denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, see Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., supra, and who attacks that judgment as a respondent pursuant to Rule 19.6; and Westmoreland Coal Co., who employed Stapleton and is thus happy with the result below, but who is unhappy with the ramifications of the Court of Appeals’ decision and has accordingly filed a brief in support of petitioners, also pursuant to Rule 19.6.
A fifth alternative, available in a death benefit claim, is not at issue in this case. See 20 CFR § 727.203(a)(5) (1987), quoted in n. 10, infra.
The full text of § 727.203(a) reads as follows:
“(a) Establishing interim presumption. A miner who engaged in coal mine employment for at least 10 years will be presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis, or to have been totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis at the time of death, or death will be presumed to be due to pneumoconiosis, arising out of that employment, if one of the following medical requirements is met:
“(1) A chest roentgenogram (X-ray), biopsy, or autopsy establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis (see §410.428 of this title);
“(2) Ventilatory studies establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease (which meets the requirements for duration in § 410.412(a)(2) of this title) as demonstrated by values which are equal to or less than the values specified in the following table:
Equal to or less than—
FEV MW
2.3 92 67" or less.
2.4 96 68"...........
2.4 96 69"...........
2.5 100 70"...........
2.6 104 71"...........
2.6 104 72"...........
2.7 108 73" or more
“(3) Blood gas studies which demonstrate the presence of an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lung alveoli to the blood as indicated by values which are equal to or less than the values specified in the following table:
Arterial pCOz equal to or less than (mm.Hg.)
Arterial pO¡
30 or below.................................................. 70
31............................................................... 69
32............................................................... 68
33............................................................... 67
34..... 66
35..... 65
36..... 64
37..... 63
38..... 62
39..... 61
40-45 60
Above 45..................................................... Any value.
“(4) Other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasoned medical judgment, establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment;
“(5) In the case of a deceased miner where no medical evidence is available, the affidavit of the survivor of such miner or other persons with knowledge of the miner’s physical condition, demonstrates the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment.”
The full text of § 727.203(b) reads as follows:
“(b) Rebuttal of interim presumption. In adjudicating a claim under this subpart, all relevant medical evidence shall be considered. The presumption in paragraph (a) of this section shall be rebutted if:
“(1) The evidence establishes that the individual is, in fact, doing his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work (see § 410.412(a)(1) of this title); or
“(2) In light of all relevant evidence it is established that the individual is able to do his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work (see § 410.412(a)(1) of this title); or
“(3) The evidence establishes that the total disability or death of the miner did not arise in whole or in part out of coal mine employment; or
“(4) The evidence establishes that the miner does not, or did not, have pneumoconiosis.”
Petitioners agree that the employer’s rebuttal burden is one of proof as well as production. The Secretary also takes the position that the presumption should be invoked in cases of “true doubt” — that is, if the claimant’s and employer’s invocation evidence is of equal weight. Brief for Federal Respondent 33, 39. This position ensures that the employer will win, on invocation or rebuttal, only when its evidence is stronger than the claimant’s. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) “has consistently upheld the principle that, where true doubt exists, that doubt shall be resolved in favor of the claimant.” Lessar v. C. F. & I. Steel Corp., 3 BLR 1-63, 1-68 (1981).
Medical evidence is initially submitted to the Director by the claimant and the employer, and through examinations and tests ordered by the Director himself. See §§ 725.2(b) and 725.404 et seq. When a hearing is requested or ordered, all evidence previously submitted to the Director becomes part of the hearing record. See § 725.421(b)(4).
The Court of Appeals used the term “qualifying” to refer to positive medical evidence that would suffice, absent contrary evidence of the same type, to invoke the presumption. For example, an X ray that disclosed pneumoconiosis (§ (a)(1)) or ventilatory studies that revealed a respiratory or pulmonary impairment of sufficient magnitude (§ (a)(2)) would constitute qualifying evidence. Conversely, negative X-ray results or ventilatory studies that failed to reveal a great enough impairment would be deemed “nonqualifying” evidence.
That Ray did not object to the nonqualifying evidence contained in these exhibits is of no moment; what matters in this case is not whether nonqualifying evidence may be introduced into the record (all parties agree it may), but when that evidence may be considered. During Ray’s hearing, the ALJ simply admitted all relevant evidence and took testimony. It was only in his written decision that the ALJ revealed whether he considered nonqualifying evidence during invocation or only on rebuttal.
“I give greatest weight to the seven negative X-rays, three of which were read by qualified ‘B’ readers. (Dir. Exbs. 24, 25, 26) I conclude that the X-ray evidence does not establish that Claimant has pneumoconiosis. 20 CFR § 727.203(a)(1).” App. to Pet. for Cert. 129a.
“ ‘B’ readers are radiologists who have demonstrated their proficiency in assessing and classifying X-ray evidence of pneumoconiosis by successful completion of an examination conducted by or on behalf of the Department of Health & Human Services.” Consolidation Coal Co. v. Chubb, 741 F. 2d 968, 971, n. 2 (CA7 1984).
“The more recent ventilatory studies performed
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We decide in this case whether a federal court of appeals may review a district court order remanding a bankruptcy case to state court on grounds of untimely removal.
I
Respondent commenced this action in March 1992 by filing a four-count complaint against Child World, Inc., and Cole National Corporation in the Court of Common Pleas in Summit County, Ohio. The state action charged Child World with failure to pay rent under two commercial leases. The complaint also sought to enforce Cole’s guarantee of Child World’s performance under the leases. Petitioner is Cole’s successor in interest.
On May 6,1992, Child World filed a Chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 25, 1992, petitioner filed notices of removal in both the United States District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Northern District of Ohio. Petitioner based its removal on the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1452(a), as well as the general federal removal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a). Petitioner also filed a motion in the District Court to transfer venue to the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, so that respondent’s guaranty claims could be resolved in the same forum as the underlying lease claims against Child World. Respondent countered by filing motions to remand in the District Court on October 23, 1992, and in the Bankruptcy Court on November 25, 1992.
The District Court consolidated all proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court on March 25, 1993. The Bankruptcy Court held that petitioner’s removal was untimely under 28 U. S. C. § 1452(a) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027 but that the action had been timely removed under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1441 and 1446. The court concluded that removal was proper and that it had jurisdiction over the removed case. The court then granted petitioner’s motion to transfer venue to the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.
Respondent appealed to the District Court in the Northern District of Ohio. The District Court found removal under both §§ 1441(a) and 1452(a) to be untimely and held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction over the case. The District Court reversed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court and remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with the District Court’s opinion.
Petitioner appealed the District Court’s order to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In an unpublished disposition, the Sixth Circuit held that §§ 1447(d) and 1452(b) barred appellate review of the District Court’s remand order. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Judgt. order reported at 65 F. 3d 169 (1994). We granted certiorari, 514 U. S. 1095 (1995), and now affirm.
II
Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to review district court orders remanding removed cases to state court. The general statutory provision governing the reviewability of remand orders is 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d). That section provides:
“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”
As we explained in Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermans-dorfer, 423 U. S. 336 (1976), § 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d). Id., at 345-346. As long as a district court’s remand is based on a timely raised defect in removal procedure or on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — the grounds for remand recognized by § 1447(c) — a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the remand order under § 1447(d).
Section 1447(d) bars appellate review of the remand order in this case. As noted, § 1447(d) precludes appellate review of any order “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed.” The parties do not dispute that the District Court’s order remanded this case to the Ohio state court from which it came. There is also no dispute that the District Court remanded this case on grounds of untimely removal, precisely the type of removal defect contemplated by § 1447(c). Section 1447(d) thus compels the conclusion that the District Court’s order is “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” See Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U. S. 723 (1977) (per curiam).
We reach the same conclusion regardless of whether removal was effected pursuant to § 1441(a) or § 1452(a). Section 1447(d) applies “not only to remand orders made in suits removed under [the general removal statute], but to orders of remand made in cases removed under any other statutes, as well.” United States v. Rice, 327 U. S. 742, 752 (1946) (emphasis added). Absent a clear statutory command to the contrary, we assume that Congress is “aware of the universality of th[e] practice” of denying appellate review of remand orders when Congress creates a new ground for removal. Ibid.
There is no express indication in § 1452 that Congress intended that statute to be the exclusive provision governing removals and remands in bankruptcy. Nor is there any reason to infer from § 1447(d) that Congress intended to exclude bankruptcy cases from its coverage. The fact that §1452 contains its own provision governing certain types of remands in bankruptcy, see § 1452(b) (authorizing remand on “any equitable ground” and precluding appellate review of any decision to remand or not to remand on this basis), does not change our conclusion. There is no reason §§ 1447(d) and 1452 cannot comfortably coexist in the bankruptcy context. We must, therefore, give effect to both. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253 (1992).
If an order remands a bankruptcy case to state court because of a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, then a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review that order under § 1447(d), regardless of whether the case was removed under § 1441(a) or § 1452(a). The remand at issue falls squarely within § 1447(d), and the order is not reviewable on appeal.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section 1452 provides:
“(a) A party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action ... to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under section 1334 of this title.
“(b) The court to which such claim or cause of action is removed may remand such claim or cause of action on any equitable ground. An order entered under this subsection remanding a claim or cause of action, or a decision to not remand, is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals ... or by the Supreme Court...
The District Court’s order left the Bankruptcy Court with no option but to remand the case to state court. The parties and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit are in agreement that the District Court’s order in this case was equivalent to a remand to state court.
Section 1447(c) requires that a motion to remand for a defect in removal procedure be filed within 30 days of removal. Petitioner removed this case to federal court on September 25, 1992. Respondent filed motions to remand in the District Court on October 23, 1992, and in the Bankruptcy Court on November 25, 1992. Respondent’s motion to remand filed in the District Court was sufficient to bring this case within the coverage of § 1447(c).
Rice interpreted the predecessor statute to § 1447(d). The current version of § 1447(d) is a recodification of the provision reviewed in Rice and is “intended to restate the prior law with respect to remand orders and their reviewability.” Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U. S. 336, 349-350 (1976).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On November 10, 1954, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed an application under the Immunity Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 745, 18 U. S. C. (Supp. II) § 3486, for an order requiring petitioner to testify before a grand jury. The Immunity Act, in its pertinent portions, provides:
“(c) Whenever in the judgment of a United States attorney the testimony of any witness, or the production of books, papers, or other evidence by any witness, in any case or proceeding before any grand jury or court of the United States involving any interference with or endangering of, or any plans or attempts to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States by treason, sabotage, espionage, sedition, seditious conspiracy, violations of chapter 115 of title 18 of the United States Code, violations of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 987), violations of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 755), as amended, violations of sections 212 (a) (27), (28), (29) or 241 (a)(6), (7) or 313 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 182-186; 204-206; 240-241), and conspiracies involving any of the foregoing, is necessary to the public interest, he, upon the approval of the Attorney General, shall make application to the court that the witness shall be instructed to testify or produce evidence subject to the provisions of this section, and upon order of the court such witness shall not be excused from testifying or from producing books, papers, or other evidence on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no such witness shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, nor shall testimony so compelled be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding (except prosecution described in subsection (d) hereof) against him in any court.
“(d) No witness shall be exempt under the provision of this section from prosecution for perjury or contempt committed while giving testimony or producing evidence under compulsion as provided in this section.”
In his application the United States Attorney alleged the following facts. On November 3, 1954, petitioner, pursuant to subpoena, appeared before a duly constituted grand jury of the Southern District of New York which was investigating matters concerned with attempts to endanger the national security by espionage and conspiracy to commit espionage. The grand jury asked him a series of questions relating to his knowledge of such activities, to his and other persons’ participation in such activities, and to his and other persons’ membership in the Communist Party. Petitioner, invoking the privilege against self-incrimination, refused to answer the questions. The United States Attorney also asserted that he deemed the testimony necessary to the public interest of the United States, and annexed a letter from the Attorney General of the United States approving the application. The United States Attorney, in compliance with a request of the district judge, filed an affidavit asserting his own good faith in filing the application.
Petitioner, contesting the application, attacked the constitutionality of the Act and urged that, if the immunity statute be held constitutional, the District Court should, in the exercise of its discretion, deny the application. He filed an affidavit setting forth in detail experiences with agents of the Department of Justice and congressional investigating committees and other information in support of his plea for an exercise of discretion by the District Court. The Government in reply filed affidavits denying some of the allegations set forth in petitioner’s affidavit.
On January 31, 1955, the District Court sustained the constitutionality of the statute. 128 F. Supp. 617. Its order, dated February 8, 1955, instructed petitioner “to answer the questions propounded to him before the Grand Jury and to testify and produce evidence with respect to such matters under inquiry before said Grand Jury . . . .” Petitioner appealed from this order, but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal on the authority of Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323.
Petitioner again refused to answer the questions which the District Court had ordered him to answer. He was then brought before the District Court and, on stipulation that he had refused to obey the order of the court of February 8, he was convicted of contempt and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment unless he should purge himself of the contempt. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 221 F. 2d 760. The importance of the questions at issue, in view of the differences between the legislation sustained in Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and the Act under review, led us to bring the case here. 349 U. S. 951.
Four major questions are raised by this appeal: Is the immunity provided by the Act sufficiently broad to displace the protection afforded by the privilege against self-in crimination? Assuming that the statutory requirements are met, does the Act give the district judge discretion to deny an application for an order requiring a witness to answer relevant questions put by the grand jury, and, if so, is the court thereby required to exercise a function that is not an exercise of “judicial Power”? Did Congress provide immunity from state prosecution for crime, and, if so, is it empowered to do so? Does the Fifth Amendment prohibit compulsion of what would otherwise be self-incriminating testimony no matter what the scope of the immunity statute?
It is relevant to define explicitly the spirit in which the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination should be approached. This command of the Fifth Amendment (“nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .”) registers an important advance in the development of our liberty — “one of the great landmarks in man’s struggle to make himself civilized.” Time has not shown that protection from the evils against which this safeguard was directed is needless or unwarranted. This constitutional protection must not be interpreted in a hostile or niggardly spirit. Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege. Such a view does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States. The Founders of the Nation were not naive or disregardful of the interests of justice. The difference between them and those who deem the privilege an obstruction to due inquiry has been appropriately indicated by Chief Judge Magruder:
“Our forefathers, when they wrote this provision into the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, had in mind a lot of history which has been largely forgotten to-day. See VIII Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 2250 et seq.; Morgan, The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 34 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (1949). They made a judgment and expressed it in our fundamental law, that it were better for an occasional crime to go unpunished than that the prosecution should be free to build up a criminal case, in whole or in part, with the assistance of enforced disclosures by the accused. The privilege against self-incrimination serves as a protection to the innocent as well as to the guilty, and we have been admonished that it should be given a liberal application. Hoffman v. United States, . . . 341 U. S. 479, 486 .... If it be thought that the privilege is outmoded in the conditions of this modern age, then the thing to do is to take it out of the Constitution, not to whittle it down by the subtle encroachments of judicial opinion.” Maffie v. United States, 209 F. 2d 225, 227.
Nothing new can be put into the Constitution except through the amendatory process. Nothing old can be taken out without the same process.
No doubt the constitutional privilege may, on occasion, save a guilty man from his just deserts. It was aimed at a more far-reaching evil — a recurrence of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, even if not in their stark brutality. Prevention of the greater evil was deemed of more importance than occurrence of the lesser evil. Having had much experience with a tendency in human nature to abuse power, the Founders sought to close the doors against like future abuses by law-enforcing agencies.
As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion. It is appropriate to read the conviction expressed in a memorable address by Senator Albert J. Beveridge to the American Bar Association in 1920, a time when there was also manifested impatience with some of the restrictions of the Constitution in the presumed interest of security. His appeal was to the Constitution — to the whole Constitution, not to a mutilating selection of those parts only which for the moment find favor. To view a particular provision of the Bill of Rights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it. This is to disrespect the Constitution.
It is in this spirit of strict, not lax, observance of the constitutional protection of the individual that we approach the claims made by petitioner in this case. The attack on the Immunity Act as violating the Fifth Amendment is not a new one. Sixty years ago this Court considered, in Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, the constitutionality of a similar Act, the Act of February 11, 1893, 27 Stat. 443. In that case, Brown, auditor for a railroad company, had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury which was investigating charges that officers and agents of the company had violated the Interstate Commerce Act. Invoking the privilege against self-incrimination, he refused to answer certain questions concerning the operations and the rebate policy of the railroad. On an order to show cause before the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, he was adjudged in contempt. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Circuit Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania was dismissed. Petitioner appealed to this Court, urging that the 1893 immunity statute was unconstitutional.
The Court considered and rejected petitioner’s arguments, holding that a statute which compelled testimony but secured the witness against a criminal prosecution which might be aided directly or indirectly by his disclosures did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination and that the 1893 statute did provide such immunity. “While the constitutional provision in question is justly regarded as one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen, its object is fully accomplished by the statutory immunity, and we are, therefore, of opinion that the witness was compellable to answer . . . .” 161 U. S., at 610.
Petitioner, however, attempts to distinguish Brown v. Walker. He argues that this case is different from Brown v. Walker because the impact of the disabilities imposed by federal and state authorities and the public in general — such as loss of job, expulsion from labor unions, state registration and investigation statutes, passport eligibility, and general public opprobrium — is so oppressive that the statute does not give him true immunity. This, he alleges, is significantly different from the impact of testifying on the auditor in Brown v. Walker, who could the next day resume his job with reputation unaffected. But, as this Court has often held, the immunity granted need only remove those sanctions which generate the fear justifying invocation of the privilege: “The interdiction of the Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself — in other words, to give testimony which may possibly expose him to a criminal charge. But if the criminality has already been taken away, the Amendment ceases to apply.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 67. Here, since the Immunity Act protects a witness who is compelled to answer to the extent of his constitutional immunity, he has of course, when a particular sanction is sought to be imposed against him, the right to claim that it is criminal in nature.
Again, the petitioner seeks to distinguish this case from Brown v. Walker by claiming that under the Immunity Act of 1954 the district judge to whom the United States Attorney must apply for an order instructing him to testify has discretion in granting the order and thus has discretion in granting the immunity which automatically follows from the order. Petitioner cites the language of the statute, the legislative history, and miscellaneous other authorities in support of his construction. The Government contends that the court has no discretion to determine whether the public interest would best be served by exchanging immunity from prosecution for testimony, that its only function is to order a witness to testify if it determines that the case is within the framework of the statute.
We are concerned here only with § (c) and therefore need not pass on this question with respect to §§ (a) and (b) of the Act. A fair reading of § (c) does not indicate that the district judge has any discretion to deny the order on the ground that the public interest does not warrant it. We agree with District Judge Weinfeld’s interpretation of this section:
“The most that can be said for the legislative history is that it is on the whole inconclusive. Certainly, it contains nothing that requires the court to reject the construction which the statutory language clearly requires. Especially is this so where the construction contended for purports to raise a serious constitutional question as to the role of the judiciary under the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned ‘if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.’ Indeed, the Court has stated that words may be strained ‘in the candid service of avoiding a serious constitutional doubt.’ Here there is no need to strain words. It requires neither torturing of language nor disregard of a clear legislative policy to avoid the constitutional question advanced by the witness. Indeed, to reach the constitutional issue would require straining of language. In such circumstances the court’s duty is plainly to avoid the constitutional question.” 128 F. Supp., at 627-628.
Since the Court’s duty under § (c) is only to ascertain whether the statutory requirements are complied with by the grand jury, the United States Attorney, and the Attorney General, we have no difficulty in concluding that the district court is confined within the scope of “judicial Power.” Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447.
Petitioner further argues that the immunity is not constitutionally sufficient so long as a witness is subject to the very real possibility of state prosecution. He urges that the statute does not, and constitutionally could not, grant such immunity. The immunity portion of the statute contains two parts. The first prohibits prosecutions and is worded virtually in the terms of the 1893 Act. The second makes explicit that the compelled testimony shall not be used against the witness in any proceeding in any court. Such a clause was construed in Adams v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 179, to apply to state courts. In Brown v. Walker, it was urged that the prohibition against prosecution did not grant protection against prosecution in the state courts. First finding that Congress could constitutionally provide such immunity, the Court then interpreted the statute:
“The act in question contains no suggestion that it is to be applied only to the Federal courts. It declares broadly that ‘no person shall be excused from attending and testifying . . . before the Interstate Commerce Commission ... on the ground . . . that the testimony . . . required of him may tend to criminate him,’ etc. ‘But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may testify,’ etc. It is not that he shall not be prosecuted for or on account of any crime concerning which he may testify, which might possibly be urged to apply only to crimes under the Federal law and not to crimes, such as the passing of counterfeit money, etc., which are also cognizable under state laws; but the immunity extends to any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may testify, which clearly indicates that the immunity is intended to be general, and to be applicable whenever and in whatever court such prosecution may be had.” 161 U. S., at 607-608.
The Report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives supports the broad interpretation of the Act before us:
“Even though the power of Congress to prohibit a subsequent State prosecution is doubtful, such a constitutional question should not prevent the enactment of the recommended bill. The language of the amendment ... is sufficiently broad to ban a subsequent State prosecution if it be determined that the Congress has the constitutional power to do so. In addition, the amendment recommended provides the additional protection — as set forth in the Adams case, by outlawing the subsequent use of the compelled testimony in any criminal proceeding — State or Federal.
“By the use of these two distinct concepts, the committee believes that the fullest protection that can be afforded the witness will be achieved.” H. R. Rep. No. 2606, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 7.
Petitioner questions the constitutional power of Congress to grant immunity from state prosecution. Congressional abolition of state power to punish crimes committed in violation of state law presents a more drastic exercise of congressional power than that which we considered in Adams. In that case, only the use of the compelled testimony, not prosecution itself, was prohibited. Here the State is forbidden to prosecute. But it cannot be contested that Congress has power to provide for national defense and the complementary power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. The Immunity Act is concerned with the national security. It reflects a congressional policy to increase the possibility of more complete and open disclosure by removal of fear of state prosecution. We cannot say that Congress’ paramount authority in safeguarding national security does not justify the restriction it has placed on the exercise of state power for the more effective exercise of conceded federal power. We have already, in the name of the Commerce Clause, upheld a similar restriction on state court jurisdiction, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S., at 606-607, and we can find no distinction between the reach of congressional power with respect to commerce and its power with respect to national security. See also Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52.
Petitioner also urges that if Brown v. Walker is found nondistinguishable and controlling, then that case should be reconsidered and overruled. He also urges upon us a “return” to a literal reading of the Fifth Amendment. Brown v. Walker was the second case to deal with an immunity statute. Four years previously, in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, a unanimous Court had found constitutionally inadequate the predecessor to the 1893 statute because the immunity granted was incomplete, in that it merely forbade the use of the testimony given and failed to protect a witness from future prosecution based on knowledge and sources of information obtained from the compelled testimony. It was with this background that the 1893 statute, providing complete immunity from prosecution, was passed and that Brown v. Walker was argued and decided. As in Counselman, appellant’s numerous arguments were presented by James C. Carter, widely acknowledged as the leader of the American bar. The Court was closely divided in upholding the statute, and the opinions reflect the thoroughness with which the issues were considered. Since that time the Court’s holding in Brown v. Walker has never been challenged; the case and the doctrine it announced have consistently and without question been treated as definitive by this Court, in opinions written, among others, by Holmes and Brandeis, JJ. See, e. g., McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 42; Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131,142. The 1893 statute has become part of our constitutional fabric and has been included “in substantially the same terms, in virtually all of the major regulatory enactments of the Federal Government.” Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, 6. For a partial list of these statutes, see, id., at 6-7, n. 4. Moreover, the States, with one exception — a case decided prior to Brown v. Walker — have, under their own constitutions, enunciated the same doctrine, 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 2281, and have passed numerous statutes compelling testimony in exchange for immunity in the form either of complete amnesty or of prohibition of the use of the compelled testimony. For a list of such statutes, see 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 2281, n. 11 (pp. 478-501) and Pocket Supplement thereto, § 2281, n. 11 (pp. 147-157).
We are not dealing here with one of the vague, undefinable, admonitory provisions of the Constitution whose scope is inevitably addressed to changing circumstances. The privilege against self-incrimination is a specific provision of which it is peculiarly true that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349. For the history of the privilege establishes not only that it is not to be interpreted literally, but also that its sole concern is, as its name indicates, with the danger to a witness forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of “penalties affixed to the criminal acts . . . .” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 634. We leave Boyd v. United States unqualified, as it was left unqualified in Brown v. Walker. Immunity displaces the danger. Once the reason for the privilege ceases, the privilege ceases. We reaffirm Brown v. Walker, and in so doing we need not repeat the answers given by that case to the other points raised by petitioner.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today (1955), 7.
Father John Fearon, O. P., has addressed himself to this misapprehension: “What is to be said of the opinion that an innocent man has an obligation in conscience not to have recourse to the Fifth Amendment? Since the natural law does not provide explicitly for this circumstance moral obligation has to be determined by civil law. Actually the determination of civil law is quite clear: the innocent and guilty alike have a right of recourse to the Fifth Amendment. And if the innocent man has.a clearly defined right to such recourse it is inconceivable that he could simultaneously have a duty not to have recourse, since rights and duties are correlative. Nor can it be urged that non-recourse is a duty of piety rather than justice. If such an opinion were binding and all innocent men waived their rights to the protection of the Fifth Amendment, the purpose of the law would be defeated and the common welfare of the nation would suffer rather than prosper.” Congressional Investigations and Moral Theology, The Commonweal, Feb. 19, 1954, 497, 499.
“If liberty is worth keeping and free representative government worth saving, we must stand for all American fundamentals — not some, but all. All are woven into the great fabric of our national well-being. We cannot hold fast to some only, and abandon others that, for the moment, we find inconvenient. If one American fundamental is prostrated, others in the end will surely fall. The success or failure of the American theory of society and government, depends upon our fidelity to every one of those inter-dependent parts of that immortal charter of orderly freedom, the Constitution of the United States.” Beveridge, The Assault upon American Fundamentals, 45 Reports of American Bar Assn., 188, 216 (1920).
“. . . no person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements and documents before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or in obedience to the subpoena of the Commission ... or in any cause or proceeding, criminal or otherwise, based upon or growing out of any alleged violation of the act of Congress, entitled, ‘An act to regulate commerce,’ ... on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before said Commission, or in obedience to its subpoena ... or in any such case or proceeding: Provided, That no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.”
Shiras, J., joined by Gray and White, JJ., and Field, J., dissented.
It is true that the Court in Brown v. Walker stated: “. . . it is entirely clear that he was not the chief or even a substantial offender against the law, and that his privilege was claimed for the purpose of shielding the railway or its officers from answering a charge of having violated its provisions. To say that, notwithstanding his immunity from punishment, he would incur personal odium and disgrace from answering these questions, seems too much like an abuse of language to be worthy of serious consideration.” 161 U. S., at 609-610. The Court, however, concluded: “But, even if this were true, under the authorities above cited, he would still be compelled to answer, if the facts sought to be elucidated were material to the issue.” Id., at 610. For a fuller exposition, see id., at 605-606.
“(a) In the course of any investigation relating to any interference with or endangering of, or any plans or attempts to interfere with or endanger the national security or defense of the United States by treason, sabotage, espionage, sedition, seditious conspiracy or the overthrow of its Government by force or violence, no witness shall be excused from testifying or from producing books, papers, or other evidence before either House, or before any committee of either House, or before any joint committee of the two Houses of Congress on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, when the record shows that—
“(1) in the case of proceedings before one of the Houses of Congress, that a majority of the members present of that House; or
“(2) in the case of proceedings before a committee, that two-thirds of the members of the full committee shall by affirmative vote have authorized such witness to be granted immunity under this section with respect to. the transactions, matters, or things concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination to testify or produce evidence by direction of the presiding officer and
“that an order of the United States district court for the district wherein the inquiry is being carried on has been entered into the record requiring said person to testify or produce evidence. Such an order may be issued by a United States district court judge upon application by a duly authorized representative of the Congress or of the committee concerned. But no such witness shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is so compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, nor shall testimony so compelled be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding (except prosecutions described in subsection (d) hereof) against him in any court.
“(b) Neither House nor any committee thereof nor any joint committee of the two Houses of Congress shall grant immunity to any witness without first having notified the Attorney General of the United States of such action and thereafter having secured the approval of the United States district court for the district wherein such inquiry is being held. The Attorney General of the United States shall be notified of the time of each proposed application to the United States district court and shall be given the opportunity to be heard with respect thereto prior to the entrance into the record of the order of the district court.”
The footnotes in the district judge’s opinion have been renumbered.
“Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 . . . United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, 45 . . . United States v. C. I. O., 335 U. S. 106 . . . Brandeis, J. concurring in Ashwander v. T. V. A., 297 U. S. 288, 341, 348 . . . and cases cited.”
“United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, 47 . . . .”
“Cf. Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, 31 . . . .”
We need not consider at this time petitioner’s claim that immunity is not complete and the statute unconstitutional because he can be prosecuted later for participation in a continuing conspiracy. Congress has the power to provide, and has provided, that immunity from prosecution which the Constitution requires. See Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 142.
He urged that the statute left the witness in a worse condition because it did not abrogate the crime for which he was given immunity; that the constitutional safeguard goes toward relieving the witness from the danger of an accusation being made against him while the statutory immunity forces him to supply evidence leading to an accusation and provides only a means for defense; that the statute puts a heavy burden on petitioner, if he is indicted, to prove that he had testified concerning the matter for which he was indicted; that a citizen is entitled to the very thing secured to him by the constitutional safeguards and not something which will probably answer the same purpose; that the statute subjects him to the infamy and disgrace from which he was protected by the constitutional safeguard; that the statute did not protect him from prosecution for a state crime; that even if it were so interpreted, Congress had no power to grant such protection; that the immunity granted was too narrow since it only extended to matters concerning which he was called to testify and not to all matters related to the testimony given; that to be able to claim the privilege the witness would virtually have to reveal his crime in order that the court could see that the statute failed to protect him; and finally that the statute was an attempt to exercise the power of pardon which was a power not delegated to Congress.
“. . . the provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.” Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, 610.
We do not discuss petitioner’s argument, relying on the First Amendment, that inquiry into his political membership and associations is unconstitutional. Petitioner contends that some of the questions which he was asked are objectionable because they require testimony that is protected by the implications of the First Amendment. But it is every man’s duty to give testimony before a duly constituted tribunal unless he invokes some valid legal exemption in withholding it. Although petitioner made the First Amendment argument when the United States Attorney applied, under the Immunity Act, for an order requiring him to testify, when he was cited for contempt he urged only “all of the grounds we urged before Judge Weinfeld in opposition to the statute, in support of our contention that the statute was unconstitutional. We will rest on that and proceed on that basis in the Appellate Courts.” Petitioner did not make any objection to the questions other than the assertion of the unconstitutionality of the Immunity Act. It should also be noted that when petitioner — who, the record shows, was an experienced witness, had been advised by counsel especially experienced in this field, and was desirous of making this a test case — refused to answer the questions propounded before the grand jury the second time, he did not claim any privilege under the First Amendment. His counsel, by way of dispensing with the reading of the minutes of what took place before the grand jury, stated that “the reason given for his refusal was that he feared the answers might incriminate him and he pleaded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S. 638 (1984), we held that West Virginia’s gross receipts tax on the business of selling tangible property at wholesale discriminated against interstate commerce because it exempted local manufacturers. The principal question in these consolidated appeals is whether Washington’s manufacturing tax similarly violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it is assessed only on those products manufactured within Washington that are sold to out-of-state purchasers. We conclude that our reasons for invalidating the West Virginia tax in Armco also apply to the Washington tax challenged here.
I
For over half a century Washington has imposed a business and occupation (B & 0) tax on “the act or privilege of engaging in business activities” in the State. Wash. Rev. Code § 82.04.220 (1985). The tax applies to the activities of extracting raw materials in the State, manufacturing in the State, making wholesale sales in the State, and making retail sales in the State. The State has typically applied the same tax rates to these different activities. The measure of the selling tax is the “gross proceeds of sales,” and the measure of the manufacturing tax is the value of the manufactured products. §§ 82.04.220, 82.04.240.
Prior to 1950, the B & O tax contained a provision that exempted persons who were subject to either the extraction tax or the manufacturing tax from any liability for either the wholesale tax or the retail tax on products extracted or manufactured in the State. Thus, the wholesale tax applied to out-of-state manufacturers but not to local manufacturers. In 1948 the Washington Supreme Court held that this wholesale tax exemption for local manufacturers discriminated against interstate commerce and therefore violated the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. Columbia Steel Co. v. State, 30 Wash. 2d 658, 192 P. 2d 976 (1948). The State Supreme Court rejected the State’s argument that the taxpayer had not suffered from discrimination against interstate commerce because it had not proved that it paid manufacturing tax to another State. The Washington Supreme Court also dismissed the State’s contention that if the State in which a good was manufactured did not impose a manufacturing tax, the seller of the good would have a competitive advantage over Washington manufacturers:
“[T]he situation obtaining in another state is immaterial. We must interpret the statute as passed by the legislature. In our opinion the statute marks a discrimination against interstate commerce in levying a tax upon wholesale activities of those engaged in interstate commerce, which tax is, because of the exemption contained in § 8370-6, not levied upon those who perform the same taxable act, but who manufacture in the state of Washington.” Id., at 664, 192 P. 2d, at 979.
Two years later, in 1950, the Washington Legislature responded to this ruling by turning the B & 0 tax exemption scheme inside out. The legislature removed the wholesale tax exemption for local manufacturers and replaced it with an exemption from the manufacturing tax for the portion of manufacturers’ output that is subject to the wholesale tax. The result, as before 1950, is that local manufacturers pay the manufacturing tax on their interstate sales and out-of-state manufacturers pay the wholesale tax on their sales in Washington. Local manufacturer-wholesalers continue to pay only one gross receipts tax, but it is now applied to the activity of wholesaling rather than the activity of manufacturing. Although the tax rate has changed over the years — it is now forty-four hundredths of one percent, or 0.44%, of gross receipts — the relevant provisions of Washington’s B & O tax are the same today as enacted in 1950.
The constitutionality of the B & 0 tax has been challenged on several occasions, most strenuously in General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S. 436 (1964). In that case a bare majority of the Court upheld the tax; Justice Brennan and Justice Goldberg filed dissenting opinions. The bulk of the Court’s opinion was devoted to rejecting the claims that the statute unconstitutionally taxed unapportioned gross receipts and did not bear a reasonable relation to the taxpayer’s in-state activities. At the end of its opinion, the Court declined to reach the argument that the tax imposed multiple tax burdens on interstate transactions, because the taxpayer had failed to demonstrate “what definite burden, in a constitutional sense” other States’ laws had placed on “the identical interstate shipments by which Washington measures its tax.” Id., at 449. Justice Goldberg, joined by Justice Stewart and Justice White, dissented because “[t]he burden on interstate commerce and the dangers of multiple taxation” were apparent from the face of the statute. Id., at 459. Comparing the current statute with its invalid predecessor, this dissent concluded that the “amended provision would seem to have essentially the same economic effect on interstate sales but has the advantage of appearing nondiscriminatory.” Id., at 460. Today we squarely address the claim that this provision discriminates against interstate commerce.
II
Two appeals are before us. In the first case (No. 85-2006), 71 commercial enterprises filed 53 separate actions for refunds of B & 0 taxes paid to the State. The Thurston County Superior Court joined the actions, found that the multiple activities exemption did not violate the Commerce Clause, and granted the State Department of Revenue’s motion for summary judgment. In the second case (No. 85-1963), Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. (Tyler), sought a refund of B & 0 taxes paid during the years 1976 through 1980 for its wholesaling activities in Washington. Again, the Superior Court upheld the B & O tax. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed in both cases. 105 Wash. 2d 327, 732 P. 2d 134 (1986); 105 Wash. 2d 318, 715 P. 2d 123 (1986).
The State Supreme Court concluded that the B & O tax was not facially discriminatory and rejected the appellants’ arguments that our decision invalidating West Virginia’s exemption for local wholesaler-manufacturers, Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S. 638 (1984), required that the B & O tax be invalidated. The state court expressed the view that the West Virginia wholesale tax imposed on out-of-state manufacturers in Armco could not be justified as a compensating tax because of the substantial difference between the State’s tax rates on manufacturing activities (.0088) and wholesaling activities (.0027), and because West Virginia did not provide for a reduction in its manufacturing tax when the manufactured goods were sold out of State, but did reduce the tax when the goods were partly manufactured out of State. The Washington Supreme Court then concluded that our requirement that a tax must have “‘what might be called internal consistency — that is the [tax] must be such that, if applied by every jurisdiction,’ there would be no impermissible interference with free trade,” Armco, 467 U. S., at 644, was not dispositive because it merely relieved the taxpayer of the burden of proving that a tax already demonstrated to be facially discriminatory had in fact resulted in multiple taxation. The Washington Supreme Court also rejected the taxpayers’ arguments that the B & 0 tax is not fairly apportioned to reflect the amount of business conducted in the State and is not fairly related to the services rendered by Washington.
We noted probable jurisdiction of the taxpayers’ appeals, 479 U. S. 810 (1986), and now reverse in part and affirm in part. We first consider the claims of the taxpayers that have manufacturing facilities in Washington and market their products in other States; their challenge is directed to the fact that the manufacturing tax is levied only on those goods manufactured in Washington that are sold outside the State. We then consider Tyler’s claims that its activities in the State of Washington are not sufficient to subject it to the State’s taxing jurisdiction and that the B & 0 tax is not fairly apportioned.
Ill
A person subject to Washington’s wholesale tax for an item is not subject to the State’s manufacturing tax for the same item. This statutory exemption for manufacturers that sell their products within the State has the same facially discriminatory consequences as the West Virginia exemption we invalidated in Armco. West Virginia imposed a gross receipts tax at the rate of 0.27% on persons engaged in the business of selling tangible property at wholesale. Local manufacturers were exempt from the tax, but paid a manufacturing tax of ■0.88% on the value of products manufactured in the State. Even though local manufacturers bore a higher tax burden in dollars and cents, we held that their exemption from the wholesale tax violated the principle that “a State may not tax a transaction or incident more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the State.” 467 U. S., at 642.
In explaining why the tax was discriminatory on its face, we expressly endorsed the reasoning of Justice Goldberg’s dissenting opinion in General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S., at 459. We explained:
“The tax provides that two companies selling tangible property at wholesale in West Virginia will be treated differently depending on whether the taxpayer conducts manufacturing in the State or out of it. Thus, if the property was manufactured in the State, no tax on the sale is imposed. If the property was manufactured out of the State and imported for sale, a tax of 0.27% is imposed on the sale price. See General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S. 436, 459 (1964) (Goldberg, J., dissenting) (similar provision in Washington, ‘on its face, discriminated against interstate wholesale sales to Washington purchasers for it exempted the intrastate sales of locally made products while taxing the competing sales of interstate sellers’); Columbia Steel Co. v. State, 30 Wash. 2d 658, 664, 192 P. 2d 976, 979 (1948) (invalidating Washington tax).” 467 U. S., at 642.
Our square reliance in Armco on Justice Goldberg’s earlier dissenting opinion is especially significant because that dissent dooms appellee’s efforts to limit the reasoning of Armco to the precise statutory structure at issue in that case. Justice Goldberg expressly rejected the distinction appellee attempts to draw between an exemption from a wholesaling tax — as was present in Armco — and the exemption from a manufacturing tax which was present in General Motors and is again present in these cases. See 377 U. S., at 459-460. Our holding in Armco requires that we now agree with Justice Goldberg’s conclusion that the exemption before us is the practical equivalent of the exemption that the Washington Supreme Court invalidated in 1948.
General Motors is not a controlling precedent. As we have already noted, the result in that case did not depend on the Court’s resolution of whether the tax burdened interstate commerce. Our reason for not passing on that question was that the taxpayer had “not demonstrated what definite burden, in a constitutional sense [the tax imposed by other States] places on the identical shipments by which Washington measures its tax.” 377 U. S., at 449. Thus, when General Motors was decided, the Court required the taxpayer to prove that specific interstate transactions were subjected to multiple taxation in order to advance a claim of discrimination. See also Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Washington Revenue Dept., 419 U. S. 560, 563 (1975) (rejecting Commerce Clause claim because taxpayer made no showing of risk of multiple taxation). In Armco, however, we categorically rejected this requirement. The facial unconstitutionality of Washington’s gross receipts tax cannot be alleviated by examining the effect of legislation enacted by its sister States. See Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U. S. 267, 276-278 (1978).
We also reject the Department’s contention that the State’s imposition of the manufacturing tax on local goods sold outside the State should be saved as a valid “compensating tax.” As we noted in Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 758 (1981), the “concept of a compensatory tax first requires identification of the burden for which the State is attempting to compensate.” In these cases the only burden for which the manufacturing tax exemption is arguably compensatory is the State’s imposition of a wholesale tax on the local sales of local manufacturers; absent the exemption, a local manufacturer might be at an economic disadvantage because it would pay both a manufacturing and a wholesale tax, while the manufacturer from afar would pay only the wholesale tax. The State’s justification for thus taxing the manufacture of goods in interstate commerce, however, fails under our precedents. The local sales of out-of-state manufacturers are also subject to Washington’s wholesale tax, but the multiple activities exemption does not extend its ostensible compensatory benefit to those manufacturers. The exemption thus does not merely erase a tax incentive to engage in interstate commerce instead of intrastate commerce; it affirmatively places interstate commerce at a disadvantage.
“[T]he common theme running through the cases in which this Court has sustained compensating” taxes is “[ejqual treatment of interstate commerce. ” Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U. S. 318, 331 (1977). See also Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S., at 759. In Boston Stock Exchange, a New York, transfer tax on securities transactions taxed transactions involving an out-of-state sale more heavily than other transactions involving an in-state sale. We invalidated the tax, rejecting the State’s claim that it was compensatory legislation designed to neutralize the competitive advantage enjoyed by stock exchanges outside New York. We concluded:
“Because of the delivery or transfer in New York, the~ seller cannot escape tax liability by selling out of State, but he can substantially reduce his liability by selling in State. The obvious effect of the tax is to extend a financial advantage to sales on the New York exchanges at the expense of the regional exchanges. Rather than ‘compensating’ New York for a supposed competitive disadvantage resulting from § 270, the amendment forecloses tax-neutral decisions and creates both an advantage for the exchanges in New York and a discriminatory burden on commerce to its sister States.” 429 U. S., at 331.
Similarly, in Maryland v. Louisiana, we held that a tax on the first use in Louisiana of gas brought into the State was not a “complement of a severance tax in the same amount imposed on gas produced within the State.” Armco, 467 U. S., at 642-643, citing Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S., at 758-759. We relied on the observation that severance and first use were not “substantially equivalent” events on which mutually compensating taxes might be imposed. And in Armco we squarely held that manufacturing and wholesaling are not substantially equivalent activities. As we wrote in that case:
“The gross sales tax imposed on Armco cannot be deemed a ‘compensating tax’ for the manufacturing tax imposed on its West Virginia competitors.... Here, too, manufacturing and wholesaling are not ‘substantially equivalent events’ such that the heavy tax on in-state manufacturers can be said to compensate for the admittedly lighter burden placed on wholesalers from out of State. Manufacturing frequently entails selling in the State, but we cannot say which portion of the manufacturing tax is attributable to manufacturing, and which portion to sales.” 467 U. S., at 642-643.
See also Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263, 272 (1984). In light of the facially discriminatory nature of the multiple activities exemption, we conclude, as we did in Armco, that manufacturing and wholesaling are not “substantially equivalent events” such that taxing the manufacture of goods sold outside the State can be said to compensate for the State’s inability to impose a wholesale tax on those goods.
Appellee also contends that its B & 0 tax is valid because of its asserted similarities to a tax and exemption system we have upheld. The State assessed a use tax on personal property used within the State but originally purchased elsewhere to compensate for the burden that a sales tax placed on similar property purchased within the State. See Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U. S. 577 (1937). Appellee’s reliance on Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., however, does not aid its cause. That case addressed a use tax imposed by the State of Washington on the “privilege of using within this state any article of tangible personal property.” The tax did not apply to “the use of any article of tangible personal property” the sale or use of which had already been taxed at an equal or greater rate under the laws of Washington or some other State. Id., at 580-581. We upheld the tax because, in the context of the overall tax structure, the burden it placed on goods purchased out-of-state was identical to that placed on an equivalent purchase within the State. This identical impact was no fortuity; it was guaranteed by the statutory exemption from the use tax for goods on which a sales tax had already been paid, regardless of whether the sales tax had been paid to Washington or to another State. As we explained in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Reily, 373 U. S. 64, 70 (1963):
“The conclusion is inescapable: equal treatment for instate and out-of-state taxpayers similarly situated is the condition precedent for a valid use tax on goods imported from out-of-state.”
The parallel condition precedent for a valid multiple activities exemption eliminating exposure to the burden of a multiple tax on manufacturing and wholesaling would provide a credit against Washington tax liability for wholesale taxes paid by local manufacturers to any State, not just Washington. The multiple activities exemption only operates to impose a unified tax eliminating the risk of multiple taxation when the acts of manufacturing and wholesaling are both carried out within the State. The exemption excludes similarly situated manufacturers and wholesalers which conduct one of those activities within Washington and the other activity outside the State. Washington’s B & 0 tax scheme is therefore inconsistent with our precedents holding that a tax violates the Commerce Clause “when it unfairly burdens commerce by exacting more than a just share from the interstate activity.” Washington Dept. of Revenue v. Association of Washington Stevedoring Cos., 435 U. S. 734, 748 (1978).
As we explained in Armco, our conclusion that a tax facially discriminates against interstate commerce need not be confirmed by an examination of the tax burdens imposed by other States:
“Appellee suggests that we should require Armco to prove actual discriminatory impact on it by pointing to a State that imposes a manufacturing tax that results in a total burden higher than that imposed on Armco’s competitors in West Virginia. This is not the test. In Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U. S. 159, 169 (1983), the Court noted that a tax must have ‘what might be called internal consistency — that is the [tax] must be such that, if applied by every jurisdiction,’ there would be no impermissible interference with free trade. In that case, the Court was discussing the requirement that a tax be fairly apportioned to reflect the business conducted in the State. A similar rule applies where the allegation is that a tax on its face discriminates against interstate commerce. A tax that unfairly apportions income from other States is a form of discrimination against interstate commerce. See also id., at 170-171. Any other rule would mean that the constitutionality of West Virginia’s tax laws would depend on the shifting complexities of the tax codes of 49 other States, and that the validity of the taxes imposed on each taxpayer would depend on the particular other States in which it operated.” 467 U. S., at 644-645 (footnote omitted).
We conclude that Washington’s multiple activities exemption discriminates against interstate commerce as did the tax struck down by the Washington Supreme Court in 1948 and the West Virginia tax that we invalidated in Armco. The current B & 0 tax exposes manufacturing or selling activity outside the State to a multiple burden from which only the activity of manufacturing in-state and selling in-state is exempt. The fact that the B & O tax “has the advantage of appearing nondiscriminatory,” see General Motors Corp., 377 U. S., at 460 (Goldberg, J., dissenting), does not save it from invalidation. To the extent that this conclusion is inconsistent with the Court’s ruling in the General Motors case, that case is overruled.
IV
Our holding that Washington’s tax exemption for a local manufacturer-wholesaler violates the Commerce Clause disposes of the issues raised by those appellants in National Can that manufacture goods in Washington and sell them outside the State, as well as the claim of discrimination asserted by those appellants that manufacture goods outside Washington and sell them within the State. Compliance with our holding on the discrimination issue, however, would not necessarily preclude the continued assessment of a wholesaling tax. Either a repeal of the manufacturing tax or an expansion of the multiple activities exemption to provide out-of-state manufacturers with a credit for manufacturing taxes paid to other States would presumably cure the discrimination. We must therefore also consider the alternative challenge to the wholesale tax advanced by Tyler and the other appellants that manufacture products outside of Washington for sale in the State.
Tyler seeks a refund of wholesale taxes it paid on sales to customers in Washington for the period from January 1, 1976, through September 30, 1980. These products were manufactured outside of Washington. Tyler argues that its business does not have a sufficient nexus with the State of Washington to justify the collection of a gross receipts tax on its sales. Tyler sells a large volume of cast iron, pressure and plastic pipe and fittings, and drainage products in Washington, but all of those products are manufactured in other States. Tyler maintains no office, owns no property, and has no employees residing in the State of Washington. Its solicitation of business in Washington is directed by executives who maintain their offices out-of-state and by an independent contractor located in Seattle.
The trial court found that the in-state sales representative engaged in substantial activities that helped Tyler to establish and maintain its market in Washington. The State Supreme Court concluded that those findings were supported by the evidence, and summarized them as follows:
“The sales representatives acted daily on behalf of Tyler Pipe in calling on its customers and soliciting orders. They have long-established and valuable relationships with Tyler Pipe’s customers. Through sales contacts, the representatives maintain and improve the name recognition, market share, goodwill, and individual customer relations of Tyler Pipe.
“Tyler Pipe sells in a very competitive market in Washington. The sales representatives provide Tyler Pipe with virtually all their information regarding the Washington market, including: product performance; competing products; pricing, market conditions and trends; existing and upcoming construction products; customer financial liability; and other critical information of a local nature concerning Tyler Pipe’s Washington market. The sales representatives in Washington have helped Tyler Pipe and have a special relationship to that corporation. The activities of Tyler Pipe’s agents in Washington have been substantial.” 105 Wash. 2d, at 325, 715 P. 2d, at 127.
As a matter of law, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that this showing of a sufficient nexus could not be defeated by the argument that the taxpayer’s representative was properly characterized as an independent contractor instead of as an agent. We agree with this analysis. In Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U. S. 207 (1960), Scripto, a Georgia corporation, had no office or regular employees in Florida, but it employed wholesalers or jobbers to solicit sales of its products in Florida. We held that Florida may require these solicitors to collect a use tax from Florida customers. Although the “salesmen” were not employees of Scripto, we determined that “such a fine distinction is without constitutional significance.” Id., at 211. This conclusion is consistent with our more recent cases. See National Geographic Society v. California Equalization Board, 430 U. S. 551, 556-558 (1977).
As the Washington Supreme Court determined, “the crucial factor governing nexus is whether the activities performed in this state on behalf of the taxpayer are significantly associated with the taxpayer’s ability to establish and maintain a market in this state for the sales.” 105 Wash. 2d, at 323, 715 P. 2d, at 126. The court found this standard was satisfied because Tyler’s “sales representatives perform any local activities necessary for maintenance of Tyler Pipe’s market and protection of its interests....” Id., at 321, 715 P. 2d, at 125. We agree that the activities of Tyler’s sales representatives adequately support the State’s jurisdiction to impose its wholesale tax on Tyler.
Tyler also asserts that the B & O tax does not fairly apportion the tax burden between its activities in Washington and its activities in other States. See Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274, 285 (1977). Washington taxes the full value of receipts from in-state wholesaling or manufacturing; thus, an out-of-state manufacturer selling in Washington is subject to an unapportioned wholesale tax even though the value of the wholesale transaction is partly attributable to manufacturing activity carried on in another State that plainly has jurisdiction to tax that activity. This apportionment argument rests on the erroneous assumption that through the B & 0 tax, Washington is taxing the unitary activity of manufacturing and wholesaling. We have already determined, however, that the manufacturing tax and wholesaling tax are not compensating taxes for substantially equivalent events in invalidating the multiple activities exemption. Thus, the activity of wholesaling — whether by an in-state or an out-of-state manufacturer — must be viewed as a separate activity conducted wholly within Washington that no other State has jurisdiction to tax. See Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U. S., at 280-281 (gross receipts tax on sales to customers within State would be “plainly valid”); Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Washington Revenue Dept., 419 U. S., at 564 (selling tax measured by gross proceeds of sales is “apportioned exactly to the activities taxed”).
V
The Department of Revenue argues that any adverse decision in these cases should not be applied retroactively because the taxes at issue were assessed prior to our opinion in Armco and the holding in that case was not clearly foreshadowed by earlier opinions. See Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 106-107 (1971) (factors to consider in deciding whether to impose decision prospectively only). The State’s argument is similar to an argument advanced by the State of Hawaii in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S., at 276-277. The State urged that, if we invalidated the tax at issue, we should not require the payment of refunds to taxpayers. We did not resolve the merits of that issue, concluding that this Court should not take it upon itself in this complex area of state tax structures to determine how to apply its holding:
“These refund issues, which are essentially issues of remedy for the imposition of a tax that unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce, were not addressed by the state courts. Also, the federal constitutional issues involved may well be intertwined with, or their consideration obviated by, issues of state law. Also, resolution of those issues, if required at all, may necessitate more of a record than so far has been made in this case. We are reluctant, therefore, to address them in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” Id., at 277 (footnote omitted).
We followed this approach in Williams v. Vermont, 472 U. S. 14 (1985), an opinion which invalidated the State’s residency restriction on the availability of a sales tax credit for use tax paid to another State. We expressed no opinion on the appropriate remedy, instead remanding to the Supreme Court of Vermont “in light of the fact that the action was dismissed on the pleadings, and given the possible relevance of state law, see Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263, 277 (1984)....” Id., at 28. Cf. Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U. S. 612, 622-623 (1985). We con-elude that it is likewise appropriate for the Supreme Court of Washington to address in the first instance the refund issues raised by our rulings in these cases.
VI
We hold Washington’s multiple activities exemption invalid because it places a tax burden upon manufacturers in Washington engaged in interstate commerce from which local manufacturers selling locally are exempt. We reject appellant Tyler’s nexus and fair apportionment challenges to the State’s wholesale tax. Our partial invalidation of the State’s taxing scheme raises remedial issues that are better addressed by the State Supreme Court on remand. Accordingly, we vacate the judgments of the Supreme Court of Washington and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Wash. Rev. Code § 82.04.230 (1985).
§ 82.04.240.
§ 82.04.270.
§ 82.04.250.
The statute provided:
“ ‘Every person engaging in activities which are within the purview of the provisions of two or more paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of section 4 [§ 8370-4], shall be taxable under each paragraph applicable to the activities engaged in: Provided, however, That persons taxable under paragraphs (a) or (b) of said section shall not be taxable under paragraphs (c) or (e) of said section ivith respect to making sales at retail or wholesale of products extracted or manufactured within this state by such persons’ (Italics ours).” See Columbia Steel Co. v. State, 30 Wash. 2d 658, 661, 192 P. 2d 976, 977-978 (1948).
‘“The immunities implicit in the Commerce Clause and the potential taxing power of a State can hardly be made to depend, in the world of practical affairs, on the shifting incidence of the varying tax laws of the various States at a particular moment. Courts are not possessed of instruments of determination so delicate as to enable them to weigh the various factors in a complicated economic setting which, as to an isolated application of a State tax, might mitigate the obvious burden generally created by a direct tax on commerce.’” Id., at 663, 192 P. 2d, at 978 (quoting Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, 256 (1946)).
The Washington Supreme Court upheld this revised scheme against constitutional challenge in B. F. Goodrich Co. v. State, 38 Wash. 2d 663, 231 P. 2d 325, cert. denied, 342 U. S. 876 (1951).
The multiple activities exemption provides:
“(1) [Ejvery person engaged in activities which are within the purview of the provisions of two or more of sections RCW 82.04.230 to 82.04.290, inclusive, shall be taxable under each paragraph applicable to the activities engaged in.
“(2) Persons taxable under RCW 82.04.250 [tax on retailers] or 82.04.270 [tax on wholesalers and distributors] shall not be taxable under RCW 82.04.230 [tax on extractors], 82.04.240 [tax on manufacturers] or subsection (2), (3), (4), (5), or (7) of RCW 82.04.260 [tax on certain food processing activities] with respect to extracting or manufacturing of the products so sold.
“(3) Persons taxable under RCW 82.04.240 or RCW 82.04.260 subsection (4) shall not be taxable under RCW 82.04.230 with respect to extracting the ingredients of the products so manufactured.” Wash. Rev. Code § 82.04.440 (1985).
See, e. g., B. F. Goodrich Co. v. State, supra; General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S. 436 (1964); Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Washington Dept. of Revenue, 419 U. S. 560 (1975); Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Washington Dept. of Revenue, 98 Wash. 2d 814, 659 P. 2d 463, appeal dism’d, 464 U. S. 1013 (1983).
Justice Goldberg explained the functional equivalency for Commerce Clause purposes of the invalidated pre-1950 statute and its successor:
“The burden on interstate commerce and the dangers of multiple taxation are made apparent by considering Washington’s tax provisions. The Washington provision here involved — the ‘tax on wholesalers’ — provides that every person ‘engaging within this state in the business of making sales at wholesale’ shall pay a tax on such business ‘equal to the gross proceeds of sales of such business multiplied by the rate of one-quarter of one per cent.’ Rev. Code Wash. 82.04.270; Wash. Laws 1949, c. 228, § 1 (e). In the same chapter Washington imposes a ‘tax on manufacturers’ which similarly provides that every person ‘engaging within this state in business as a manufacturer’ shall pay a tax on such business ‘equal to the value of the products... manufactured, multiplied by the rate of one-quarter of one per cent.’ Rev. Code Wash. 82.04.240; Wash. Laws 1949, c. 228, § 1 (b). Then in a provision entitled ‘Persons taxable on multiple activities’ the statute endeavors to insure that local Washington products will not be subjected both to the ‘tax on manufacturers’ and to the ‘tax on wholesalers.’ Rev. Code Wash. 82.04.440; Wash. Laws 1949, c. 228, § 2-A. Prior to its amendment in 1950 the exemptive terms of this ‘multiple activities’ provision were designed so that a Washington manufacturer-wholesaler would pay the manufacturing tax and be exempt from the wholesale tax. This provision, on its face, discriminated against interstate wholesale sales to Washington purchasers for it exempted the intrastate sales of locally made products while taxing the competing sales of interstate sellers. In 1950, however, the ‘multiple activities’ provision was amended, reversing the tax and the exemption, so that a Washington manufacturer-wholesaler would first be subjected to the wholesale tax and then, to the extent that he is taxed thereunder, exempted from the manufacturing tax. Rev. Code Wash. 82.04.440; Wash. Laws 1950 (special session), c. 5, § 2. See McDonnell & McDonnell v. State, 62 Wash. 2d 553, 557, 383 P. 2d 905, 908. This amended provision would seem to have essentially the same economic effect on interstate sales but has the advantage of appearing nondiscriminatory.” General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S., at 459-460 (dissenting opinion).
In Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S. 638 (1984), we quoted with approval the following sentence from the Court’s opinion in Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S., 249, 256 (1946):
“The immunities implicit in the Commerce Clause and the potential taxing power of a State can hardly be made to depend, in the world of practical affairs, on the shifting incidence of the varying tax laws of the various States at a particular moment.” See 467 U. S., at 645, n. 8.
The Washington Supreme Court also relied on Freeman
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellant, in seeking reversal of his conviction for selling “girlie” magazines to a minor under 18 years of age in violation of former § 484-i, New York Penal Law, argues among other grounds that the statute is impermissibly vague. We agree. While we rejected a like claim as to § 484 — h in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, § 484-i in part prohibited the sale of “any . . . magazines . . . which would appeal to the lust of persons under the age of eighteen years or to their curiosity as to sex or to the anatomical differences between the sexes . . . .” That standard in our view is unconstitutionally vague. “Nor is it an answer to an argument that a particular regulation of expression is vague to say that it was adopted for the salutary purpose of protecting children. The permissible extent of vagueness is not directly proportional to, or a function of, the extent of the power to regulate or control expression with respect to children.” Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U. S. 676, 689.
Reversed.
Section 484-i was repealed by N. Y. Laws 1967, c. 791. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 631-632, n. 1.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., requires employers to pay overtime compensation to covered employees. The FLSA exempts from the overtime-pay requirement "any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles" at a covered dealership. § 213(b)(10)(A). We granted certiorari to decide whether this exemption applies to service advisors-employees at car dealerships who consult with customers about their servicing needs and sell them servicing solutions. We conclude that service advisors are exempt.
I
A
Enacted in 1938, the FLSA requires employers to pay overtime to covered employees who work more than 40 hours in a week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). But the FLSA exempts many categories of employees from this requirement. See § 213. Employees at car dealerships have long been among those exempted.
Congress initially exempted all employees at car dealerships from the overtime-pay requirement. See Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961, § 9, 75 Stat. 73. Congress then narrowed that exemption to cover "any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trailers, trucks, farm implements, or aircraft." Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966, § 209, 80 Stat. 836. In 1974, Congress enacted the version of the exemption at issue here. It provides that the FLSA's overtime-pay requirement does not apply to "any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements, if he is employed by a nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling such vehicles or implements to ultimate purchasers." § 213(b)(10)(A).
This language has long been understood to cover service advisors. Although the Department of Labor initially interpreted it to exclude them, 35 Fed.Reg. 5896 (1970) (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 779.372(c)(4) (1971) ), the federal courts rejected that view, see Brennan v. Deel Motors, Inc., 475 F.2d 1095 (C.A.5 1973) ; Brennan v. North Bros. Ford, Inc., 76 CCH LC ¶ 33, 247 (E.D.Mich.1975), aff'd sub nom. Dunlop v. North Bros. Ford, Inc., 529 F.2d 524 (C.A.6 1976) (table). After these decisions, the Department issued an opinion letter in 1978, explaining that service advisors are exempt in most cases. See Dept. of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Opinion Letter No. 1520 (WH-467) (1978), [1978-1981 Transfer Binder] CCH Wages-Hours Administrative Rulings ¶ 31,207. From 1978 to 2011, Congress made no changes to the exemption, despite amending § 213 nearly a dozen times. The Department also continued to acquiesce in the view that service advisors are exempt. See Dept. of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Field Operations Handbook, Insert No. 1757, 24L04(k) (Oct. 20, 1987), online at https://perma.cc/5GHD-KCJJ (as last visited Mar. 28, 2018).
In 2011, however, the Department reversed course. It issued a rule that interpreted "salesman" to exclude service advisors. 76 Fed.Reg. 18832, 18859 (2011) (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 779.372(c) ). That regulation prompted this litigation.
B
Petitioner Encino Motorcars, LLC, is a Mercedes-Benz dealership in California. Respondents are current and former service advisors for petitioner. Service advisors "interact with customers and sell them services for their vehicles." Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2117, 2121, 195 L.Ed.2d 382 (2016) (Encino I ). They "mee[t] customers; liste[n] to their concerns about their cars; sugges [t] repair and maintenance services; sel[l] new accessories or replacement parts; recor[d] service orders; follo[w] up with customers as the services are performed (for instance, if new problems are discovered); and explai[n] the repair and maintenance work when customers return for their vehicles." Ibid.
In 2012, respondents sued petitioner for backpay. Relying on the Department's 2011 regulation, respondents alleged that petitioner had violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing that service advisors are exempt under § 213(b)(10)(A). The District Court agreed with petitioner and dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Finding the text ambiguous and the legislative history "inconclusive," the Ninth Circuit deferred to the Department's 2011 rule 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). Encino, 780 F.3d 1267, 1275 (2015).
We granted certiorari and vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment. We explained that courts cannot defer to the 2011 rule because it is procedurally defective. See Encino I, 579 U.S., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2125-2127. Specifically, the regulation undermined significant reliance interests in the automobile industry by changing the treatment of service advisors without a sufficiently reasoned explanation. Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2126. But we did not decide whether, without administrative deference, the exemption covers service advisors. Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2127. We remanded that issue for the Ninth Circuit to address in the first instance. Ibid.
C
On remand, the Ninth Circuit again held that the exemption does not include service advisors. The Court of Appeals agreed that a service advisor is a "'salesman' " in a "generic sense," 845 F.3d 925, 930 (2017), and is " 'primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles' " in a "general sense," id., at 931. Nonetheless, it concluded that "Congress did not intend to exempt service advisors." Id., at 929.
The Ninth Circuit began by noting that the Department's 1966-1967 Occupational Outlook Handbook listed 12 job titles in the table of contents that could be found at a car dealership, including "automobile mechanics," "automobile parts countermen," "automobile salesmen," and "automobile service advisors." Id., at 930. Because the FLSA exemption listed three of these positions, but not service advisors, the Ninth Circuit concluded that service advisors are not exempt. Ibid. The Ninth Circuit also determined that service advisors are not primarily engaged in "servicing" automobiles, which it defined to mean "only those who are actually occupied in the repair and maintenance of cars." Id., at 931. And the Ninth Circuit further concluded that the exemption does not cover salesmen who are primarily engaged in servicing. Id., at 933. In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit invoked the distributive canon. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 214 (2012) ("Distributive phrasing applies each expression to its appropriate referent"). It reasoned that "Congress intended the gerunds-selling and servicing-to be distributed to their appropriate subjects-salesman, partsman, and mechanic. A salesman sells; a partsman services; and a mechanic services." Id., at 934. Finally, the Court of Appeals noted that its interpretation was supported by the principle that exemptions to the FLSA should be construed narrowly, id., at 935, and the lack of any "mention of service advisors" in the legislative history, id., at 939.
We granted certiorari, 582 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 890, 193 L.Ed.2d 783 (2017), and now reverse.
II
The FLSA exempts from its overtime-pay requirement "any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements, if he is employed by a nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling such vehicles or implements to ultimate purchasers." § 213(b)(10)(A). The parties agree that petitioner is a "nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling [automobiles] to ultimate purchasers." The parties also agree that a service advisor is not a "partsman" or "mechanic," and that a service advisor is not "primarily engaged... in selling automobiles." The question, then, is whether service advisors are "salesm[e]n... primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles." We conclude that they are. Under the best reading of the text, service advisors are "salesm[e]n," and they are "primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles." The distributive canon, the practice of construing FLSA exemptions narrowly, and the legislative history do not persuade us otherwise.
A
A service advisor is obviously a "salesman." The term "salesman" is not defined in the statute, so "we give the term its ordinary meaning." Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 566, 132 S.Ct. 1997, 182 L.Ed.2d 903 (2012). The ordinary meaning of "salesman" is someone who sells goods or services. See 14 Oxford English Dictionary 391 (2d ed. 1989) ("[a] man whose business it is to sell goods or conduct sales"); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1262 (1966) ("a man who sells goods, services, etc."). Service advisors do precisely that. As this Court previously explained, service advisors "sell [customers] services for their vehicles." Encino I, 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2121.
B
Service advisors are also "primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles." § 213(b)(10)(A). The word "servicing" in this context can mean either "the action of maintaining or repairing a motor vehicle" or "[t]he action of providing a service." 15 Oxford English Dictionary, at 39; see also Random House Dictionary of the English Language, at 1304 ("to make fit for use; repair; restore to condition for service"). Service advisors satisfy both definitions. Service advisors are integral to the servicing process. They "mee[t] customers; liste[n] to their concerns about their cars; sugges [t] repair and maintenance services; sel[l] new accessories or replacement parts; recor[d] service orders; follo[w] up with customers as the services are performed (for instance, if new problems are discovered); and explai[n] the repair and maintenance work when customers return for their vehicles." Encino I, supra, at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2122. If you ask the average customer who services his car, the primary, and perhaps only, person he is likely to identify is his service advisor.
True, service advisors do not spend most of their time physically repairing automobiles. But the statutory language is not so constrained. All agree that partsmen, for example, are "primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles." Brief for Petitioner 40; Brief for Respondents 41-44. But partsmen, like service advisors, do not spend most of their time under the hood. Instead, they "obtain the vehicle parts... and provide those parts to the mechanics." Encino I, supra, at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2122 ; see also 1 Dept. of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles 33 (3d ed. 1965) (defining "partsman" as someone who "[p]urchases, stores, and issues spare parts for automotive and industrial equipment"). In other words, the phrase "primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles" must include some individuals who do not physically repair automobiles themselves but who are integrally involved in the servicing process. That description applies to partsmen and service advisors alike.
C
The Ninth Circuit concluded that service advisors are not covered because the exemption simply does not apply to "salesm[e]n... primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles." The Ninth Circuit invoked the distributive canon to reach this conclusion. Using that canon, it matched "salesman" with "selling" and "partsma[n] [and] mechanic" with "servicing." We reject this reasoning.
The text of the exemption covers "any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements." § 213(b)(10)(A). The exemption uses the word "or" to connect all of its nouns and gerunds, and "or" is "almost always disjunctive." United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. 31, 45, 134 S.Ct. 557, 187 L.Ed.2d 472 (2013). Thus, the use of "or" to join "selling" and "servicing" suggests that the exemption covers a salesman primarily engaged in either activity.
Unsurprisingly, statutory context can overcome the ordinary, disjunctive meaning of "or." The distributive canon, for example, recognizes that sometimes "[w]here a sentence contains several antecedents and several consequents," courts should "read them distributively and apply the words to the subjects which, by context, they seem most properly to relate." 2A N. Singer & S. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47:26, p. 448 (rev. 7th ed. 2014).
But here, context favors the ordinary disjunctive meaning of "or" for at least three reasons. First, the distributive canon has the most force when the statute allows for one-to-one matching. But here, the distributive canon would mix and match some of three nouns-"salesman, partsman, or mechanic"-with one of two gerunds-"selling or servicing." § 213(b)(10)(A). We doubt that a legislative drafter would leave it to the reader to figure out the precise combinations. Second, the distributive canon has the most force when an ordinary, disjunctive reading is linguistically impossible. Cf., e.g., Huidekoper's Lessee v. Douglass, 3 Cranch 1, 67, 2 L.Ed. 347 (1805) (Marshall, C.J.) (applying the distributive canon when a purely disjunctive reading "would involve a contradiction in terms"). But as explained above, the phrase "salesman... primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles" not only makes sense; it is an apt description of a service advisor. Third, a narrow distributive phrasing is an unnatural fit here because the entire exemption bespeaks breadth. It begins with the word "any." See Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 219, 128 S.Ct. 831, 169 L.Ed.2d 680 (2008) (noting the "expansive meaning" of "any"). And it uses the disjunctive word "or" three times. In fact, all agree that the third list in the exemption-"automobiles, trucks, or farm implements"-modifies every other noun and gerund. But it would be odd to read the exemption as starting with a distributive phrasing and then, halfway through and without warning, switching to a disjunctive phrasing-all the while using the same word ("or") to signal both meanings. See Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118, 115 S.Ct. 552, 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994) (noting the "vigorous" presumption that, "when a term is repeated within a given sentence," it "is used to mean the same thing"). The more natural reading is that the exemption covers any combination of its nouns, gerunds, and objects.
D
The Ninth Circuit also invoked the principle that exemptions to the FLSA should be construed narrowly. 845 F.3d, at 935-936. We reject this principle as a useful guidepost for interpreting the FLSA. Because the FLSA gives no "textual indication" that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, "there is no reason to give [them] anything other than a fair (rather than a 'narrow') interpretation." Scalia, Reading Law, at 363. The narrow-construction principle relies on the flawed premise that the FLSA " 'pursues' " its remedial purpose " 'at all costs.' " American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228, 234, 133 S.Ct. 2304, 186 L.Ed.2d 417 (2013) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525-526, 107 S.Ct. 1391, 94 L.Ed.2d 533 (1987) (per curiam )); see also Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1718, 1725, 198 L.Ed.2d 177 (2017) ("[I]t is quite mistaken to assume... that whatever might appear to further the statute's primary objective must be the law" (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). But the FLSA has over two dozen exemptions in § 213(b) alone, including the one at issue here. Those exemptions are as much a part of the FLSA's purpose as the overtime-pay requirement. See id., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1725 ("Legislation is, after all, the art of compromise, the limitations expressed in statutory terms often the price of passage"). We thus have no license to give the exemption anything but a fair reading.
E
Finally, the Ninth Circuit relied on two extraneous sources to support its interpretation: the Department's 1966-1967 Occupational Outlook Handbook and the FLSA's legislative history. We find neither persuasive.
1
The Ninth Circuit first relied on the Department's 1966-1967 Occupational Outlook Handbook. It identified 12 jobs from the Handbook's table of contents that it thought could be found at automobile dealerships. See 845 F.3d, at 930. The Ninth Circuit then stressed that the exemption aligns with three of those job titles-"[a]utomobile mechanics," "[a]utomobile parts countermen," and "[a]utomobile salesmen"-but not "[a]utomobile service advisors." Ibid.
The Ninth Circuit cited nothing, however, suggesting that the exemption was meant to align with the job titles listed in the Handbook. To the contrary, the exemption applies to "any salesman... primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles." It is not limited, like the term in the Handbook, to "automobile salesmen." And the ordinary meaning of "salesman" plainly includes service advisors.
2
The Ninth Circuit also relied on legislative history to support its interpretation. See id., at 936-939. Specifically, it noted that the legislative history discusses "automobile salesmen, partsmen, and mechanics" but never discusses service advisors. Id., at 939. Although the Ninth Circuit had previously found that same legislative history "inconclusive,"
Encino, 780 F.3d, at 1275, on remand it was "firmly persuaded" that the legislative history demonstrated Congress' desire to exclude service advisors, 845 F.3d, at 939.
The Ninth Circuit was right the first time. As we have explained, the best reading of the statute is that service advisors are exempt. Even for those Members of this Court who consider legislative history, silence in the legislative history, "no matter how 'clanging,' " cannot defeat the better reading of the text and statutory context. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 495, n. 13, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). If the text is clear, it needs no repetition in the legislative history; and if the text is ambiguous, silence in the legislative history cannot lend any clarity. See Avco Corp. v. Department of Justice, 884 F.2d 621, 625 (C.A.D.C.1989). Even if Congress did not foresee all of the applications of the statute, that is no reason not to give the statutory text a fair reading. See Union Bank v. Wolas, 502 U.S. 151, 158, 112 S.Ct. 527, 116 L.Ed.2d 514 (1991).
* * *
In sum, we conclude that service advisors are exempt from the overtime-pay requirement of the FLSA because they are "salesm[e]n... primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles." § 213(b)(10)(A). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice GINSBURG, with whom Justice BREYER, Justice SOTOMAYOR, and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting.
Diverse categories of employees staff automobile dealerships. Of employees so engaged, Congress explicitly exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act hours requirements only three occupations: salesmen, partsmen, and mechanics. The Court today approves the exemption of a fourth occupation: automobile service advisors. In accord with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, I would not enlarge the exemption to include service advisors or other occupations outside Congress' enumeration.
Respondents are service advisors at a Mercedes-Benz automobile dealership in the Los Angeles area. They work regular hours, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., at least five days per week, on the dealership premises. App. 54. Their weekly minimum is 55 hours. Maximum hours, for workers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act), are 40 per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). In this action, respondents seek time-and-a-half compensation for hours worked beyond the 40 per week maximum prescribed by the FLSA.
The question presented: Are service advisors exempt from receipt of overtime compensation under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A)? That exemption covers "any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles." Service advisors, such as respondents, neither sell automobiles nor service (i.e., repair or maintain) vehicles. Rather, they "meet and greet [car] owners"; "solicit and sugges[t]" repair services "to remedy the [owner's] complaints"; "solicit and suggest... supplemental [vehicle] service [s]"; and provide owners with cost estimates. App. 55. Because service advisors neither sell nor repair automobiles, they should remain outside the exemption and within the Act's coverage.
I
In 1961, Congress exempted all automobile-dealership employees from the Act's overtime-pay requirements. See Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961, § 9, 75 Stat. 73. Five years later, in 1966, Congress confined the dealership exemption to three categories of employees: automobile salesmen, mechanics, and partsmen. See Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966, § 209, 80 Stat. 836. At the time, it was well understood that mechanics perform "preventive maintenance" and "repairs," Dept. of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook 477 (1966-1967 ed.) (Handbook), while partsmen requisition parts, "suppl[y] [them] to mechanics," id., at 312, and, at times, have "mechanical responsibilities in repairing parts," Brief for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as Amicus Curiae 30; see Handbook, at 312-313 (partsmen may "measure parts for interchangeability," test parts for "defect[s]," and "repair parts"). Congress did not exempt numerous other categories of dealership employees, among them, automobile painters, upholsterers, bookkeeping workers, cashiers, janitors, purchasing agents, shipping and receiving clerks, and, most relevant here, service advisors. These positions and their duties were well known at the time, as documented in U.S. Government catalogs of American jobs. See Handbook, at XIII, XV, XVI (table of contents); Brief for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as Amicus Curiae 34 (noting "more than twenty distinct [job] classifications" in the service department alone).
"Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions..., additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent." TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus has no warrant to add to the three explicitly exempt categories (salesmen, partsmen, and mechanics) a fourth (service advisors) for which the Legislature did not provide. The reach of today's ruling is uncertain, troublingly so: By expansively reading the exemption to encompass all salesmen, partsmen, and mechanics who are "integral to the servicing process," ante, at 1136, the Court risks restoring much of what Congress intended the 1966 amendment to terminate, i.e., the blanket exemption of all dealership employees from overtime-pay requirements.
II
Had the § 213(b)(10)(A) exemption covered "any salesman or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles," there could be no argument that service advisors fit within it. Only "salesmen" primarily engaged in "selling" automobiles and "mechanics" primarily engaged in "servicing" them would fall outside the Act's coverage. Service advisors, defined as "salesmen primarily engaged in the selling of services, " Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2117, 2129, 195 L.Ed.2d 382 (2016) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (emphasis added), plainly do not belong in either category. Moreover, even if the exemption were read to reach "salesmen" "primarily engaged in servicing automobiles," not just selling them, service advisors would not be exempt. The ordinary meaning of "servicing" is "the action of maintaining or repairing a motor vehicle." Ante, at 1136 (quoting 15 Oxford English Dictionary 39 (2d ed. 1989)). As described above, see supra, at 1138, service advisors neither maintain nor repair automobiles.
Petitioner stakes its case on Congress' addition of the "partsman" job to the exemption. See Reply Brief 6-10. That inclusion, petitioner urges, has a vacuum effect: It draws into the exemption job categories other than the three for which Congress provided, in particular, service advisors. Because partsmen, like service advisors, neither "sell" nor "service" automobiles in the conventional sense, petitioner reasons, Congress must have intended the word "service" to mean something broader than repair and maintenance.
To begin with, petitioner's premise is flawed. Unlike service advisors, partsmen " 'get their hands dirty' by 'working as a mechanic's right-hand man or woman.' " Encino Motorcars, 579 U.S., at ----, n. 1, 136 S.Ct., at 2127, n. 1 (GINSBURG, J., concurring) (quoting Brief for Respondents in No. 15-415, p. 11; alterations omitted); see supra, at 1143 - 1144 (describing duties of partsmen). As the Solicitor General put it last time this case was before the Court, a mechanic "might be able to obtain the parts to complete a repair without the real-time assistance of a partsman by his side." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in No. 15-415, p. 23. But dividing the "key [repair] tasks... between two individuals" only "reinforces" "that both the mechanic and the partsman are... involved in repairing ('servicing') the vehicle." Ibid. Service advisors, in contrast, "sell... services [to customers] for their vehicles," Encino Motorcars, 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2121 (emphasis added)-services that are later performed by mechanics and partsmen.
Adding partsmen to the exemption, moreover, would be an exceptionally odd way for Congress to have indicated that "servicing" should be given a meaning deviating from its ordinary usage. There is a more straightforward explanation for Congress' inclusion of partsmen alongside salesmen and mechanics: Common features of the three enumerated jobs make them unsuitable for overtime pay.
Both salesmen and mechanics work irregular hours, including nights and weekends, not uncommonly offsite, rendering time worked not easily tracked. As noted in the 1966 Senate floor debate, salesmen "go out at unusual hours, trying to earn commissions." 112 Cong. Rec. 20504 (1966) (remarks of Sen. Bayh). See also ibid. (remarks of Sen. Yarborough) ("[T]he salesman... [can] sell an Oldsmobile, a Pontiac, or a Buick all day long and all night. He is not under any overtime."). Mechanics' work may involve similar "difficult[ies] [in] keeping regular hours." Ibid. For example, mechanics may be required to "answe[r] calls in... rural areas," ibid., or to "go out on the field where there is a harvesting of sugarbeets," id., at 20505 (remarks of Sen. Clark). And, like salesmen, mechanics may be "subject to substantial seasonal variations in business." Id., at 20502 (remarks of Sen. Hruska).
Congress added "partsman" to the exemption because it believed that job, too, entailed irregular hours. See ibid. This is "especially true," several Senators emphasized, "in the farm equipment business where farmers, during planting, cultivating and harvesting seasons, may call on their dealers for parts at any time during the day or evening and on weekends." Ibid. (remarks of Sen. Bayh). See also id., at 20503 (remarks of Sen. Mansfield). In Senator Bayh's experience, for instance, a mechanic who "could not find [a] necessary part" after hours might "call the partsman, get him out of bed, and get him to come down to the store." Id., at 20504. See also id., at 20503 (remarks of Sen. Hruska) ("Are we going to say to the farmer who needs a part... on Sunday: You cannot get a spark plug... because the partsman is not exempt, but you can have machinery repaired by a mechanic who is exempt [?]"). Although some Senators opposed adding partsmen to the exemption because, as they understood the job's demands, partsmen did not work irregular hours, e.g., id., at 20505 (remarks of Sen. Clark), the crux of the debate underscores the exemption's rationale.
That rationale has no application here. Unlike salesmen, partsmen, and mechanics, service advisors "wor[k] ordinary, fixed schedules on-site." Brief for Respondents 47 (citing Handbook, at 316). Respondents, for instance, work regular 11-hour shifts, at all times of the year, for a weekly minimum of 55 hours. See App. 54. Service advisors thus do not implicate the concerns underlying the § 213(b)(10)(A) exemption. Indeed, they are precisely the type of workers Congress intended the FLSA to shield "from the evil of overwork," Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted).
I note, furthermore, that limiting the exemption to the three delineated jobs-salesman, partsman, and mechanic-does not leave the phrase "primarily engaged in selling or servicing," § 213(b)(10)(A), without utility. Congress included that language to ensure that only employees who actually perform the tasks commonly associated with the enumerated positions would be covered. Otherwise, for example, a worker who acts as a "salesman" in name only could lose the FLSA's protections merely because of the formal title listed on the employer's payroll records. See Bowers v. Fred Haas Toyota World, 2017 WL 5127289, *4 (S.D.Tex., June 21, 2017) ("[An employee's] title alone is not dispositive of whether he meets the... exemption."). Thus, by partsmen "primarily engaged in... servicing automobiles," Congress meant nothing more than partsmen primarily engaged in the ordinary duties of a partsman, i.e., requisitioning, supplying, and repairing parts. See supra, at 1143 - 1144, 1144 - 1145. The inclusion of "partsman" therefore should not result in the removal of service advisors from the Act's protections.
III
Petitioner contends that "affirming the decision below would disrupt decades of settled expectations" while exposing "employers to substantial retroactive liability." Brief for Petitioner 51. "[M]any dealerships," petitioner urges, "have offered compensation packages based primarily on sales commissions," in reliance on court decisions and agency guidance ranking service advisors as exempt. Id., at 51-52. Respondents here, for instance, are compensated on a "pure commission basis." App. 55. Awarding retroactive overtime pay to employees who were "focused on earning commissions," not "working a set number of hours," petitioner argues, would yield an "unjustified windfal[l]." Brief for Petitioner 53.
Petitioner's concerns are doubly overstated. As the Court previously acknowledged, see Encino Motorcars, 579 U.S., at 1138, 136 S.Ct., at 2126-2127, the FLSA provides an affirmative defense that explicitly protects regulated parties from retroactive liability for actions taken in good-faith reliance on superseded agency guidance. See 29 U.S.C. § 259(a). Given the Department of Labor's longstanding view that service advisors fit within the § 213(b)(10)(A) exemption, see ante, at 1138, the reliance defense would surely shield employers from retroactive liability were the Court to construe the exemption properly.
Congress, moreover, has spoken directly to the treatment of commission -based workers. The FLSA exempts from its overtime directives any employee of a "retail or service establishment" who receives more than half of his or her pay on commission, so long as the employee's "regular rate of pay" is more than 1 ½ times the minimum wage. § 207(i). Thus, even without the § 213(b)(10)(A) exemption, many service advisors compensated on commission would remain ineligible for overtime remun
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Adam Warpouske, an Oregon resident, died in a United States Veterans’ Administration Hospital in Oregon without a will or legal heirs, leaving a net estate composed of personal property worth about $13,000. Oregon law provides that such property shall escheat to the State. A United States statute, on the other hand, provides that when a veteran dies without a will or legal heirs in a veterans’ hospital, his personal property “shall immediately vest in and become the property of the United States as trustee for the sole use and benefit of the General Post Fund . ...” In reliance upon these provisions of their respective statutes, both the State of Oregon and the Government of the United States filed claims for Warpouske’s estate in the Oregon probate court having jurisdiction of the matter.
Recognizing that the federal statute, if applicable and valid, would make the claim of the United States paramount, the State attacked the Government’s reliance upon that statute on two grounds: first, it urged that the federal statute did not apply to this case on the theory that its provisions depended upon the Government’s having made a valid contract with the veteran prior to his death and that Warpouske had made no such contract because he had been mentally incompetent to do so when he entered the hospital and at all times thereafter up to his death; and, secondly, it urged that the federal statute, even if applicable, was invalid because it pertains to the devolution of property, a matter contended to have been wholly reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.
After hearings, the probate court found as a fact that Warpouske had been unable to enter into a valid contract with the Government because of his mental incompetence. That court then accepted the State’s interpretation of the federal statute as requiring a valid contract as a prerequisite to its application and concluded that since such a contract could not, in this case, have been made, the State was entitled to Warpouske’s property by virtue of its escheat law. On appeal, the State Supreme Court affirmed on the same grounds. Because of the importance of this question of federal statutory construction and an alleged conflict between this decision and decisions previously made by other state courts of final jurisdiction, we granted certiorari.
Since we accept the findings of the two state courts that Warpouske could not and did not enter into a contract to leave his property to the United States, the crucial question is whether the Government can prevail in the absence of such a contract. We hold that it can on the grounds that the federal statute relied upon does not require a contract and that this statute does not violate the Tenth Amendment.
The controlling provision was passed in 1941 as an amendment to the Sundry Appropriations Act of 1910. The 1910 Act quite plainly and unequivocally provided that the admission of an applicant to a veterans’ home should “be and constitute a valid and binding contract between such applicant and the Board of Managers of said home that on the death of said applicant while a member of such home, leaving no heirs at law nor next of kin, all personal property owned by said applicant at the time of his death, including money or choses in action held by him and not disposed of by will . . . shall vest in and become the property of the said Board of Managers for the sole use and benefit of the post fund of said home . . . .” The contractual nature of these provisions of the 1910 Act was clear and, indeed, we expressly recognized that fact when the question of the validity of the Act was brought before this Court.
The 1910 Act was greatly amplified, however, by the amendments adopted in 1941 and the central provision of the Act, quoted above, was significantly changed. Section 1 of the new Act restates this provision without reference to the word “contract,” providing simply that when a veteran dies “while a member or patient in any facility, or any hospital while being furnished care or treatment,” all his personal property “not disposed of by will or otherwise, shall immediately vest in and become the property of the United States as trustee for the sole use and benefit of the General Post Fund . ...” The Act then goes on to supplement this basic provision with other provisions that are drawn in the language of contract. But these provisions must be read in the context of § 2 of the Act which provides that the death of a veteran in a veterans’ hospital “shall give rise to a conclusive presumption of a valid contract.” Read in this context, the language of contract which appears in these other provisions of the Act is not at all inconsistent with the provision for automatic vesting without a contract in § 1. Quite the contrary, it seems plain to us that these “contractual” provisions were included in the Act for the purpose of reinforcing rather than detracting from the provisions of § 1 — the thought apparently being that there was some chance that the Act would be attacked as unconstitutional and that it would consequently be advisable to include alternative bases upon which it could be upheld.
This natural construction we give to § 1 makes it fit well in the pattern of legislation dealing with this subject. The solicitude of Congress for veterans is of long standing. Veterans’ pensions, homes, hospitals and other facilities have been supplied on an ever-increasing scale. Many veterans, as did the deceased veteran here, have had to depend upon these benefits for long periods of their lives. Warpouske, for example, appears to have spent more than ten years of his life, at various intervals from time to time, in veterans’ homes and hospitals throughout the country. These were the only homes he had at those times. The congressional plan here is that whatever little personal property veterans without wills or kin happen to leave when they die in veterans’ homes and hospitals should be paid into the General Post Fund, to be used for the recreation and pleasure of other ex-service men and women who have to spend their days in veterans’ homes and hospitals. This idea was expressed by Representative Jennings during the discussion of the 1941 Act on the floor of the House: “And would it not be much better to let that money go into a fund that would inure to the benefit of other veterans than to let . . . it go into a fund under the escheat laws of [a] State?”
Having concluded that the provisions of § 1 are clear and unequivocal on their face, we find no need to resort to the legislative history of the Act. Since the State has placed such heavy reliance upon that history, however, we do deem it appropriate to point out that this history is at best inconclusive. It is true, as the State points out, that Representative Rankin, as Chairman of the Committee handling the bill on the floor of the House, expressed his view during the course of discussion of the bill on the floor that the 1941 Act would not apply to insane veterans incompetent to make valid contracts. But such statements, even when they stand alone, have never been regarded as sufficiently compelling to justify deviation from the plain language of a statute. They are even less so here for there is powerful countervailing evidence as to the intention of those who drafted the bill. The bill was drawn up and sent to the Speaker of the House, in the very form in which it was passed, by the Veterans’ Bureau itself. And that Bureau, we are told, has consistently interpreted the 1941 Act as making the sanity or insanity of a veteran who dies in a veterans’ hospital entirely irrelevant to the determination of the Government’s rights under the Act.
We see no merit in the challenge to the constitutionality of § 1 as construed in this natural manner. Congress undoubtedly has the power — under its constitutional powers to raise armies and navies and to conduct wars— to pay pensions, and to build hospitals and homes for veterans. We think it plain that the same sources of power authorize Congress to require that the personal property left by its wards when they die in government facilities shall be devoted to the comfort and recreation of other ex-service people who must depend upon the Government for care. The fact that this law pertains to the devolution of property does not render it invalid. Although it is true that this is an area normally left to the States, it is not immune under the Tenth Amendment from laws passed by the Federal Government which are, as is the law here, necessary and proper to the exercise of a delegated power.
The judgment of the Oregon Supreme Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Ore. Rev. Stat., § 120.010, provides: “Immediately upon the death of any person who dies intestate without heirs, leaving any real, personal or mixed property, interest or estate in this state, the same escheats to and vests in the state, subject only to the claims of the creditors and as provided in ORS 120.060 to 120.130; and the clear proceeds derived therefrom shall be paid into and become a part of the Common School Fund of this state and be loaned or invested by the State Land Board, as provided by law.”
38 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 17.
222 Ore. 40, 352 P. 2d 539.
The conflict alleged is with the decisions in Skriziszouski Estate, 382 Pa. 634, 116 A. 2d 841; and In re Gonsky’s Estate, 79 N. D. 123, 55 N. W. 2d 60.
364 U. S. 877.
36 Stat. 703, 736
“In passing the Act of June, 1910, Congress merely directed the terms and conditions under which veterans, consistently with state law, can obtain admittance to Homes built, maintained and operated by the government for the benefit of veterans. Homes for the aged, needy, or infirm, in return for the benefits bestowed by them, generally receive some benefit from any property or estates of their members.” United States v. Stevens, 302 U. S. 623, 627.
55 Stat. 868, 38 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 17 et seq.
38 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 17.
38 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 17a.
These fears doubtless arose, in part at least, from the fact that the Circuit Court of Appeals had, in the Stevens case, supra, declared even the milder provisions of the 1910 Act unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, Stevens v. United States, 89 F. 2d 151, a holding ultimately reversed by this Court.
See the Brief History of Legislation Pertaining to Veterans’ Benefits, 38 U. S. C. A. 1.
87 Cong. Rec. 5203-5204.
Cf. United States v. Bowen, 100 U. S. 508, 513-514; National Home v. Wood, 299 U. S. 211, 216.
87 Cong. Rec. 5203.
See H. R. Rep. No. 609, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1-2.
See, e, g., Kolovrat v. Oregon, ante, p. 187, This was also implicit in the holding in United States v. Stevens, 302 U. S. 623, See n. 11, supra. Cf. Hines v. Lowrey, 305 U. S. 85, in which this Court rejected the contention that the Federal Constitution does not confer any authority upon Congress to deal with mental incompetents.
See, e. g., Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92; Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508; United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitioner, a retailer of burial monuments and bronze grave markers, brought this action for damages and injunctive relief under §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 737, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 15, 26, alleging that the respondents had violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2, by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the manufacture and sale of bronze grave markers. The respondents — Matthews, a manufacturer of such markers, and five operators of cemeteries (called “memorial parks”) that sell the markers — were charged with having jointly adopted various restrictive devices to prevent, restrict, and discourage sales of markers by the petitioner for installation in the cemeteries. After extensive pretrial discovery, the District Court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was no material issue of fact and no evidence of conspiracy. 290 F. Supp. 1. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 404 F. 2d 1008.
We cannot agree that on the record before the District Court a jury could not have found that the respondents had conspired to exclude the petitioner from and monopolize the market for bronze grave markers. As Circuit Judge Craven pointed out in his dissenting opinion, the record disclosed the following conduct on the part of the respondents:
“(1) Despite the unskilled nature of the work, all of the memorial parks refuse to permit the plaintiff to install markers sold by it; all of them insist that the work be done by the cemeteries themselves.
“(2) None of the memorial parks charges lot owners a separate installation fee in the case of markers purchased from the cemeteries.
“(3) All of the memorial parks require the payment of an installation fee by the plaintiff for installing markers purchased from the plaintiff. The plaintiff plausibly maintains that the actual cost of installation comes to about $3. Yet, enormous installation fees are charged plaintiff ....
“(4) All of the memorial parks require a specific alloy content in the bronze markers installed, and reserve the right to reject non-conforming markers. The alloy content requirement happens to be the same as manufacturer Matthews’ markers and the same as is implicitly suggested in a pamphlet (‘Modern Cemeteries’) distributed by Matthews to its customers. All of the memorial parks except Roosevelt are customers of Matthews.
“(5) There is evidence that Greenlawn, Wood-lawn and Princess Anne have attempted to dissuade lot owners from purchasing markers from the plaintiff. The affidavit of plaintiff’s president states that numerous other incidents of this nature have occurred.
“(6) Defendant Matthews, in its pamphlet ‘Modern Cemeteries,’ suggests a number of practices which in effect erect competitive barriers to retailers other than the cemeteries themselves.
“(7) Many of these practices have been adopted by the memorial park defendants, as evidenced by affidavits in the record, and by the ‘rule books’ of Rosewood, Princess Anne and Greenlawn.
“(8) There is evidence of numerous visits to and conferences with the memorial parks by sales representatives of Matthews.” 404 F. 2d, at 1012-1014.
The District Court found that the rules relating to the alloy content and installation of the markers were reasonable “[i]n view of the continuing obligation of perpetual care imposed upon the cemeteries, in [their] contracts with lot owners . . . .” 290 F. Supp., at 3. But the business justification for these restrictive rules was disputed by the petitioner, which proffered evidence that the markers required very little permanent care and that, in any event, the funds for that purpose were already provided from another source. The reasonableness of the rules was a material question of fact whose resolution was the function of the jury and not of the court on a motion for summary judgment. The same is true of the inferences to be drawn from respondent Matthews’ pamphlet. The District Court dismissed it as without any possible significance because it was a mere “form book/’ which “specifically points out . . . that it contains suggested standards of fair and reasonable regulations which the cemetery would be advised to adopt but says that ‘. . . Jas. H. Matthews & Co. is not permitted to make recommendations and suggests that the reader consult his own attorney.’ ” 290 F. Supp., at 3. Again this self-serving disclaimer raised a question for the jury, and it surely did not alone conclusively rebut the petitioner’s contention that the pamphlet evidenced an agreement among the respondents to participate in the alleged restrictive practices.
Nor do the other findings of the District Court necessarily dispel the inferences which the jury would be asked by the petitioner to draw. The District Court found, for example, that there was “a wide divergence of prices” charged for installation “which would completely negative any systematic scheming or conscious parallelism.” 290 F. Supp., at 3. The petitioner’s complaint, however, was not that the respondent cemeteries were charging uniform fees but that they were charging deliberately “excessive and unreasonable” fees for the purpose of injuring the petitioner. The fact that the District Court appeared to consider dispositive of the conspiracy allegations was that the petitioner’s principal officer “admitted that he has no letters, agreements, correspondence, or any other testimonials to a conspiracy among the several defendants . . . .” 290 F. Supp., at 3. But it is settled that “[n]o formal agreement is necessary to constitute an unlawful conspiracy,” American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781, 809, and that “business behavior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder may infer agreement.” Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U. S. 537, 540.
We express no opinion, of course, on the strength or weakness of the petitioner’s case, but hold only that the alleged conspiracy had not been conclusively disproved by pretrial discovery and that there remained material issues of fact which could only be resolved by the jury after a plenary trial. As we have cautioned before, “summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation where motive and intent play leading roles, the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators, and hostile witnesses thicken the plot.” Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 U. S. 464, 473.
The writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in the District Court consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Fortas, and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.
Judge Craven noted that the reason for the disclaimer is that “Matthews is under an injunction prohibiting it from making any suggestions to memorial parks as to the quality of markers installed in the parks.” 404 F. 2d, at 1013, n. 6. The injunction was entered in one of the three consent decrees which have settled prior antitrust actions against Matthews. See 404 F. 2d, at 1014.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
As part of the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., the State of Illinois provides federally subsidized foster care (AFDC-FC) payments of $105 per month for a dependent child placed with unrelated foster parents. Under Illinois' administration of the program no foster care payments are made to foster parents who are related to the foster child. Related foster parents are eligible, however, to receive payments under the State’s regular AFDC program for the support of dependent children in the amount of $63 per month. These payments are made without regard to the financial circumstances of the family caring for the child. In addition, as an exception to the State’s regular policy, related foster parents, upon an adequate showing of financial need, may receive supplemental payments for child care which bring the payments in connection with the related foster child to approximately $105 per month.
Appellants are Linda Youakim and her husband, Marcel, and Linda’s four minor brothers and sisters, Timothy, Mary Lou, Larry, and Sherry Robertson. Since 1972, the Youakims have been foster parents of Timothy and Mary Lou. Larry and Sherry have been living in separate, unrelated foster care facilities since 1969. Because Linda is related to Timothy and Mary Lou, the Youakims were ineligible for AFDC-FC foster care payments. They did apply for and receive the smaller AFDC payments for both children. Alleging injury resulting from financial inability to provide adequate care for Timothy and Mary Lou and to bring Larry and Sherry into their foster family, appellants filed suit in the District Court against the state officials on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. Their complaint described the suit as an action to enjoin enforcement of the foster care payment scheme on the ground that it denied related foster families the equal protection of the laws and likewise discriminated against wards of the State and relatives who could not provide an adequate foster home without full foster care payments. They asked that a three-judge District Court convene and enjoin the enforcement of the Illinois statutes and regulations.
The three-judge court “approved” the Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (b)(2) class, granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, and ultimately held that the “Illinois scheme does not deny plaintiffs equal protection of the laws.” 374 F. Supp. 1204, 1210 (ND Ill. 1974). The jurisdictional statement filed here expressly challenged the Illinois scheme both on equal protection grounds and on the ground of conflict with the Social Security Act. We noted probable jurisdiction. 420 U. S. 970 (1975).
Although the jurisdictional statement as to which we noted probable jurisdiction presented the question of conflict between the Illinois law and the Social Security Act, it appears that the Supremacy Clause claim was not presented to the District Court as an independent ground for invalidating the state law. The complaint described the suit as one seeking an injunction on equal protection grounds. The sole ground for relief expressly claimed in each of the three causes of action which the complaint purported to allege, as well as in the prayer for relief, was that the Illinois program denied appellants equal protection of the laws. It does not appear from the record in the District Court that as the case developed appellants rested on the Supremacy Clause as a separate basis for their injunction claim. Nor did the District Court address the relationship between state and federal law independently of the equal protection issue.
Ordinarily, this Court does not decide questions not raised or resolved in the lower court. California v. Taylor, 353 U. S. 553, 557 n. 2 (1957); Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339, 362-363, n. 16 (1958). But as Pollard v. United States, 352 U. S. 354, 359 (1957), and Brotherhood of Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S. 395, 412 (1947), for example, demonstrate, the rule is not inflexible. Cf. Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454, 457 (1960). Its usual formulation is: “It is only in exceptional cases coming here from the federal courts that questions not pressed or passed upon below are reviewed.” Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195, 200 (1927). Here, as we shall describe, the circumstances justify our dealing with the issue of conflict between state and federal statutes at least to the extent of vacating the judgment below and remanding the case for consideration of the claim that the Illinois foster care program is in conflict with the Social Security Act.
Initially, it should be noted that the statutory issue is not foreign to the subject matter of the complaint. Attacks on state welfare statutes often combine Equal Protection Clause and Supremacy Clause issues. The latter question could surely have been pursued under the complaint filed in this case, which, as part of the “facts” incorporated by reference in each of the three causes of action, alleged that the Illinois program was in conflict with the policy of the United States expressed in sub-chapter IV of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., specifically with the federal policy of encouraging the care of children in their own homes or in the homes of relatives wherever possible.
It is also apparent that the District Court was of the view that under Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282 (1971), “serious equal protection problems” might arise if “a state attempts to rely on the concept of fiscal integrity to limit beyond statutory standards the class eligible to receive federally subsidized payments.” 374 F. Supp., at 1210. For this reason, the District Court compared federal and state law, and concluded: “Far from being inconsistent with the federal scheme, the Illinois scheme in general seems to parallel it. . . . Thus the federal statute makes the same classification as the Illinois statute.” Ibid. Had appellants relied on the Supremacy Clause issue as a separate ground for decision it would appear that the claim would have been rejected by the District Court. In light of these circumstances, the case is at most only marginally subject to the rule that this Court will not consider issues “not pressed or passed upon” in the court below.
Beyond these considerations, on October 25, 1974, after the filing of the jurisdictional statement but before we noted probable jurisdiction, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9 stating that under the controlling federal law, “[w]hen a child has been removed from his home by judicial determination and is placed in foster care under the various conditions specified . .., the foster care rate of payment prevails regardless of whether or not the foster home is operated by a relative.” Also, in response to appellants' jurisdictional statement, the Solicitor General filed a statement in this Court urging that the Illinois foster care program was inconsistent with the Social Security Act insofar as it provided higher payments to unrelated foster parents than to those who were related. Neither the appellants nor the District Court had the benefit of either of these developments when the case was in the lower court. The interpretation of a statute by an agency charged with its enforcement is a substantial factor to be considered in construing the statute, New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 421 (1973); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic Comm., 412 U. S. 94, 121 (1973); Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617, 626-627 (1971); and-appellants now wish to press the issue of conflict between state and federal law. We think that it is appropriate to afford them the opportunity to do so, but that the claim should be aired first in the District Court. Vacating the judgment and remanding the case for this purpose will require the District Court first to decide the statutory issue, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528 (1974), and if appellants prevail on that question, it will be unnecessary for either the District Court or this Court to reach the equal protection issue at all. A remand is thus consistent with our usual practice of avoiding decisions on constitutional matters if a case may be resolved on other grounds.
The action we take here is similar to the order the Court entered in Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 386 U. S. 670 (1967). There, rather than deciding the constitutionality of an eviction from a public housing project, the Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a, supervening administrative directive which was issued by federal authorities and which it was thought might provide a nonconstitutional basis for decision. Cf. Richardson v. Wright, 405 U. S. 208, 209 (1972).
The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The appellee state officials have met both of appellants’ claims on the merits and have not sought to restrict our review to the equal protection issue.
From papers lodged with the Court, it appears, and appellants do not dispute, that since September 1, 1974, the Youakims have been receiving need-based payments supplementing the AFDC payments for Timothy and Mary Lou. They now receive monthly payments totaling $105, the same amount they would receive under the AFDC-FC program. Their receipt of these payments does not moot the case. The complaint alleged that ineligibility for regular foster care payments had precluded the Youakims “from even considering accepting for foster care the [two] other family members” who are living with nonrelatives in other foster care facilities. App. 12. Were it not for the Illinois program, they allege, the Youakims could seek to bring Larry and Sherry into their foster home and would receive the same monthly $105 AFDC-FC payments per child received as a matter of course by the foster care facilities now caring for Larry and Sherry without any showing of need and without applying for need-based funds supplementing the $63 AFDC payments. Whatever its strength, the Youakims’ claim that it is unlawful to require them to demonstrate need and to rely on an exception to policy in order to receive the same child care payments is not mooted by current receipt of larger payments for Timothy and Mary Lou who are living in the Youakim home. Because we conclude that the case is not moot as to the Youakims, we need not decide whether the District Court properly identified the Rule 23 (b) (2) class, compare Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975), with Indianapolis School Comm’rs v. Jacobs, 420 U. S. 128 (1975), so that the class action might be maintained notwithstanding mootness as to the named plaintiffs, or whether appellant Linda Youakim properly sued as “next friend” of her four brothers and sisters, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 17 (c), so that their constitutional interests could be adjudicated by the 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: | 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.
f Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
After administrative hearings, the respondent Pedreiro, an alien, was ordered deported under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. . He petitioned the District Court for the Southern District of New York to review the deportation order, declare it void and issue a temporary injunction restraining its execution pending final district court action. In part he contended that there was no legal evidence to support the order and that in violation of due process he had been compelled to incriminate himself in the hearings. Relief was sought only against the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the District of New York. The District Court dismissed the petition on the ground that either the Attorney General or the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization was an indispensable party and should have been joined. This holding made it unnecessary for the District Court to pass on another ground ' urged for dismissal, that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 precluded judicial review of deportation orders by any method except habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting both contentions of the Government. 213 F. 2d 768. In doing so it followed the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which had held that deportation orders entered under the 1952 Immigration Act can be judicially reviewed in actions for declaratory relief under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Rubinstein v. Brownell, 92 U. S. App. D. C. 328, 206 F. 2d 449, affirmed by an equally divided Court, 346 U. S. 929. But the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that habeas corpus is the only way such deportation orders can be attacked. Batista v. Nicolls, 213 F. 2d 20. Because of this conflict among the circuits and the contention that allowing judicial review of deportation orders other than by habeas corpus conflicts with Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, we granted certiorari, 348 U. S. 882.
The Heikkila case, unlike this one, dealt with a deportation order under the Immigration Act of 1917. That Act provided that deportation orders of the Attorney General should be “final” and had long been interpreted as precluding any type of judicial review except by habeas corpus. Heikkila contended that this narrow right of review of deportation orders under the 1917 Act had been broadened by § 10 of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act which authorizes review of agency action by any appropriate method “except so far as (1) statutes preclude judicial review . . . .” Because this Court had construed the word “final” in the 1917 Act as precluding any review except by habeas corpus, it held that the Administrative Procedure Act gave no additional remedy since § 10 excepted statutes that precluded judicial review. The Court carefully pointed out, however, that it did not consider whether the same result should be reached under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “which took effect after Heikkila’s complaint was filed.” Consequently Heikkila.does not control this case and we must consider the effect of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act on the right to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that “Any person suffering legal wrong because of any agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.” And § 12 of the Act provides that “No subsequent legislation shall be held to supersede or modify the provisions of this Act except to the extent that such legislation shall do so expressly.” In the subsequent 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act there is no language which “expressly” supersedes or modifies the expanded right of review granted by § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act. But the 1952 Immigration Act does provide, as did the 1917 Act, that deportation orders of the Attorney General shall be “final.” The Government contends that we should read this as expressing a congressional purpose to give the word “final” in the 1952 Act precisely the same meaning Heikkila gave “final” in the 1917 Act and thereby continue to deprive deportees of all right of judicial review except by habeas corpus. We cannot accept this. contention.
Such a restrictive construction of the finality provision of the present Immigration Act would run counter to § 10 and § 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Their purpose was to remove obstacles to judicial review of agency action under subsequently enacted statutes like the 1952 Immigration Act. And as the Court said in the Heikkila case, the Procedure Act is to be given a “hospitable” interpretation. In that case the Court also referred to ambiguity in the provision making deportation orders of the Attorney General “final.” It is more in harmony with the generous review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act to construe the ambiguous word “final” in the 1952 Immigration Act as referring to finality in administrative procedure rather than as cutting off the right of judicial review in whole or in part. And it would certainly not be in keeping with either of these Acts to require a person ordered deported to go to jail in order to obtain review by a court, j
The legislative history of both the Administrative Procedure Act and the 1952 Immigration Act supports respondent’s right to full judicial review of this deportation order. The sponsors of the Administrative Procedure Act were Representative Walter in the House and Senator McCarran in the Senate. They were also the sponsors of the 1952 Immigration Act. While the latter Act was under consideration in the House, an amendment was proposed which provided for liberal judicial review of deportation orders. Representative Walter assured the House that the proposed amendment was not needed. He said: “Now, we come to this question of the finality of the decision of the Attorney General. That language means that it is a final decision as far as the administrative branch of the Government is concerned, but it is not final in that it is not the last remedy that the alien has. Section 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act is applicable.” With reference to the same problem Senator McCarran assured the Senate that “the Administrative Procedure Act is made applicable to the bill.” It is argued that these assurances by the chairmen of the committees in charge of the bills were but isolated statements and that other legislative history is sufficient to refute them. We cannot agree. Our holding is that there is a right of judicial review of deportation orders other than by habeas corpus and that the remedy sought here is an appropriate one.
] We also reject the Government’s contention that the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization is an indispensable party to an action for declaratory relief of this kind. District Directors are authorized by regulation to issue warrants of deportation, to designate the country to which an alien shall be deported, and to determine when his mental or physical condition requires the employment of a person to accompany him. The regulations purport to make these decisions of the District Director final. It seems highly appropriate, therefore, that the District Director charged with enforcement of a deportation order should represent the Government’s interest. Otherwise in order to try his case an alien might be compelled to go to the District of Columbia to obtain jurisdiction over the Commissioner. To impose this burden on an alien about to be deported would be completely inconsistent with the basic policy of the Administrative Procedure Act to facilitate court review of such administrative action. We know of no necessity for such a harsh rule. Undoubtedly the Government’s defense can be adequately presented by the District Director who is under the supervision of the Commissioner.
It is argued, however, that the Commissioner should be an indispensable party because a judgment against a District Director alone would not be final and binding in other immigration districts. But we need not decide the effect of such a judgment. We cannot assume that a decision on the merits in a court of appeals on a question of this kind, subject to review by this Court, would be lightly disregarded by the immigration authorities. Nor is it to be assumed that a second effort to have the same issue decided in a habeas corpus proceeding would do any serious harm to the Government. In habeas corpus proceedings district courts would have the duty to consider previous court decisions on the same matter. And even though in extraordinary circumstances new matters not previously adjudicated may arise in habeas corpus proceedings, this is no adequate reason for subjecting an alien to the great burden of having to go with his witnesses to the District of Columbia, which may be far distant from his home, in order to contest his deportation. Our former cases have established a policy under which indispensability of parties is determined on practical considerations. See, e. g., Williams v. Fanning, 332 U. S. 490. That policy followed here causes us to conclude that the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization is not an indispensable party.
Affirmed
66 Stat. 163, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq.
60 Stat. 243, 5 U. S. C. § 1009.
39 Stat. 889, as amended, 54 Stat. 1238.
Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 232, note 4.
98 Cong. Rec. 4416.
98 Cong. Rec. 5778.
Compare Paolo v. Garfinkel, 200 F. 2d 280; Rodriguez v. Landon, 212 F. 2d 508.
8 CFR §§ 243.1, 243.2.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the jury instructions in the prosecution of a corporate officer under § 301 (k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1042, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 331 (k), were appropriate under United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277 (1943).
Acme Markets, Inc., is a national retail food chain with approximately 36,000 employees, 874 retail outlets, 12 general warehouses, and four special warehouses. Its headquarters, including the office of the president, respondent Park, who is chief executive officer of the corporation, are located in Philadelphia, Pa. In a five-count information filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Government charged Acme and respondent with violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Each count of the information alleged that the defendants had received food that had been shipped in interstate commerce and that, while the food was being held for sale in Acme’s Baltimore warehouse following shipment in interstate commerce, they caused it to be held in a building accessible to rodents and to be exposed to contamination by rodents. These acts were alleged to have resulted in the food’s being adulterated within the meaning of 21 U. S. C. §§ 342 (a)(3) and (4), in violation of 21 U. S. C. §331 (k).
Acme pleaded guilty to each count of the information. Respondent pleaded not guilty. The evidence at trial demonstrated that in April 1970 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised respondent by letter of insanitary conditions in Acme’s Philadelphia warehouse. In 1971 the FDA found that similar conditions existed in the firm’s Baltimore warehouse. An FDA consumer safety officer testified concerning evidence of rodent infestation and other insanitary conditions discovered during a 12-day inspection of the Baltimore warehouse in November and December 1971. He also related that a second inspection of the warehouse had been conducted in March 1972. On that occasion the inspectors found that there had been improvement in the sanitary conditions, but that “there was still evidence of rodent activity in the building and in the warehouses and we found some rodent-contaminated lots of food items.” App. 23.
The Government also presented testimony by the Chief of Compliance of the FDA’s Baltimore office, who informed respondent by letter of the conditions at the Baltimore warehouse after the first inspection. There was testimony by Acme’s Baltimore division vice president, who had responded to the letter on behalf of Acme and respondent and who described the steps taken to remedy the insanitary conditions discovered by both inspections. The Government’s final witness, Acme’s vice president for legal affairs and assistant secretary, identified respondent as the president and chief executive officer of the company and read a bylaw prescribing the duties of the chief executive officer. He testified that respondent functioned by delegating “normal operating duties,” including sanitation, but that he retained “certain things, which are the big, broad, principles of the operation of the company,” and had “the responsibility of seeing that they all work together.” Id., at 41.
At the close of the Government’s case in chief, respondent moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that “the evidence in chief has shown that Mr. Park is not personally concerned in this Food and Drug violation.” The trial judge denied the motion, stating that United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277 (1943), was controlling.
Respondent was the only defense witness. He testified that, although all of Acme’s employees were in a sense under his general direction, the company had an “organizational structure for responsibilities for certain functions” according to which different phases of its operation were “assigned to individuals who, in turn, have staff and departments under them.” He identified those individuals responsible for sanitation, and related that upon receipt of the January 1972 FDA letter, he had conferred with the vice president for legal affairs, who informed him that the Baltimore division vice president “was investigating the situation immediately and would be taking corrective action and would be preparing a summary of the corrective action to reply to the letter.” Respondent stated that he did not “believe there was anything [he] could have done more constructively than what [he] found was being done.” App. 43-47.
On cross-examination, respondent conceded that providing sanitary conditions for food offered for sale to the public was something that he was “responsible for in the entire operation of the company,” and he stated that it was one of many phases of the company that he assigned to “dependable subordinates.” Respondent was asked about and, over the objections of his counsel, admitted receiving, the April 1970 letter addressed to him from the FDA regarding insanitary conditions at Acme’s Philadelphia warehouse. He acknowledged that, with the exception of the division vice president, the same individuals had responsibility for sanitation in both Baltimore and Philadelphia. Finally, in response to questions concerning the Philadelphia and Baltimore incidents, respondent admitted that the Baltimore problem indicated the system for handling sanitation “wasn’t working perfectly” and that as Acme’s chief executive officer he was responsible for “any result which occurs in our company.” Id., at 48-55.
At the close of the evidence, respondent’s renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied. The relevant portion of the trial judge’s instructions to the jury challenged by respondent is set out in the margin. Respondent’s counsel objected to the instructions on the ground that they failed fairly to reflect our decision in United States v. Dotterweich, supra, and to define “'responsible relationship.’ ” The trial judge overruled the objection. The jury found respondent guilty on all counts of the information, and he was subsequently sentenced to pay a fine of $50 on each count.
The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. That court viewed the Government as arguing “that the conviction may be predicated solely upon a showing that... [respondent] was the President of the offending corporation,” and it stated that as “a general proposition, some act of commission or omission is an essential element of every crime.” 499 F. 2d 839, 841 (CA4 1974). It reasoned that, although our decision in United States v. Dotterweich, supra, at 281, had construed the statutory provisions under which respondent was tried to dispense with the traditional element of “ ‘awareness of some wrongdoing,’ ” the Court had not construed them as dispensing with the element of “wrongful action.” The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial judge’s instructions “might well have left the jury with the erroneous impression that Park could be found guilty in the absence of ‘wrongful action’ on his part,” 499 F. 2d, at 841-842, and that proof of this element was required by due process. It held, with one dissent, that the instructions did not “correctly state the law of the case,” id., at 840, and directed that on retrial the jury be instructed as to “wrongful action,” which might be “gross negligence and inattention in discharging... corporate duties and obligations or any of a host of other acts of commission or omission which would ‘cause’ the contamination of food.” Id., at 842. (Footnotes omitted.)
The Court of Appeals also held that the admission in evidence of the April 1970 FDA warning to respondent was error warranting reversal, based on its conclusion that, “as this case was submitted to the jury and in light of the sole issue presented,” there was no need for the evidence and thus that its prejudicial effect outweighed its relevancy under the test of United States v. Woods, 484 F. 2d 127 (CA4 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 979 (1974). 499 F. 2d, at 843.
We granted certiorari because of an apparent conflict among the Courts of Appeals with respect to the standard of liability of corporate officers under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as construed in United States v. Dotterweich, supra, and because of the importance of the question to the Government’s enforcement program. We reverse.
I
The question presented by the Government’s petition for certiorari in United States v. Dotterweich, supra, and the focus of this Court’s opinion, was whether “the manager of a corporation, as well as the corporation itself, may be prosecuted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 for the introduction of misbranded and adulterated articles into interstate commerce.” Pet. for Cert., No. 5, O. T. 1943, p. 2. In Dotterweich, a jury had disagreed as to the corporation, a jobber purchasing drugs from manufacturers and shipping them in interstate commerce under its own label, but had convicted Dotterweich, the corporation’s president and general manager. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the ground that only the drug dealer, whether corporation or individual, was subject to the criminal provisions of the Act, and that where the dealer was a corporation, an individual connected therewith might be held personally only if he was operating the corporation “as his ‘alter ego.’ ” United States v. Buffalo Pharmacal Co., 131 F. 2d 500, 503 (CA2 1942).
In reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstating Dotterweich’s conviction, this Court looked to the purposes of the Act and noted that they “touch phases of the lives and health of people which, in the circumstances of modern industrialism, are largely beyond self-protection.” 320 U. S., at 280. It observed that the Act is of “a now familiar type” which “dispenses with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct — awareness of some wrongdoing. In the interest of the larger good it puts the burden of acting at hazard upon a person otherwise innocent but standing in responsible relation to a public danger.” Id., at 280-281.
Central to the Court’s conclusion that individuals other than proprietors are subject to the criminal provisions of the Act was the reality that “the only way in which a corporation can act is through the individuals who act on its behalf.” Id., at 281. The Court also noted that corporate officers had been subject to criminal liability under the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906, and it observed that a contrary result under the 1938 legislation would be incompatible with the expressed intent of Congress to “enlarge and stiffen the penal net” and to discourage a view of the Act’s criminal penalties as a “ ‘license fee for the conduct of an illegitimate business.’ ” 320 U. S., at 282-283. (Footnote omitted.)
At the same time, however, the Court was aware of the concern which was the motivating factor in the Court of Appeals’ decision, that literal enforcement “might operate too harshly by sweeping within its condemnation any person however remotely entangled in the proscribed shipment.” Id., at 284. A limiting principle, in the form of “settled doctrines of criminal law” defining those who “are responsible for the commission of a misdemeanor,” was available. In this context, the Court concluded, those doctrines dictated that the offense was committed “by all who... have... a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws.” Ibid.
The Court recognized that, because the Act dispenses with the need to prove “consciousness of wrongdoing,” it may result in hardship even as applied to those who share “responsibility in the business process resulting in” a violation. It regarded as “too treacherous” an attempt “to define or even to indicate by way of illustration the class of employees which stands in such a responsible relation.” The question of responsibility, the Court said, depends “on the evidence produced at the trial and its submission — assuming the evidence warrants it — to the jury under appropriate guidance.” The Court added: “In such matters the good sense of prosecutors, the wise guidance of trial judges, and the ultimate judgment of juries must be trusted.” Id., at 284r-285. See 21 U. S. C. § 336.’ Cf. United States v. Sullivan, 332 U. S. 689, 694-695 (1948).
II
The rule that corporate employees who have “a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws” are subject to the criminal provisions of the Act was not formulated in a vacuum. Cf. Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 258 (1952). Cases under the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 reflected the view both that knowledge or intent were not required to be proved in prosecutions under its criminal provisions, and that responsible corporate agents could be subjected to the liability thereby imposed. See, e. g., United States v. Mayfield, 177 F. 765 (ND Ala. 1910). Moreover, the principle had been recognized that a corporate agent, through whose act, default, or omission the corporation committed a crime, was himself guilty individually of that crime. The principle had been applied whether or not the crime required “consciousness of wrongdoing,” and it had been applied not only to those corporate agents who themselves committed the criminal act, but also to those who by virtue, of their managerial positions or other similar relation to the actor could be deemed responsible for its commission.
In the latter class of cases, the liability of managerial officers did not depend on their knowledge of, or personal participation in, the act made criminal by the statute. Rather, where the statute under which they were prosecuted dispensed with “consciousness of wrongdoing,” an omission or failure to act was deemed a sufficient basis for a responsible corporate agent’s liability. It was enough in such cases that, by virtue of the relationship he bore to the corporation, the agent had the power to prevent the act complained of. See, e. g., State v. Burnam, 71 Wash. 199, 128 P. 218 (1912); Overland Cotton Mill Co. v. People, 32 Colo. 263, 75 P. 924 (1904). Cf. Groff v. State, 171 Ind. 547, 85 N. E. 769 (1908); Turner v. State, 171 Tenn. 36, 100 S. W. 2d 236 (1937); People v. Schwartz, 28 Cal. App. 2d 775, 70 P. 2d 1017 (1937); Sayre, Criminal Responsibility for the Acts of Another, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 689 (1930).
The rationale of the interpretation given the Act in D otterweich, as holding criminally accountable the persons whose failure to exercise the authority and supervisory responsibility reposed in them by the business organization resulted in the violation complained of, has been confirmed in our subsequent eases. Thus, the Court has reaffirmed the proposition that “the public interest in the purity of its food is so great as to warrant the imposition of the highest standard of care on distributors.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 152 (1959). In order to make “distributors of food the strictest censors of their merchandise,” ibid., the Act punishes “neglect where the law requires care, or inaction where it imposes a duty.” Morissette v. United States, supra, at 255. “The accused, if he does not will the violation, usually is in a position to prevent it with no more care than society might reasonably expect and no more exertion than it might reasonably exact from one who assumed his responsibilities.” Id., at 256. Cf. Hughes, Criminal Omissions, 67 Yale L. J. 590 (1958). Similarly, in cases decided after Dotterweich, the Courts of Appeals have recognized that those corporate agents vested with the responsibility, and power commensurate with that responsibility, to devise whatever measures are necessary to ensure compliance with the Act bear a “responsible relationship” to, or have a “responsible share” in, violations.
Thus Dotterweich and the cases which have followed reveal that in providing sanctions which reach and touch the individuals who execute the corporate mission — and this is by no means necessarily confined to a single corporate agent or employee — the Act imposes not only a positive duty to seek out and remedy violations when they occur but also, and primarily, a duty to implement measures that will insure that violations will not occur. The requirements of foresight and vigilance imposed on responsible corporate agents are beyond question demanding, and perhaps onerous, but they are no more stringent than the public has a right to expect of those who voluntarily assume positions of authority in business enterprises whose services and products affect the health and well-being of the public that supports them. Cf. Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev. 731, 741-745 (I960).
The Act does not, as we observed in Dotterweich, make criminal liability turn on “awareness of some wrongdoing” or “conscious fraud.” The duty imposed by Congress on responsible corporate agents is, we emphasize, one that requires the highest standard of- foresight and vigilance, but the Act, in its criminal aspect, does not require that which is objectively impossible. The theory upon which responsible corporate agents are held criminally accountable for “causing” violations of the Act permits a claim that a defendant was “powerless” to prevent or correct the violation to “be raised defensively at a trial on the merits.” United States v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co., 376 U. S. 86, 91 (1964). If such a claim is made, the defendant has the burden of. coming forward with evidence, but this does not alter the Government’s ultimate burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt, including his power, in light of the duty imposed by the Act, to prevent or correct the prohibited condition. Congress has seen fit to enforce the accountability of responsible corporate agents dealing with products which may affect the health of consumers by penal sanctions cast in rigorous terms, and the obligation of the courts is to give them effect so long as they do not violate the Constitution.
Ill
We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that it was incumbent upon the District Court to instruct the jury that the Government had the burden of establishing “wrongful action” in the sense in which the Court of Appeals used that phrase. The concept of a “responsible relationship” to, or a “responsible share” in, a violation of the Act indeed imports some measure of blameworthiness; but it is equally clear that the Government establishes a prima facie case when it introduces evidence sufficient to warrant a finding by the trier of the facts that the defendant had, by reason of his position in the corporation, responsibility and authority either to prevent in the first instance, or promptly to correct, the violation complained of, and that he failed to do so. The failure thus to fulfill the duty imposed by the interaction of the corporate agent’s authority and the statute furnishes a sufficient causal link. The considerations which prompted the imposition of this duty, and the scope of the duty, provide the measure of culpability.
Turning to the jury charge in this case, it is of course arguable that isolated parts can be read as intimating that a finding of guilt could be predicated solely on respondent’s corporate position. But this is not the way we review jury instructions, because “a single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.” Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 146-147 (1973). See Boyd v. United States, 271 U. S. 104, 107 (1926).
Reading the entire charge satisfies us that the jury’s attention was adequately focused on the issue of respondent’s authority with respect to the conditions that formed the basis of the alleged violations. Viewed as a whole, the charge did not permit the jury to find guilt solely on the basis of respondent’s position in the corporation; rather, it fairly advised the jury that to find guilt it must find respondent “had a responsible relation to the situation,” and “by virtue of his position... had... authority and responsibility” to deal with the situation. The situation referred to could only be “food... held in unsanitary conditions in a warehouse with the result that it consisted, in part, of filth or... may have been contaminated with filth.”
Moreover, in reviewing jury instructions, our task is also to view the charge itself as part of the whole trial. “Often isolated statements taken from the charge, seemingly prejudicial on their face, are not so when considered in the context of the entire record of the trial.” United States v. Bimbaum, 373 F. 2d 250, 257 (CA2), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 837 (1967). (Emphasis added.) Cf. Cupp v. Naughten, supra. The record in this case reveals that the jury could not have failed to be aware that the main issue for determination was not respondent’s position in the corporate hierarchy, but rather his accountability, because of the responsibility and authority of his position, for the conditions which gave rise to the charges against him.
We conclude that, viewed as a whole and in the context of the trial, the charge was not misleading and contained an adequate statement of the law to guide the jury’s determination. Although it would have been better to give an instruction more, precisely relating the legal issue to the facts of the case, we cannot say that the failure to provide the amplification requested by respondent was an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Bayer, 331 U. S. 532, 536-537 (1947); Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, 140 (1954). Finally, we note that there was no request for an instruction that the Government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent was not without the power or capacity to affect the conditions which founded the charges in the information. In light of the evidence adduced at trial, we find no basis to conclude that the failure of the trial court to give such an instruction sua sponte was plain error or a defect affecting substantial rights. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52 (b). Compare Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 436 (1963), with Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 107 (1945) (opinion of Douglas, J.).
IV
Our conclusion that the Court of Appeals erred in its reading of the jury charge suggests as well our disagreement with that court concerning the admissibility of evidence demonstrating that respondent was advised by the FDA in 1970 of insanitary conditions in Acme’s Philadelphia warehouse. We are satisfied that the Act imposes the highest standard of care and permits conviction of responsible corporate officials who, in light of this standard of care, have the power to prevent or correct violations of its provisions. Implicit in the Court’s admonition that “the ultimate judgment of juries must be trusted,” United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S., at 285, however, is the realization that they may demand more than corporate bylaws to find culpability.
Respondent testified in his defense that he had employed a system in which he relied upon his subordinates, and that he was ultimately responsible for this system. He testified further that he had found these subordinates to be “dependable” and had “great confidence” in them. By this and other testimony respondent evidently sought to persuade the jury that, as the president of a large corporation, he had no choice but to delegate duties to those in whom he reposed confidence, that he had no reason to suspect his subordinates were failing to insure compliance with the Act, and that, once violations were unearthed, acting through those subordinates he did everything possible to correct them.
Although we need not decide whether this testimony would have entitled respondent to an instruction as to his lack of power, see supra, at 676, had he requested it, the testimony clearly created the “need” for rebuttal evidence. That evidence was not offered to show that respondent had a propensity to commit criminal acts, cf. Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 469, 475-476 (1948), or, as in United States v. Woods, 484 F. 2d 127, that the crime charged had been committed; its purpose was to demonstrate that respondent was on notice that he could not rely on his system of delegation to subordinates to prevent or correct insanitary conditions at Acme’s warehouses, and that he must have been aware of the deficiencies of this system before the Baltimore violations were discovered. The evidence was therefore relevant since it served to rebut respondent’s defense that he had justifiably relied upon subordinates to handle sanitation matters. Cf. United States v. Ross, 321 F. 2d 61, 67 (CA2), cert. denied, 375 U. S. 894 (1963); E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 190, pp. 450-452 (2d ed. 1972). And, particularly in light of the difficult task of juries in prosecutions under the Act, we conclude that its relevance and persuasiveness outweighed any prejudicial effect. Cf. Research Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 167 F. 2d 410, 420-421 (CA9), cert. denied, 335 U. S. 843 (1948).
Reversed.
Section 402 of the Act, 21 "ü. S. C. §342, provides in pertinent part:
“A food shall be deemed to be adulterated—
“(a) (3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food; or (4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health...
Section 301 of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 331, provides in pertinent part:
“The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited:
“(k) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded.”
The parties stipulated in effect that the items of food described in the information had been shipped in interstate commerce and were being held for sale in Acme’s Baltimore warehouse.
The witness testified with respect to the inspection of the basement of the "old building” in the warehouse complex:
“We found extensive evidence of rodent infestation in the form of rat and mouse pellets throughout the entire perimeter area and along the wall.
“We also found that the doors leading to the basement area from the rail siding had openings at the bottom or openings beneath part of the door that came down at the bottom large enough to admit rodent entry. There were also roden[t] pellets found on a number of different packages of boxes of various items stored in the basement, and looking at this document, I see there were also broken windows along the rail siding.” App. 20-21.
On the first floor of the "old building,” the inspectors found:
“Thirty mouse pellets on the floor along walls and on the ledge in the hanging meat room. There were at least twenty mouse pellets beside bales of lime Jello and one of the bales had a chewed rodent hole in the product....” Id., at 22.
The first four counts of the information alleged violations corresponding to the observations of the inspectors during the November and December 1971 inspection. The fifth count alleged violations corresponding to observations during the March 1972 inspection.
The letter, dated January 27, 1972, included the following:
“We note with much concern that the old and new warehouse
areas used for food storage were actively and extensively inhabited by live rodents. ■ Of even more concern was the observation that such reprehensible conditions obviously existed for a prolonged period of time without any detection, or were completely ignored....
“We trust this letter will serve to direct your attention to the seriousness of the problem and formally advise you of the urgent need to initiate whatever measures are necessary to prevent recurrence and ensure compliance with the law.” Id., at 64-65.
The bylaw provided in pertinent part:
“The Chairman of the board of directors or the president shall be the chief executive officer of the company as the board of directors may from time to time determine. He shall, subject to the board of directors, have general and active supervision of the affairs, business, offices and employees of the company....
“He shall, from time to time, in his discretion or at the order of the board, report the operations and affairs of the company. He shall also perform such other duties and have such other powers as may be assigned to him from time to time by the board of directors.” Id., at 40.
The April 1970 letter informed respondent of the following "objectionable conditions” in Acme’s Philadelphia warehouse:
“1. Potential rodent entry ways were noted via ill fitting doors and door in irrepair at Southwest comer of warehouse; at dock at old salvage room and at receiving and shipping doors which were observed to be open most of the time.
“2. Rodent nesting, rodent excreta pellets, rodent stained bale bagging and rodent gnawed holes were noted among bales of flour stored in warehouse.
“3. Potential rodent harborage was noted in discarded paper, rope, sawdust and other debris piled in comer of shipping and receiving dock near bakery and warehouse doors. Rodent excreta pellets were observed among bags of sawdust (or wood shavings).” Id., at 70.
“In order to find the Defendant guilty on any count of the Information, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt on each count....
“Thirdly, that John R. Park held a position of authority in the operation of the business of Acme Markets, Incorporated.
“However, you need not concern yourselves with the first two elements of the case. The main issue for your determination is only with the third element, whether the Defendant held a position of authority and responsibility in the business of Acme Markets.
"The statute makes individuals, as well as corporations, liable for violations. An individual is liable if it is clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the elements of the adulteration of the food as to travel in interstate commerce are present. As I have instructed you in this case, they are, and that the individual had a responsible relation to the situation, even though he may not have participated personally.
“The individual is or could be liable under the statute, even if he did not consciously do wrong. However, the fact that the Defendant is pres[id]ent and is a chief executive officer of the Acme Markets does not require a finding of guilt. Though, he need not have personally participated in the situation, he must have had a-responsible relationship to the issue. The issue is, in this case, whether the Defendant, John R. Park, by virtue of his position in the company, had a position of authority and responsibility in the situation out of which these charges arose.” Id., at 61-62.
Sections 303 (a) and (b) of the Act, 21 U. S. C. §§ 333 (a) and (b), provide:
“(a) Any person who violates a provision of section 331 of this title shall be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000, or both.
“(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, if any person commits such a violation after a conviction of him under this section has become final, or commits such a violation with the intent to defraud or mislead, such person shall be imprisoned for not more than three years or fined not more than $10,000, or both.”
Respondent’s renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal or in the alternative for a new trial, one of the grounds of which was the alleged abuse of discretion in the initiation of the prosecution against him, had previously been denied after argument.
The Court of Appeals relied upon § 303 (c) of the Act, 21 U. S. C. §333 (c), which extended immunity from the penalties provided by § 303 (a) to a person who could establish a. guaranty “signed by, and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the United States {rom whom he received in good faith the article....”' (Emphasis added.) The court reasoned that where the drug dealer was a corporation, the protection of § 303 (c) would extend only to such dealer and not to its employees.
Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768.
In reinstating Dotterweich’s conviction, the Court stated: “For present purpose it suffices to say that in what the defense characterized as ‘a very fair charge’ the District Court properly left the question of the responsibility of Dotterweich for the shipment to the jury, and there was sufficient evidence to support its verdict.” 320 U. S., at 285.
See, e. g., Lelies v. United States, 241 F. 2d 21 (CA9), cert. denied, 353 U. S. 974 (1957); United States v. Kaadt, 171 F. 2d 600 (CA7 1948). Cf. United States v. Shapiro, 491 F. 2d 335, 337 (CA6 1974); United States v. 3963 Bottles, 265 F. 2d 332 (CA7), cert. denied, 360 U. S. 931 (1959); United States v. Klehman, 397 F. 2d 406 (CA7 1968).
We note that in 1948 the Senate passed an amendment to § 303 (a) of the Act to impose criminal liability only for violations committed “willfully or as a result of gross negligence.” 94 Cong. Rec. 6760-6761 (1948). However, the amendment was subsequently stricken in conference. Id., at 8551, 8838.
In his summation to the jury, the prosecutor argued:
“That brings us to the third question that you must decide, and that is whether Mr. John R. Park is responsible for the conditions persisting....
“The point is that, while Mr. Park apparently had a system, and I think he testified the system had been set up long before he got there — he did say that if anyone was going to change the system, it was his responsibility to do so. That very system, the system that he didn’t change, did not work in March of 1970 in Philadelphia; it did not work in November of 1971 in Baltimore; it did not work in March of 1972 in Baltimore, and under those circumstances, I submit, that Mr. Park is the man responsible....
“Mr. Park was responsible for seeing that sanitation was taken care of, and he had a system set up that was supposed to do that. This system didn’t work. It didn’t work three times. At some point in time, Mr. Park has to be held responsible for the fact that his system isn’t working....” App. 57, 59, 60.
Counsel for respondent submitted only two requests
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
After pleading guilty to embezzlement and related crimes, respondent was sentenced by an Ohio court to not less than 6 nor more than 100 years in prison. Under existing law respondent would have become eligible for parole in March 1976. On January 1, 1974, however, Ohio enacted a “shock parole” statute which provided for the early parole of first offenders who had served more than six months in prison for nonviolent crimes. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2967.31 (1975).
Pursuant to this statute, respondent was interviewed on April 17, 1974, by a panel representing the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA). The panel recommended that respondent be paroled “on or after April 23, 1974,” and OAPA subsequently approved the panel’s recommendation. Respondent was notified of the decision by a parole agreement which stated:
“The Members of the Parole Board have agreed that you have earned the opportunity of parole and eventually a final release from your present conviction. The Parole Board is therefore ordering a Parole Release in your case.” Brief in Opposition 1.
Respondent attended and completed prison prerelease classes and was measured for civilian clothes.
At a meeting six days after the panel’s interview with respondent, OAPA was informed that respondent had not been entirely truthful in the interview or in the parole plan that he had submitted to his parole officers. Specifically, respondent had told the panel that he had embezzled $1 million when in fact he had embezzled $6 million, and had reported in his parole plan that he would live with his half brother if paroled when in fact he intended to live with his homosexual lover. As a result of these revelations, OAPA rescinded its earlier decision to grant respondent “shock parole” and continued his case to a June 1974 meeting at which parole was formally denied. Neither at this meeting nor at any other time was respondent granted a hearing to explain the false statements he had made during the April interview and in the parole plan which he had submitted.
After denial of his parole, respondent brought a mandamus action against OAPA. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that OAPA was not required to grant respondent a hearing and that it could not be commanded to recall its decision rescinding parole. State ex rel. Van Curen v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 45 Ohio St. 2d 298, 345 N. E. 2d 75 (1976). We denied respondent’s petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio. 429 U. S. 959 (1976).
Respondent then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that the rescission without hearing violated his right to due process of law under the United States Constitution. The District Court denied the writ and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarily affirmed the denial. Van Curen v. Jago, 578 F. 2d 1382 (1978). We granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded for further consideration in light of our decision in Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal and Inmates, 442 U. S. 1 (1979). Jago v. Van Curen, 442 U. S. 926 (1979).
On remand the Court of Appeals in turn remanded to the District Court for further consideration. Applying Green-holtz, the District Court determined that “early release in Ohio is a matter of grace” and that Ohio law “is fairly unambiguous that no protectable interest in early release arises until actual release.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24A-25A. Accordingly, the District Court held that the rescission of respondent’s parole without a hearing did not violate due process.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that “[p]a-role for Ohio prisoners lies wholly within the discretion of the OAPA,” and that “[t]he statutes which provide for parole do not create a protected liberty interest for due process purposes.” 641 F. 2d 411, 414 (1981). Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court. Relying upon language from our decision in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972), the Court of Appeals concluded that a liberty interest such as that asserted by respondent can arise from “mutually explicit understandings.” See id., at 601. Thus, it held:
“Having been notified that he ‘ha[d] been paroled’ and that ‘the Board is ordering a Parole Release in your case,’ [respondent] had a legitimate expectation that his early release would be effected. This expectation was a liberty interest, the deprivation of which would indeed constitute a grievous loss. It was an interest which could not be taken from him without according [him] procedural due process.” 641 F. 2d, at 416.
We do not doubt that respondent suffered “grievous loss” upon OAPA’s rescission of his parole. But we have previously “rejected]. . . the notion that any grievous loss visited upon a person by the State is sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 224 (1976). In this case, as in our previous cases, “[t]he question is not merely the ‘weight’ of the individual’s interest, but whether the nature of the interest is one within the contemplation of the ‘liberty or property language of the Fourteenth Amendment.’” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972). We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in finding a constitutionally protected liberty interest by reliance upon the “mutually explicit understandings” language of Perry v. Sindermann, supra.
Our decision in Sindermann was concerned only with the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “property” interests, and its language, relied upon by the Court of Appeals, was expressly so limited:
“We have made clear in [Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 571-572 (1972)], that ‘property’ interests subject to procedural due process protection are not limited by a few rigid, technical forms. Rather, ‘property’ denotes a broad range of interests that are secured by ‘existing rules or understandings.’ Id., at 577. A person’s interest in a benefit is a ‘property’ interest for due process purposes if there are such rules or mutually explicit understandings that support his claim of entitlement to the benefit and that he may invoke at a hearing.” 408 U. S., at 601.
To illustrate the way in which “mutually explicit understandings” operate to create “property” interests, we relied in Sindermann upon two analogous doctrines. First, we compared such understandings to implied contracts:
“[The] absence of ... an explicit contractual provision may not always foreclose the possibility that a teacher has a ‘property’ interest in re-employment. . . . [T]he law of contracts in most, if not all, jurisdictions long has employed a process by which agreements, though not formalized in writing, may be ‘implied.’” Id., at 601-602.
That the implied-contract aspect of Sindermann “understandings” has been limited to the creation of property interests is illustrated by Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341 (1976), another property interest case in which we relied upon the “understandings” language of Sindermann to conclude that “[a] property interest in employment can, of course, be created by ordinance, or by an implied contract.” 426 U. S., at 344 (footnote omitted).
Principles of contract law naturally serve as useful guides in determining whether or not a constitutionally protected property interest exists. Such principles do not, however, so readily lend themselves to determining the existence of constitutionally protected liberty interests in the setting of prisoner parole. In Meachum v. Fano, supra, we recognized that the administrators of our penal systems need considerable latitude in operating those systems, and that the protected interests of prisoners are necessarily limited:
“Our cases hold that the convicted felon does not forfeit all constitutional protections by reason of his conviction and confinement in prison. He retains a variety of important rights that the courts must be alert to protect. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S., at 556, and cases there cited. But none of these cases reaches this one; and to hold as we are urged to do that any substantial deprivation imposed by prison authorities triggers the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause would subject to judicial review a wide spectrum of discretionary actions that traditionally have been the business of prison administrators rather than of the federal courts.” 427 U. S., at 225.
We would severely restrict the necessary flexibility of prison administrators and parole authorities were we to hold that any one of their myriad decisions with respect to individual inmates may, as under the general law of contracts, give rise to protected “liberty” interests which could not thereafter be impaired without a constitutionally mandated hearing under the Due Process Clause.
The second analogy relied upon in Sindermann to give content to the notion of “mutually explicit understandings” was the labor law principle that the tradition and history of an industry or plant may add substance to collective-bargaining agreements. See 408 U. S., at 602. Just last Term, however, we rejected an argument that a sort of “industrial common law” could give rise to a liberty interest in the prisoner parole setting. The prisoners in Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U. S. 458 (1981), relying upon the frequency with which the Connecticut Board of Pardons had in the past commuted and paroled life sentences, argued that the consistency of the Board’s actions “ ‘ha[d] created an unwritten common law of sentence commutation and parole acceleration,”’ and had given rise to “‘an unspoken understanding between the State Board [of Pardons] and inmates.’” Id., at 465 (emphasis added) (quoting Brief for Respondents, O. T. 1980, No. 79-1997, pp. 17-18). We responded:
“No matter how frequently a particular form of clemency has been granted, the statistical probabilities standing alone generate no constitutional protections; a contrary conclusion would trivialize the Constitution. The ground for a constitutional claim, if any, must be found in statutes or other rules defining the obligations of the authority charged with exercising clemency.” 452 U. S., at 465.
Thus, this Court has recognized that the “mutually explicit understandings” of Sindermann have a far more useful place in determining protected property interests than in determining those liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As the majority opinion in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit observed: “Parole for Ohio prisoners lies wholly within the discretion of the OAPA. The statutes which provide for parole do not create a protected liberty interest for due process purposes.” 641 F. 2d, at 414. In dissent, Judge Phillips explained:
“In State ex rel. Newman v. Lowery, 157 Ohio St. 463, 464, 105 N. E. 2d 643 (1952), cert. denied, 344 U. S. 881 . . . (1952), the Supreme Court of Ohio said: ‘The question of parole of prisoners being in the discretion of the Pardon and Parole Commission, that commission had authority to rescind its order of March 9, 1950, granting a parole effective on or after a future date.’” Id., at 418.
Notwithstanding its conclusion that the granting of parole was a purely discretionary matter, the majority of the Court of Appeals in this case concluded that, once the recommendation for “shock parole” had been made, respondent was entitled to a hearing for the purpose of explaining his false statements and representations because the initial recommendation for “shock parole” gave rise to a “mutually explicit understanding.” As we have previously stated, however, we deal here not with “property” interests but with “liberty” interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think that the reasoning of Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1 (1979), Dumschat, supra, and the Court of Appeals’ own concession that Ohio law creates no protected “liberty” interest, require reversal of the holding of the Court of Appeals that respondent was entitled to a hearing prior to denial of his parole in June.
The petition for certiorari is granted, the respondent’s motion to proceed informa pauperis is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is
Reversed.
In his brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari, respondent does not contest OAPA’s conclusion that he misrepresented the amount of his embezzlement to the interviewing panel, and admits “that the total loss was over a million dollars.” Brief in Opposition 2. Moreover, respondent admits that his parole plan misrepresented his relationship to the person with whom he planned to live upon release. Id., at 2-3.
Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion appears to follow from his dissenting view in Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 22 (1979) (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan and Stevens, JJ., dissenting in part), and Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U. S., at 468 (Stevens, J., dissenting). It is understandable that the distinction between Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), which involved return to custody after parole release, and Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, supra, and Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, supra, which involved prerelease expectations of parole or probation, would be thought “dubious” by one who dissented in the two latter cases. Nonetheless, that view was expressed in dissents from the Court’s opinions in those cases and cannot be regarded as controlling here. .
Petitioners contend that this case is moot under Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147 (1975), because respondent has now been paroled. We disagree. Although it is true that respondent was released from prison in 1980, the release was conditioned upon respondent’s compliance with terms that significantly restrict his freedom. For example, respondent must receive written permission before changing his residence, changing his job, or traveling out of state, must report to local law enforcement authorities at any out-of-state destination to which he travels, must not maintain a checking account, must report monthly to his parole officer, and may be imprisoned upon violation of the conditions of his parole. Affidavit in Support of Respondent’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In Weinstein, by contrast, we noted that “respondent was temporarily paroled on December 18, 1974, and that this status ripened into a complete release from supervision on March 25, 1975. From that date forward it [was] plain that respondent [could] have no interest whatever in the'procedures followed by petitioners in granting parole.” 423 U. S., at 148 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963), where a state prisoner received conditional parole virtually identical to respondent’s parole in this case, we held that the prisoner was “in custody” for purposes of federal habeas and that the Court of Appeals had erred in dismissing the appeal as moot. Id., at 241-243.
The conditions of respondent’s parole will last for a period of two years; thereafter he will be free from OAPA’s supervision. Had OAPA not rescinded respondent’s parole in 1974 it is likely that he would no longer be subject to parole restrictions on his freedom. Therefore, were we to affirm the lower court’s conclusion that OAPA should not have rescinded respondent’s parole without a hearing, we could remand the case with instructions that the District Court determine whether a hearing would have resulted in respondent’s release in 1974. If so, the flexible nature of ha-beas relief would permit the District Court to order that respondent be released from the conditions under which he is now living. Indeed, in his response to the petition for certiorari, respondent affirmatively states that if the lower court’s decision is affirmed he will “immediately seek release from parole.” Brief in Opposition 7.
In Vitek v. Jones, 436 U. S. 407 (1978), and Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board, 429 U. S. 60 (1976), the cases cited by the dissent, we remanded so that the Courts of Appeals might consider mootness before we decided the question. In this case the Court of Appeals did consider mootness and, as the above discussion indicates, correctly concluded that a live controversy remains.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents questions concerning the scope of standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the proper construction of § 812(a) of the Act, which requires that a civil suit be brought within 180 days after the alleged occurrence of a discriminatory practice.
I
The case began as a class action against Havens Realty Corp. (Havens) and one of its employees, Rose Jones. Defendants were alleged to have engaged in “racial steering” violative of § 804 of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U. S. C. § 3604 (Act or Fair Housing Act). The complaint, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in January 1979 by three individuals — Paul Coles, Sylvia Coleman, and R. Kent Willis — and an organization— Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME).
At the time suit was brought, defendant Havens owned and operated two apartment complexes, Camelot Townhouses and Colonial Court Apartments, in Henrico County, Va., a suburb of Richmond. The complaint identified Paul Coles as a black “renter plaintiff’ who, attempting to rent an apartment from Havens, inquired on July 13, 1978, about the availability of an apartment at the Camelot complex, and was falsely told that no apartments were available. App. 13, ¶ 7; id., at 15, ¶ 12. The other two individual plaintiffs, Coleman and Willis, were described in the complaint as “tester plaintiffs” who were employed by HOME to determine whether Havens practiced racial steering. Id., at 13, ¶7. Coleman, who is black, and Willis, who is white, each assertedly made inquiries of Havens on March 14, March 21, and March 23, 1978, regarding the availability of apartments. On each occasion, Coleman was told that no apartments were available; Willis was told that there were vacancies. On July 6, 1978, Coleman made a further inquiry and was told that there were no vacancies in the Camelot Townhouses; a white tester for HOME, who was not a party to the complaint, was given contrary information that same day. Id., at 16, ¶ 13.
The complaint identified HOME as “a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia” whose purpose was “to make equal opportunity in housing a reality in the Richmond Metropolitan Area.” Id., at 13, ¶8. According to the complaint, HOME’S membership was “multiracial and includefd] approximately 600 individuals.” Ibid. Its activities included the operation of a housing counseling service, and the investigation and referral of complaints concerning housing discrimination. Id., at 14, 1ffl8a, 8b.
The three individual plaintiffs, who at the time the complaint was filed were all residents of the city of Richmond or the adjacent Henrico County, id., at 13, ¶7, averred that they had been injured by the discriminatory acts of petitioners. Coles, the black renter, claimed that he had been “denied the right to rent real property in Henrico County.” Id., at 17, ¶ 14. Further, he and the two tester plaintiffs alleged that Havens’ practices deprived them of the “important social, professional, business and economic, political and aesthetic benefits of interracial associations that arise from living in integrated communities free from discriminatory housing practices.” Id., at 17, ¶¶ 14, 15. And Coleman, the black tester, alleged that the misinformation given her by Havens concerning the availability of apartments in the Colonial Court and Camelot Townhouse complexes had caused her “specific injury.” Id., at 16, ¶ 13.
HOME also alleged injury. It asserted that the steering practices of Havens had frustrated the organization’s counseling and referral services, with a consequent drain on resources. Id., at 17, ¶ 16. Additionally, HOME asserted that its members had been deprived of the benefits of interracial association arising from living in an integrated community free of housing discrimination. Id., at 17-18, ¶ 16.
Before discovery was begun, and without any evidence being presented, the District Court, on motion of petitioners, dismissed the claims of Coleman, Willis, and HOME. The District Court held that these plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were barred by the Act’s 180-day statute of limitations, 42 U. S. C. § 3612(a). App. 33-35. Each of the dismissed plaintiffs — respondents in this Court — appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Coles v. Ha vens Realty Corp., 633 F. 2d 384 (1980). The Court of Appeals held that the allegations of injury by Willis and Coleman, both as testers and as individuals who were deprived of the benefits of residing in an integrated community, sufficed to withstand a motion to dismiss. With respect to HOME, the Court of Appeals held that the organization’s allegations of injury to itself and its members were sufficient, at the pleading stage, to afford the organization standing both in its own capacity and as a representative of its members. The Court of Appeals further held that none of the allegations of racial steering was time-barred, because petitioners’ conduct constituted a “continuing violation” lasting through July 13, 1978 — less than 180 days before the complaint was filed. We granted certiorari. 451 U. S. 905 (1981).
I
At the outset, we must consider whether the claims of Coleman, Willis, and HOME have become moot as a result of certain developments occurring after the District Court’s dismissal. The first was the District Court’s entry of a consent order with respect to Coles’ claims. Following the dismissal of respondents’ claims, Coles’ undismissed claims went to trial, and Havens was found to have engaged in unlawful racial steering. Shortly thereafter, at the request of the parties, the court entered a consent order granting Coles and the class he represented monetary and injunctive relief. App. to Brief for Respondents 10a. The second development con-ceras an agreement reached between petitioners and respondents prior to this Court’s grant of certiorari. The letter agreement, which expressly provides that it is to become effective only after approval by the District Court, states that if the Court were to deny certiorari, or grant it and affirm, respondents would each be entitled to $400 in damages and no further relief. The agreement provides also that if the Court were to grant certiorari and reverse, respondents would be entitled to no relief whatsoever.
Despite these two developments, this case is not moot. Irrespective of the issue of injunctive relief, respondents continue to seek damages to redress alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act. The letter agreement, if approved by the District Court, would merely liquidate those damages. If respondents have suffered an injury that is compensable in money damages of some undetermined amount, the fact that they have settled on a measure of damages does not make their claims moot. Given respondents’ continued active pursuit of monetary relief, this case remains “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241 (1937) (citations omitted). See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 495-500 (1969); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 128, n. 4 (1966).
► — I HH HH
Our inquiry with respect to the standing issues raised in this case is guided by our decision in Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91 (1979), There we considered whether six individuals and the village of Bellwood had standing to sue under §812 of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U. S. C. §3612, to redress injuries allegedly caused by the racial steering practices of two real estate brokerage firms. Based on the complaints, “as illuminated by subsequent discovery,” 441 U, S., at 95, we concluded that the village and four of the individual plaintiffs did have standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act, id., at 111, 115. In reaching that conclusion, we held that “Congress intended standing under §812 to extend to the full limits of Art. Ill” and that the courts accordingly lack the authority to create prudential barriers to standing in suits brought under that section. Id., at 103, n. 9, 109. Thus the sole requirement for standing to sue under § 812 is the Art. III minima of injury in fact: that the plaintiff allege that as a result of the defendant’s actions he has suffered “a distinct and palpable injury,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975). With this understanding, we proceed to determine whether each of the respondents in the present case has the requisite standing.
“(a) The rights granted by sections 803, 804, 805, and 806 may be enforced by civil actions in appropriate United States district courts without regard to the amount in controversy and in appropriate State or local courts of general jurisdiction.” 82 Stat. 88.
A
The Court of Appeals held that Coleman and Willis have standing to sue in two capacities: as “testers” and as individuals deprived of the benefits of interracial association. We first address the question of “tester” standing.
In the present context, “testers” are individuals who, without an intent to rent or purchase a home or apartment, pose as renters or purchasers for the purpose of collecting evidence of unlawful steering practices. Section 804(d) states that it is unlawful for an individual or firm covered by the Act “[t]o represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available,” 42 U. S. C. § 3604(d) (emphasis added), a prohibition made enforceable through the creation of an explicit cause of action in § 812(a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3612(a). Congress has thus conferred on all “persons” a legal right to truthful information about available housing.
This congressional intention cannot be overlooked in determining whether testers have standing to sue. As we have previously recognized, “[t]he actual or threatened injury required by Art. Ill may exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing . . . Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 500, quoting Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 617, n. 3 (1973). Accord, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 732 (1972); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205, 212 (1972) (White, J., concurring). Section 804(d), which, in terms, establishes an enforceable right to truthful information concerning the availability of housing, is such an enactment. A tester who has been the object of a misrepresentation made unlawful under § 804(d) has suffered injury in precisely the form the statute was intended to guard against, and therefore has standing to maintain a claim for damages under the Act’s provisions. That the tester may have approached the real estate agent fully expecting that he would receive false information, and without any intention of buying or renting a home, does not negate the simple fact of injury within the meaning of § 804(d). See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 558 (1967); Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U. S. 202, 204 (1958) (per curiam). Whereas Congress, in prohibiting discriminatory refusals to sell or rent in § 804(a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3604(a), required that there be a “bona fide offer” to rent or purchase, Congress plainly omitted any such requirement insofar as it banned discriminatory representations in § 804(d).
In the instant case, respondent Coleman — the black tester — alleged injury to her statutorily created right to truthful housing information. As part of the complaint, she averred that petitioners told her on four different occasions that apartments were not available in the Henrico County complexes while informing white testers that apartments were available. If the facts are as alleged, then respondent has suffered “specific injury” from the challenged acts of petitioners, see App. 16, ¶ 13, and the Art. Ill requirement of injury in fact is satisfied.
Respondent Willis’ situation is different. He made no allegation that petitioners misrepresented to him that apartments were unavailable in the two apartment complexes. To the contrary, Willis alleged that on each occasion that he inquired he was informed that apartments were available. As such, Willis has alleged no injury to his statutory right to accurate information concerning the availability of housing. We thus discern no support for the Court of Appeals’ holding that Willis has standing to sue in his capacity as a tester. More to the point, because Willis does not allege that he was a victim of a discriminatory misrepresentation, he has not pleaded a cause of action under § 804(d). We must therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment insofar as it reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Willis’ “tester” claims.
B
Coleman and Willis argue in this Court, and the Court of Appeals held, that irrespective of their status as testers, they should have been allowed to proceed beyond the pleading stage inasmuch as they have alleged that petitioners’ steering practices deprived them of the benefits that result from living in an integrated community. This concept of “neighborhood” standing differs from that of “tester” standing in that the injury asserted is an indirect one: an adverse impact on the neighborhood in which the plaintiff resides resulting from the steering of persons other than the plaintiff. By contrast, the injury underlying tester standing — the denial of the tester’s own statutory right to truthful housing information caused by misrepresentations to the tester — is a direct one. See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U. S. 59, 80-81 (1978). The distinction is between “third-party” and “first-party” standing.
This distinction is, however, of little significance in deciding whether a plaintiff has standing to sue under § 812 of the Fair Housing Act. Bellwood, as we have already noted, held that the only requirement for standing to sue under § 812 is the Art. Ill requirement of injury in fact. As long as respondents have alleged distinct and palpable injuries that are “fairly traceable” to petitioners’ actions, the Art. Ill requirement of injury in fact is satisfied. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 261 (1977). The question before us, then, is whether injury in fact has been sufficiently alleged.
The two individual respondents, who according to the complaint were “residents of the City of Richmond or Henrico County,” alleged that the racial steering practices of petitioners have deprived them of “the right to the important social, professional, business and economic, political and aesthetic benefits of interracial associations that arise from living in integrated communities free from discriminatory housing practices.” App. 13, ¶ 7; id., at 17, ¶¶ 14, 15. The type of injury alleged thus clearly resembles that which we found palpable in Bellwood. In that case, plaintiffs alleged that the steering practices of the defendants, by transforming their neighborhood in Bellwood from an integrated into an almost entirely black environment, had deprived them of “the social and professional benefits of living in an integrated society” and had caused them “economic injury.” 441 U. S., at 111, 115, and n. 30.
Petitioners do not dispute that the loss of social, professional, and economic benefits resulting from steering practices constitutes palpable injury. Instead, they contend that Coleman and Willis, by pleading simply that they were residents of the Richmond metropolitan area, have failed to demonstrate how the asserted steering practices of petitioners in Henrico County may have affected the particular neighborhoods in which the individual respondents resided.
It is indeed implausible to argue that petitioners’ alleged acts of discrimination could have palpable effects throughout the entire Richmond metropolitan area. At the time relevant to this action the city of Richmond contained a population of nearly 220,000 persons, dispersed over 37 square miles. Henrico County occupied more than 232 square miles, in which roughly 170,000 people made their homes. Our cases have upheld standing based on the effects of discrimination only within a “relatively compact neighborhood,” Bellwood, 441 U. S., at 114. We have not suggested that discrimination within a single housing complex might give rise to “distinct and palpable injury,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S., at 501, throughout a metropolitan area.
Nonetheless, in the absence of further factual development, we cannot say as a matter of law that no injury could be proved. Respondents have not identified the particular neighborhoods in which they lived, nor established the proximity of their homes to the site of petitioners’ alleged steering practices. Further pleading and proof might establish that they lived in areas where petitioners’ practices had an appreciable effect. Under the liberal federal pleading standards, we therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that dismissal on the pleadings is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. At the same time, we note that the extreme generality of the complaint makes it impossible to say that respondents have made factual averments sufficient if true to demonstrate injury in fact. Accordingly, on remand, the District Court should afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to make more definite the allegations of the complaint. Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(e). If after that opportunity the pleadings fail to make averments that meet the standing requirements established by the decisions of this Court, the claims should be dismissed.
C
HOME brought suit against petitioners both as a representative of its members and on its own behalf. In its representative capacity, HOME sought only injunctive relief. See App. 17, ¶ 16; id., at 18-20, ¶ 18. Under the terms of the letter settlement reached between petitioners and respondents, however, HOME has agreed to abandon its request for injunctive relief in the event the District Court ultimately approves the settlement. Supra, at 370-371, and n. 10. Additionally, in its brief in this Court, HOME suggests that we need not decide whether the organization has standing in its representative capacity. Brief for Respondents 8, n. 8; id., at 39, n. 35. In view of HOME’S apparent willingness to abandon this claim, we think it inappropriate that the Court use its resources to resolve an issue for which “such small embers of controversy . . . remain.” Taggart v. Weinacker’s, Inc., 397 U. S. 223, 225 (1970) (per curiam). While we therefore will not decide the question involving HOME’S representative standing, we do proceed to decide the question whether HOME has standing in its own right; the organization continues to press a right to claim damages in that latter capacity.
In determining whether HOME has standing under the Fair Housing Act, we conduct the same inquiry as in the case of an individual: Has the plaintiff “ ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction”? Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S., at 261 (emphasis omitted), quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). In the instant case, HOME’S complaint contained the following claims of injury to the organization:
“Plaintiff HOME has been frustrated by defendants’ racial steering practices in its efforts to assist equal access to housing through counseling and other referral services. Plaintiff HOME has had to devote significant resources to identify and counteract the defendant’s [sic] racially discriminatory steering practices.” App. 17, ¶ 16.
If, as broadly alleged, petitioners’ steering practices have perceptibly impaired HOME’S ability to provide counseling and referral services for low- and moderate-income home-seekers, there can be no question that the organization has suffered injury in fact. Such concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities — with the consequent drain on the organization’s resources — constitutes far more than simply a setback to the organization’s abstract social interests, see Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S., at 739. We therefore conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that in view of HOME’S allegations of injury it was improper for the District Court to dismiss for lack of standing the claims of the organization in its own right.
IV
Petitioners argue that even if respondents do have standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act, their claims are time-barred under § 812(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3612(a). That section requires that a civil suit be brought within 180 days after the alleged occurrence of a discriminatory housing practice. As petitioners note, although five different specific incidents allegedly in violation of the Fair Housing Act are detailed in the complaint, the four involving Coleman occurred more than 180 days before the complaint was filed, and the fifth, which was within 180 days of filing, involved only Coles, whose claims are already the subject of a consent order entered by the District Court. The Court of Appeals, adopting a “continuing violation” theory, held that because the Coles incident fell within the limitations period, none of the claims was barred.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that for purposes of § 812(a), a “continuing violation” of the Fair Housing Act should be treated differently from one discrete act of discrimination. Statutes of limitations such as that contained in § 812(a) are intended to keep stale claims out of the courts. See Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 314 (1945). Where the challenged violation is a continuing one, the staleness concern disappears. Petitioners’ wooden application of § 812(a), which ignores the continuing nature of the alleged violation, only undermines the broad remedial intent of Congress embodied in the Act, see Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 417 (1968). Cf. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., post, at 398. Like the Com! of Appeals, we therefore conclude that where a plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, challenges not just one incident of conduct violative of the Act, but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period, the complaint is timely when it is filed within 180 days of the last asserted occurrence of that practice.
Applying this principle to the “neighborhood” claims of Coleman and Willis, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the 180-day statute of limitations is no bar. Willis and Coleman have alleged that petitioners’ continuing pattern, practice, and policy of unlawful racial steering has deprived them of the benefits of interracial association arising from living in an integrated neighborhood. Plainly the claims, as currently alleged, are based not solely on isolated incidents involving the two respondents, but a continuing violation manifested in a number of incidents — including at least one (involving Coles) that is asserted to have occurred within the 180-day period. HOME, too, claims injury to its counseling and referral services not only from the incidents involving Coleman and Willis, but also from a continuing policy and practice of unlawful racial steering that extends through the last alleged incident. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals, however, that insofar as respondent Coleman has standing to assert a claim as a “tester,” she may take advantage of the “continuing violation” theory. Her tester claim is, in essence, that on four isolated occasions she received false information from petitioners in violation of § 804(d). It is not alleged, nor could it be, that the incident of steering involving Coles on July 13,1978, deprived Coleman of her § 804(d) right to truthful housing information. See App. 16, ¶ 13.
V
In sum, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as the judgment reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the claims of Coleman and Willis as individuals allegedly deprived of the benefits of interracial association, and the claims of HOME as an organization allegedly injured by the racial steering practices of petitioners; we reverse the judgment insofar as it directed that Coleman and Willis may proceed to trial on their tester claims. Further proceedings on the remand directed by the Court of Appeals shall be consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
As defined in the complaint, “racial steering” is a “practice by which real estate brokers and agents preserve and encourage patterns of racial segregation in available housing by steering members of racial and ethnic groups to buildings occupied primarily by members of such racial and ethnic groups and away from buildings and neighborhoods inhabited primarily by members of other races or groups.” App. 11-12, ¶ 1.
Section 804 provides:
“As made applicable by section 803 and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807, it shall be unlawful—
“(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
“(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
“(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
“(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
“(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 82 Stat. 83, as amended, 88 Stat. 729.
The complaint also alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1982. Since the judgment of the Court of Appeals did not rest on a violation of § 1982, we have no occasion to consider the applicability of that statute.
The individual plaintiffs averred that they were “members of a class composed of all persons who have rented or sought to rent residential property in Henrico County, Virginia, and who have been, or continue to be, adversely affected by the acts, policies and practices of’ Havens. App. 12, ¶2.
According to the complaint,
“Camelot Townhouses is an apartment complex predominantly occupied by whites. Coles was informed that no apartments were available in the Camelot complex. He was told that an apartment was available in the adjoining Colonial Court complex. The Colonial complex is integrated.” Id., at 15-16, ¶ 12.
Coles’ claims, however, were not dismissed. Rather, they went to trial following the court’s certification of a class, represented by Coles, of individuals injured monetarily on or after January 9, 1977, by the steering practices of petitioners.
The court noted that the District Court could require respondents to amend their pleadings to make more specific their allegations, and that if their allegations were “not supported by proof at trial, the case [could] be terminated for lack of standing at an appropriate stage of the trial.” 633 F. 2d, at 391.
The court found that the practices violated both the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1982. That determination is not before us, and we intimate no view as to its correctness. See Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 115, n. 32 (1979).
The parties filed the agreement with the Court following oral argument.
The consent order involving Coles’ claims did establish a fund to provide damages for “claimants.” The parties agree, however, that respondents, whose claims were dismissed as time-barred and on standing grounds, cannot claim against the fund.
It is true that with respect to the claims of HOME in its representative capacity, the complaint only requested injunctive relief, although of a broader nature than that provided in Coles’ consent order. Even as to HOME’S representative claims, however, the “stringent” test for mootness, United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968), is not satisfied, since the letter agreement, under which HOME agreed not to seek any further injunctive relief and which involves settlement of an uncertified class action, is still subject to the approval of the District Court. For reasons stated infra, at 378, we nevertheless do not reach the question whether HOME has standing in its representative capacity.
Section 812 provides in relevant part:
The Court did hold, however, that on the given record it was appropriate to grant summary judgment against the two remaining individual plaintiffs, neither of whom resided within the area alleged to have been adversely affected by the steering practices of the defendants. 441 U. S., at 112, n. 25. But the Court left the District Court free to permit these two individuals “to amend their complaints to include allegations of actual harm.” Id., at 113, n. 25.
For the terms of § 804(a), see n. 2, supra.
Congress’ decision to confer a broad right of truthful information concerning housing availability was undoubtedly influenced by congressional awareness that the intentional provision of misinformation offered a means of maintaining segregated housing. Various witnesses testifying before Congress recounted incidents in which black persons who sought housing were falsely informed that housing was not available. See Hearings on S. 1358, S. 2114, and S. 2280 before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 99 (1967) (testimony of Roy Wilkins); id., at 204, 206 (statement of Gerard A. Ferere); id., at 497 (statement of Whitney M. Young, Jr.).
Indeed, respondent Willis made no argument in this Court in defense of this holding and appears to concede its error.
“[A]s long as the plaintiff suffers actual injury as a result of the defendant’s conduct, he is permitted to prove that the rights of another were infringed. The central issue at this stage of the proceedings is not who possesses the legal rights protected by § 804, but whether respondents were genuinely injured by conduct that violates someone’s § 804 rights, and thus are entitled to seek redress of that harm under §812.” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S., at 103, n. 9.
Similarly, in Traficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205 (1972), on which Bellwood relied, we held that two tenants — one black and one white — of an apartment complex had standing to sue under § 810(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3610(a), in challenging the alleged racial steering practices of their landlord. The plaintiffs’ averments of injury, held sufficient for purposes of standing, were summarized by the Court in the following terms:
“(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.
According to the Court of Appeals, the population of the city of Richmond as of 1978 was 219,883, while that of Henrico County was 172,922. 633 F. 2d, at 391, n. 5.
We have previously recognized that organizations are entitled to sue on their own behalf for injuries they have sustained. E. g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 511 (1975).
That the alleged injury results from the organization’s noneconomic interest in encouraging open housing does not affect the nature of the injury suffered, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 263 (1977), and accordingly does not deprive the organization of standing.
Of course, HOME will have to demonstrate at trial that it has indeed suffered impairment in its role of facilitating open housing before it will be entitled to judicial relief.
The section reads in pertinent part:
“A civil action shall be commenced within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred.”
Petitioners read § 813 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3613, as permitting only the Attorney General to bring a civil suit under the Act challenging a “pattern or practice” of unlawful conduct. We disagree. That section serves only to describe the suits that the Attorney General may bring, and not to limit suits that private parties may bring under § 812. See Fort v. White, 383 F. Supp. 949 (Conn. 1974).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case raises the single question whether a warrantless search that provides probable cause for an arrest can nonetheless be justified as an incident of that arrest. A divided Ohio Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative, reasoning that the search was neither remote in time nor place from the arrest. We disagree.
On a June evening, as petitioner and a companion exited a private residence and entered the parking lot of a YMCA, they were approached by two plainclothes officers of the Ash-land, Ohio, Police Department. The officers were driving-in an unmarked police vehicle. Petitioner was carrying a brown paper grocery bag with the words “Kash ’n Karry” and “Loaded with Low Prices” printed on the outside in a manner that the officers later described as “gingerly.” Neither officer knew petitioner or his companion. One of the two officers, Officer Thomas, exited the vehicle and, without identifying himself, asked petitioner to “‘come here a minute.’” 45 Ohio St. 3d 255, 256, 544 N. E. 2d 239, 240 (1989). Petitioner did not respond and kept walking. When Officer Thomas identified himself as a police officer, petitioner “threw the sack he was carrying onto the hood of [his] car and turned to face Thomas who was approaching.” Ibid. Officer Thomas asked petitioner what the bag contained; petitioner did not respond; Officer Thomas then rebuffed petitioner’s attempt to protect the bag, pushed petitioner’s hand away, and opened the bag. The drug paraphernalia discovered within provided probable cause for the arrest and evidence sufficient to support petitioner’s conviction for drug abuse.
No contention has been raised in this case that the officer’s reaching for the bag involved a self-protective action necessary for the officer’s safety. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). Although the Fourth Amendment may permit a brief detention of property on the basis of only “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that it contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 702 (1983), it proscribes — except in certain well-defined circumstances — the search of that property unless accomplished pursuant to judicial warrant issued upon probable cause. See, e. g., Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 619 (1989); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 390 (1978); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967). That guarantee protects alike the “traveler who carries a toothbrush and a few articles of clothing in a paper bag” and “the sophisticated executive with the locked attaché case.” United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 822 (1982). The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of petitioner’s bag under the exception for searches incident to arrest. See United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1977); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 763 (1969). The court stated that petitioner was not arrested until after the contraband was discovered in the search of the bag. 45 Ohio St. 3d, at 257, 258, 544 N. E. 2d, at 241, 242. It nonetheless held that the search was constitutional because its fruits justified the arrest that followed.
That reasoning, however, “justifying] the arrest by the search and at the same time . . . the search by the arrest,” just “will not do.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 16-17 (1948). As we have had occasion in the past to observe, “[i]t is axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 63 (1968); see also Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 102 (1959); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98, 111, n. 6 (1980). The exception for searches incident to arrest permits the police to search a lawfully arrested person and areas within his immediate control. Contrary to the Ohio Supreme Court’s reasoning, it does not permit the police to search any citizen without a warrant or probable cause so long as an arrest immediately follows.
The State does not defend the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court, but rather contends that petitioner abandoned the bag when he threw it on his car and turned to face Officer Thomas. See Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217, 241 (1960); Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57, 58 (1924). That argument was unanimously rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court, 45 Ohio St. 3d, at 263, n. 6, 544 N. E. 2d, at 246, n. 6; id., at 266, 544 N. E. 2d, at 249 (Sweeney, J., dissenting); id., at 273-274, 544 N. E. 2d, at 255, n. 10 (Wright, J., dissenting), and we have no reason to disturb its conclusion. As the state court properly recognized, a citizen who attempts to protect his private property from inspection, after throwing it on a car to respond to a police officer’s inquiry, clearly has not abandoned that property. Cf. Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253, 262, n. 6 (1960).
The motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether, and to what extent, the First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination of' at-will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech.
I
Under state law, Wabaunsee County, Kansas (County), is obliged to provide for the disposal of solid waste generated within its borders. In 1981, and, after renegotiation, in 1985, the County contracted with respondent Umbehr for him to be the exclusive hauler of trash for cities in the County at a rate specified in the contract. Each city was free to reject or, on 90 days’ notice, to opt out of, the contract. By its terms, the contract between Umbehr and the County was automatically renewed annually unless either party terminated it by giving notice at least 60 days before the end of the year or a renegotiation was instituted on 90 days’ notice. Pursuant to the contract, Umbehr hauled trash for six of the County’s seven cities from 1985 to 1991 on an exclusive and uninterrupted basis.
During the term of his contract, Umbehr was an outspoken critic of petitioner, the Board of County Commissioners of Wabaunsee County (Board), the three-member governing body of the County. Umbehr spoke at the Board’s meetings, and wrote critical letters and editorials in local newspapers regarding the County’s landfill user rates, the cost of obtaining official documents from the County, alleged violations by the Board of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, the County’s alleged mismanagement of taxpayers’ money, and other topics. His allegations of violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act were vindicated in a consent decree signed by the Board’s members. Umbehr also ran unsuccessfully for election to the Board.
The Board’s members allegedly took Umbehr’s criticism badly, threatening the official county newspaper with censorship for publishing his writings. In 1990, they voted, 2 to 1, to terminate (or prevent the automatic renewal of) Umbehr’s contract with the County. That attempt at termination failed because of a technical defect, but in 1991, the Board succeeded in terminating Umbehr’s contract, again by a 2 to 1 vote. Umbehr subsequently negotiated new contracts with five of the six cities that he had previously served.
In 1992, Umbehr brought this suit against the two majority Board members in their individual and official capacities under Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that they had terminated his government contract in retaliation for his criticism of the County and the Board. The Board members moved for summary judgment. The District Court assumed that Umbehr’s contract was terminated in retaliation for his speech, and that he suffered consequential damages. But it held that “the First Amendment does not prohibit [the Board] from considering [Umbehr’s] expression as a factor in deciding not to continue with the trash hauling contract at the end of the contract’s annual term,” because, as an independent contractor, Umbehr was not entitled to the First Amendment protection afforded to public employees. Umbehr v. McClure, 840 F. Supp. 837, 839 (Kan. 1993). It also held that the claims against the Board members in their individual capacities would be barred by qualified immunity, id., at 841, a ruling which was affirmed on appeal and which is not at issue here.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed (except as to qualified immunity), holding that “an independent contractor is protected under the First Amendment from retaliatory governmental action, just as an employee would be,” and that the extent of protection is to be determined by weighing the government’s interests as contractor against the free speech interests at stake in accordance with the balancing test that we used to determine government employees’ First Amendment rights in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968). 44 F. 3d 876, 883 (CA10 1995). It therefore remanded the official capacity claims to the District Court for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the termination was in fact retaliatory. The Board members who were the original defendants in this suit subsequently resigned their positions on the Board, so in this Court, the Board was substituted for them as petitioner. See this Court’s Rule 35.3.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeals regarding whether, and to what extent, independent contractors are protected by the First Amendment. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits agree with the Tenth Circuit. See Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F. 3d 925, 931-935 (CA5 1995); Copsey v. Swearingen, 36 F. 3d 1336, 1344 (CA5 1994); North Mississippi Communications, Inc. v. Jones, 792 F. 2d 1330 (CA5 1986); Smith v. Cleburne County Hospital, 870 F. 2d 1375, 1381 (CA8), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 847 (1989); but see Sweeney v. Bond, 669 F. 2d 542 (CA8), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 878 (1982). See also Abercrombie v. Catoosa, 896 F. 2d 1228, 1233 (CA10 1990) (allowing an independent contractor to sue for termination based on his speech and political activities). The Third and Seventh Circuits have, however, held that an independent contractor who does not have a property interest in his contract with the government has no right not to have that contract terminated in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment freedoms of political affiliation and participation. See Horn v. Kean, 796 F. 2d 668 (CA3 1986) (en banc); O’Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. Northlake, 47 F. 3d 883 (CA7 1995), reversed, post, p. 712; Downtown Auto Parks, Inc. v. Milwaukee, 938 F. 2d 705 (CA7), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1005 (1991); Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Housing Authority, 892 F. 2d 583 (CA7 1989), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 845 (1990).
We agree with the Tenth Circuit that independent contractors are protected, and that the Pickering balancing test, adjusted to weigh the government’s interests as contractor rather than as employer, determines the extent of their protection. We therefore affirm.
II
A
This Court has not previously considered whether, and to what extent, the First Amendment restricts the freedom of federal, state, or local governments to terminate their relationships with independent contractors because of the contractors’ speech. We have, however, considered the same issue in the context of government employees’ rights on several occasions. The similarities between government employees and government contractors with respect to this issue are obvious. The government needs to be free to terminate both employees and contractors for poor performance, to improve the efficiency, efficacy, and responsiveness of service to the public, and to prevent the appearance of corruption. And, absent contractual, statutory, or constitutional restriction, the government is entitled to terminate them for no reason at all. But either type of relationship provides a valuable financial benefit, the threat of the loss of which in retaliation for speech may chill speech on matters of public concern by those who, because of their dealings with the government, “are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work,” Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 674 (1994) (plurality opinion). Because of these similarities, we turn initially to our government employment precedents for guidance.
Those precedents have long since rejected Justice Holmes’ famous dictum, that a policeman “may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman,” McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 220, 29 N. E. 517 (1892). Recognizing that “constitutional violations may arise from the deterrent, or ‘chilling,’ effect of governmental [efforts] that fall short of a direct prohibition against the exercise of First Amendment rights,” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1, 11 (1972), our modern “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine holds that the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected .. . freedom of speech” even if he has no entitlement to that benefit, Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972). We have held that government workers are constitutionally protected from dismissal for refusing to take an oath regarding their political affiliation, see, e. g., Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 (1952); Keyiskian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589 (1967), for publicly or privately criticizing their employer’s policies, see Perry, supra; Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274 (1977); Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U. S. 410 (1979), for expressing hostility to prominent political figures, see Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378 (1987), or, except where political affiliation may reasonably be' considered an appropriate job qualification, for supporting or affiliating with a particular political party, see, e. g., Branti v. Finkel, 445 U. S. 507 (1980). See also United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U. S. 454 (1995) (Government employees are protected from undue burdens on their expressive activities created by a prohibition against accepting honoraria); Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 234 (1977) (government employment cannot be conditioned on making or not making financial contributions to particular political causes).
While protecting First Amendment freedoms, we have, however, acknowledged that the First Amendment does not create property or tenure rights, and does not guarantee absolute freedom of speech. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech protects government employees from termination because of their speech on matters of public concern. See Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 146 (1983) (speech on merely private employment matters is unprotected). To prevail, an employee must prove that the conduct at issue was constitutionally protected, and that it was a substantial or motivating factor in the termination. If the employee discharges that burden, the government can escape liability by showing that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct. See Mt. Healthy, supra, at 287. And even termination because of protected speech may be justified when legitimate countervailing government interests are sufficiently strong. Government employees’ First Amendment rights depend on the “balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering, 391 U. S., at 568. In striking that balance, we have concluded that “[t]he government’s interest in achieving its goals as effectively and efficiently as possible is elevated from a relatively subordinate interest when it acts as sovereign to a significant one when it acts as employer.” Waters, 511 U. S., at 675 (plurality opinion). We have, therefore, “consistently given greater deference to government predictions of harm used to justify restriction of employee speech than to predictions of harm used to justify restrictions on.the speech of the public at large.” Id., at 673; accord, Treasury Employees, supra, at 475.
The parties each invite us to differentiate between independent contractors and employees. The Board urges us not to “extend” the First Amendment rights of government employees to contractors. Umbehr, joined by the Solicitor General as amicus curiae, contends that, on proof of viewpoint-based retaliation for contractors’ political speech, the government should be required to justify its actions as narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Both parties observe that independent contractors in general, and Umbehr in particular, work at a greater remove from government officials than do most government employees. In the Board’s view, the key feature of an independent contractor’s contract is that it does not give the government the right to supervise and control the details of how work is done. The Board argues that the lack of day-to-day control accentuates the government’s need to have the work done by someone it trusts, cf. Branti, supra, at 518 (certain positions in government employment implicate such a need for trust that their award on the basis of party political affiliation is justified), and to resort to the sanction of termination for unsatisfactory performance. Umbehr, on the other hand, argues that the government interests in maintaining harmonious working environments and relationships recognized in our government employee cases are attenuated where the contractor does not work at the government’s workplace and does not interact daily with government officers and employees. He also points out that to the extent that he is publicly perceived as an independent contractor, any government concern that his political statements will be confused with the government’s political positions is mitigated. The Board and the dissent, post, at 697-699, retort that the cost of fending off litigation, and the potential for government contracting practices to ossify into prophylactic rules to avoid potential litigation and liability, outweigh the interests of independent contractors, who are typically less financially dependent on their government contracts than are government employees.
Each of these arguments for and against the imposition of liability has some force. But all of them can be accommodated by applying our existing framework for government employee cases to independent contractors. Mt. Healthy assures the government’s ability to terminate contracts so long as it does not do so in retaliation for protected First Amendment activity. Pickering requires a fact-sensitive and deferential weighing of the government’s legitimate interests. The dangers of burdensome litigation and the defacto imposition of rigid contracting rules necessitate attentive application of the Mt. Healthy requirement of proof of causation and substantial deference, as mandated by Pickering, Connick, and Waters, to the government’s reasonable view of its legitimate interests, but not a per se denial of liability. Nor can the Board’s and the dissent’s generalization that independent contractors may be less dependent on the government than government employees, see post, at 696, justify denial of all First Amendment protection to contractors. The tests that we have established in our government employment cases must be judicially administered with sensitivity to governmental needs, but First Amendment rights must not be neglected.
Umbehr’s claim that speech threatens the government’s interests as contractor less than its interests as employer will also inform the application of the Pickering test. Um-behr is correct that if the Board had exercised sovereign power against him as a citizen in response to his political speech, it would be required to demonstrate that its action was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. But in this case, as in government employment cases, the Board exercised contractual power, and its interests as a public service provider, including its interest in being free from intensive judicial supervision of its daily management functions, are potentially implicated. Deference is therefore due to the government’s reasonable assessments of its interests as contractor.
We therefore see no reason to believe that proper application of the Pickering balancing test cannot accommodate the differences between employees and independent contractors. There is ample reason to believe that such a nuanced approach, which recognizes the variety of interests that may arise in independent contractor cases, is superior to a bright-line rule distinguishing independent contractors from employees. The bright-line rule proposed by the Board and the dissent would give the government carte blanche to terminate independent contractors for exercising First Amendment rights. And that bright-line rule would leave First Amendment rights unduly dependent on whether state law labels a government service provider’s contract as a contract of employment or a contract for services, a distinction which is at best a very poor proxy for the interests at stake. See Comment, Political Patronage in Public Contracting, 51 U. Chi. L. Rev. 518, 520 (1984) (“[N]o legally relevant distinction exists between employees and contractors in terms either of the government’s interest in using patronage or of the employee or contractor’s interest in free speech”); cf. Perry, 408 U. S., at 597 (the prohibition of unconstitutional conditions on speech applies “regardless of the public employee’s contractual or other claim to a job”). Determining constitutional claims on the basis of such formal distinctions, which can be manipulated largely at the will of the government agencies concerned, see Logue v. United States, 412 U. S. 521, 532 (1973) (noting that independent contractors are often employed to perform “tasks that would . . . otherwise be performed by salaried Government employees”), is an enterprise that we have consistently eschewed. See, e. g., Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U. S. 70, 83 (1973) (in the context of the privilege against self-incrimination, “[w]e fail to see a difference of constitutional magnitude between the threat of job loss to an employee of the State, and a threat of loss of contracts to a contractor”); cf. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm’n, ante, at 622 (opinion of Breyer, J.) (“[T]he government 'cannot foreclose the exercise of [First Amendment] rights by mere labels’ ”) (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 429 (1963)); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, 486 (1964) (declining to “exalt form over substance” in determining the temporal scope of Sixth Amendment protections); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 53 (1932) (“[Rjegard must be had,. . . in . . . cases where constitutional limits are invoked, not to mere matters of form but to the substance of what is required”); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 235 (1897) (“In determining what is due process of law regard must be had to substance, not to form”); Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257, 299 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[T]he applicability of a provision of the Constitution has never depended on the vagaries of state or federal law”).
Furthermore, the arguments made by both parties demonstrate that it is far from clear, as a general matter, whether the balance of interests at stake is more favorable to the government in independent contractor cases than in employee cases. Our unconstitutional conditions precedents span a spectrum from government employees, whose close relationship with the government requires a balancing of important free speech and government interests, to claimants for tax exemptions, Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958), users of public facilities, e. g., Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384, 390-394 (1993); Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169 (1972), and recipients of small government subsidies, e. g., FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364 (1984), who are much less dependent on the government but more like ordinary citizens whose viewpoints on matters of public concern the government has no legitimate interest in repressing. The First Amendment permits neither the firing of janitors nor the discriminatory pricing of state lottery tickets based on the government’s disagreement with certain political expression. Independent contractors appear to us to lie somewhere between the case of government employees, who have the closest relationship with the government, and our other unconstitutional conditions precedents, which involve persons with less close relationships with the government. The Board’s and the dissent’s assertion, post, at 687, 696-697, that the decision below represents an unwarranted “extension” of special protections afforded to government employees is, therefore, not persuasive.
B
1
The dissent’s fears of excessive litigation, see post, at 697-699, cannot justify a special exception to our unconstitutional conditions precedent to deprive independent government contractors of protection. Nor can its assertion that the allocation of government contracts on the basis of political bias is a “long and unbroken tradition of our people.” Post, at 688. We do not believe that tradition legitimizes patronage contracting, regardless of whether one approaches the role of tradition in First Amendment adjudication from the perspective of Part I of the Rutan dissent, see post, at 687 (quoting Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U. S. 62, 95 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting)) (a practice that “ ‘bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic’ ” is presumed constitutional) (emphasis added), or from that of Justice Holmes, compare post, at 690 (quoting Holmes’ discussion of traditional usage of legal terminology in a tax case) with Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting) (rejecting both the self-interested “logi[c]” and the long history of the suppression of free speech, including the Sedition Act of 1798 and “the common law as to seditious libel,” in favor of the true “theory of our Constitution,” which values free speech as essential to, not subject to the vicissitudes of, our political system).
The examples to which the dissent cites, post, at 688-690, are not, in our view, “‘the stuff out of which the Court’s principles are to be formed,’ ” post, at 687 (quoting Rutan, supra, at 96 (Scalia, J., dissenting)). Consider, for example, the practice of “courtroom patronage,” whereby “[ejlected judges, who owe their nomination and election to the party, give the organization lucrative refereeships, trusteeships, and receiverships which often yield legal fees unjustified by the work required,” M. Tolchin & S. Tolchin, To The Victor: Political Patronage from the Clubhouse to the White House 15 (1971); see also Wolfinger, Why Political Machines Have Not Withered Away and Other Revisionist Thoughts, 34 J. Politics 365, 367, 371 (1972) (similar), or the award of “gift[s]” to political supporters under the guise of research grants, Tolchin, supra, at 61, or the allocation of contracts based on “contributions resulting from the compound of bribery and extortion” and “kickbacks,” A. Heard, The Costs of Democracy 143, 144 (1960), or the practice of “‘beer politics,’” whereby “wholesale liquor licenses issued by the state were traded for campaign contributions,” id., at 144, or the extortion of political support and “campaign contributions” on pain of being branded a “Communist,” R. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York 726 (1975), or the “favorable consideration in the courts or by public agencies” expected in one city by the clients of “ ‘political’ attorneys with part-time public jobs,” Wolfinger, supra, at 389, or the question reportedly asked by a party official of a businessman who was reluctant to contribute to a mayoralty campaign, “‘Look, you [expletive deleted], do you want a snow-removal contract or don’t you?,’” id., at 368. These examples, cited by the dissent, many of which involve patronage in employment and appointments rather than in contracting, cf. Comment, Political Patronage, at 518, n. 4 (“[P]atronage systems have traditionally centered around the distribution of government jobs” (emphasis added)), may suggest that abuses of power in the name of patronage are not “highly unusual,” post, at 710. It may also be the case that the victims whose speech is chilled and whose contributions are extracted by such government action are often “ ‘honorable and prudent businessmen.’ ” Post, at 689 (quoting Heard, supra, at 145). But the dissent’s examples do not establish an “open and unchallenged” tradition of allocating government contracts on the basis of political bias — much less on the basis of disapproval of political speech. The dissent’s own sources note that the patronage practices that they report were denied and disavowed by their alleged practitioners, see Wolfinger, supra, at 367, n. 2, 372-373, n. 11, that they were most significant in secret and specialized contexts such as defense contracting that “operat[e] in an atmosphere uninhibited by the usual challenges of representative government,” Tolchin, supra, at 233, and that in many cases they were illegal, see Heard, supra, at 143-144, n. 4. We of course agree with the dissent that mere “obnoxious [ness],” post, at 690, and criminality do not make a practice unconstitutional. Nor, however, do the dissent’s examples of covert, widely condemned, and sometimes illegal government action legitimize the government discrimination based on the viewpoint of one’s speech or one’s political affiliations that is involved here.
2
The dissent’s own description of the “lowest-responsible-bidder” and other, similar requirements covering a wide range of government contracts that the Federal Government, all 50 States, and many local government authorities, have voluntarily adopted, see post, at 690-695, at least suggests that government contracting norms incompatible with political bias have proliferated without unduly burdening the government. In fact, lowest- and lowest-responsible-bidder requirements have a long history, as a survey of 19th century state constitutions and federal territorial legislation reveals. See, e. g., Ala. Const., Art. IV, § 30 (1875), in 1 Federal and State Constitutions 161 (F. Thorpe ed. 1909); Civil Government in Alaska Act, Tit. I, §2 (1900), in id., at 243; Ark. Const., Art. XIX, §§ 15, 16 (1874), in id., at 366; Colo. Const., Art. V, §29 (1876), in id., at 485; Del. Const., Art. XV, §8 (1897), in id., at 631; Permanent Government for District of Columbia Act, § 5 (1878), in id., at 645-646; Ill. Const., Art. III, § 39 (1848), in 2 id., at 991; Ill. Const., Art. IV, § 25 (1870), in id., at 1022; Kan. Const., Art. XVI, §2 (1858), in id., at 1236; Ky. Const., §247 (1890), in 3 id., at 1353; La. Const., Art. 42 (1879), in id., at 1447-1478; La. Const., Art. 44 (1898), in id., at 1529; Mich. Const., Art. IV, §22 (1850), in 4 id., at 1948-1949; Miss. Const., Art. 4, § 107 (1890), in id., at 2102; Mont. Const., Art. V, § 30 (1889), in id., at 2308; Neb. Const., Art. II, §23 (1866-1867), in id., at 2353; Ohio Const., Art. XV, §2 (1851), in 5 id., at 2932; Pa. Const., Art. III, §12 (1873), in id., at 3127; Tex. Const., Art. XVI, §21 (1876), in 6 id., at 3658-3659; W. Va. Const., Art. VI, §34 (1872), in 7 id., at 4044; Wis. Const., Art. IV, §25 (1848), in id., at 4083; Wyo. Const., Art. III, §31 (1889), in id., at 4124; see also Ky. Const., §164 (1890), in 3 id., at 1341 (“highest and best bidder” rule for municipal and local franchise awards); Miss. Const., Art. I, §5 (1817, 1832), in 4 id., at 2033, 2049 (“[N]o person shall be molested for his opinions on any subject whatsoever, nor suffer any civil or political incapacity, or acquire any civil or political advantage, in consequence of such opinions, except in cases provided for in this constitution”). We are aware of no evidence of excessive or abusive litigation under such provisions. And, unlike the dissent, post, at 699-700, we do not believe that a deferentially administered requirement that the government not unreasonably terminate its commercial relationships on the basis of speech or political affiliation poses a greater threat to legitimate government interests than the complex and detailed array of modern statutory and regulatory government contracting rules.
In sum, neither the Board nor Umbehr have persuaded us that there is a “difference of constitutional magnitude,” Lefkowitz, 414 U. S., at 83, between independent contractors and employees in this context. Independent government contractors are similar in most relevant respects to government employees, although both the speaker’s and the government’s interests are typically — though not always— somewhat less strong in the independent contractor case. We therefore conclude that the same form of balancing analysis should apply to each.
III
Because the courts below assumed that Umbehr’s termination (or nonrenewal) was in retaliation for his protected speech activities, and because they did not pass on the balance between the government’s interests and the free speech interests at stake, our conclusion that independent contractors do enjoy some First Amendment protection requires that we affirm the Tenth Circuit’s decision to remand the case. To prevail, Umbehr must show that the termination of his contract was motivated by his speech on a matter of public concern, an initial showing that requires him to prove more than the mere fact that he criticized the Board members before they terminated him. If he can make that showing, the Board will have a valid defense if it can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, in light of their knowledge, perceptions, and policies at the time of the termination, the Board members would have terminated the contract regardless of his speech. See Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274 (1977). The Board will also prevail if it can persuade the District Court that the County’s legitimate interests as contractor, deferentially viewed, outweigh the free speech interests at stake. And, if Umbehr prevails, evidence that the Board members discovered facts after termination that would have led to a later termination anyway, and evidence of mitigation of his loss by means of his subsequent contracts with the cities, would be relevant in assessing what remedy is appropriate.
Finally, we emphasize the limited nature of our decision today. Because Umbehr’s suit concerns the termination of a pre-existing commercial relationship with the government, we need not address the possibility of suits by bidders or applicants for new government contracts who cannot rely on such a relationship.
Subject to these limitations and caveats, however, we recognize the right of independent government contractors not to be terminated for exercising their First Amendment rights. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice joins all but Part II-B-1 of this opinion.
The Board also asserts that state and local government decisions on individual contracts are insulated by the Tenth Amendment or legislative immunity from constitutional scrutiny and liability. See Brief for Petitioner 23-26, 37. The Tenth Amendment claim was not raised in its petition, so we do not address it. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a). Because only claims against the Board members in their official capacities are before us, and because immunity from suit under § 1983 extends to public servants only in their individual capacities, see, e. g., Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. S. 163, 166 (1993), the legislative immunity claim is moot.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is granted. Charged in a three-count indictment for violation of R. S. § 102, as amended, 2 U. S. C. § 192, for failure to answer three questions put to him by a subcommittee of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the petitioner, having waived trial by jury, was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of $1,000. After the sentence was sustained by the Court of Appeals, 99 U. S. App. D. C. 360, 240 F. 2d 46, this Court, having granted a petition for certiorari, remanded the case, 354 U. S. 930, to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178. On reargument before the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, a divided court again affirmed the conviction. 102 U. S. App. D. C. 264, 252 F. 2d 828.
The broad scope of authority vested in Congress to conduct investigations as an incident to the “legislative Powers” granted by the Constitution is not questioned. See Watkins v. United States, supra, at 215. But when Congress seeks to enforce its investigating authority through the criminal process administered by the federal judiciary, the safeguards of criminal justice become operative. The subject matter of inquiry before the subcommittee at which petitioner appeared as a witness concerned the recantation of prior testimony by a witness named Matusow. In the course of the hearing, the questioning of petitioner entered upon a “brief excursion,” 99 U. S. App. D. C. 360, 367, 240 F. 2d 46, 53, into proposed legislation barring Communists from practice at the federal bar, a subject not within the subcommittee’s scope of inquiry as authorized by its parent committee. Inasmuch as petitioner’s refusal to answer related to questions not clearly pertinent to the subject on which the two-member subcommittee conducting the hearing had been authorized to take testimony, the conditions necessary to sustain a conviction for deliberately refusing to answer questions pertinent to the authorized subject matter of a congressional hearing are wanting. Watkins v. United States, supra. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the indictment.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Burton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for certiorari is granted. Upon consideration of the Government’s confession of error, after reviewing the record in this case, we vacate the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the District Court. The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in light of the confession of error.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases require us to consider the validity of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Act), 18 U. S. C. § 1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), a federal statute regulating abortion procedures. In recitations preceding its operative provisions the Act refers to the Court’s opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914 (2000), which also addressed the subject of abortion procedures used in the later stages of pregnancy. Compared to the state statute at issue in Stenberg, the Act is more specific concerning the instances to which it applies and in this respect more precise in its coverage. We conclude the Act should be sustained against the objections lodged by the broad, facial attack brought against it.
In No. 05-380 (Carhart) respondents are LeRoy Carhart, William G. Fitzhugh, William H. Knorr, and Jill L. Vibhakar, doctors who perform second-trimester abortions. These doctors filed their complaint against the Attorney General of the United States in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. They challenged the constitutionality of the Act and sought a permanent injunction against its enforcement. Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F. Supp. 2d 805 (2004). In 2004, after a 2-week trial, the District Court granted a permanent injunction that prohibited the Attorney General from enforcing the Act in all cases but those in which there was no dispute the fetus was viable. Id., at 1048. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 413 F. 3d 791 (2005). We granted certiorari. 546 U. S. 1169 (2006).
In No. 05-1382 (Planned Parenthood) respondents are Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, and the City and County of San Francisco. The Planned Parenthood entities sought to enjoin enforcement of the Act in a suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Planned Parenthood Federation of Am. v. Ashcroft, 320 F. Supp. 2d 957 (2004). The City and County of San Francisco intervened as a plaintiff. In 2004, the District Court held a trial spanning a period just short of three weeks, and it, too, enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing the Act. Id., at 1035. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 435 F. 3d 1163 (2006). We granted certiorari. 547 U. S. 1205 (2006).
I
A
The Act proscribes a particular manner of ending fetal life, so it is necessary here, as it was in Stenberg, to discuss abortion procedures in some detail. Three United States District Courts heard extensive evidence describing the procedures. In addition to the two courts involved in the instant cases the District Court for the Southern District of New York also considered the constitutionality of the Act. National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, 330 F. Supp. 2d 436 (2004). It found the Act unconstitutional, id., at 493, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, 437 F. 3d 278 (2006). The three District Courts relied on similar medical evidence; indeed, much of the evidence submitted to the Carhart court previously had been submitted to the other two courts. 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 809-810. We refer to the District Courts’ exhaustive opinions in our own discussion of abortion procedures.
Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the preferences of the physician and, of course, on the term of the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn child’s development. Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the first three months of pregnancy, which is to say in the first trimester. Planned Parenthood, supra, at 960, and n. 4; App. in No. 05-1382, pp. 45-48. The most common first-trimester abortion method is vacuum aspiration (otherwise known as suction curettage) in which the physician vacuums out the embryonic tissue. Early in this trimester an alternative is to use medication, such as mifepristone (commonly known as RU-486), to terminate the pregnancy. National Abortion Federation, supra, at 464, n. 20. The Act does not regulate these procedures.
Of the remaining abortions that take place each year, most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” is the usual abortion method in this trimester. Planned Parenthood, supra, at 960-961. Although individual techniques for performing D&E differ, the general steps are the same.
A doctor must first dilate the cervix at least to the extent needed to insert surgical instruments into the uterus and to maneuver them to evacuate the fetus. National Abortion Federation, supra, at 465; App. in No. 05-1382, at 61. The steps taken to cause dilation differ by physician and gestational age of the fetus. See, e. g., Carhart, supra, at 852, 856, 859, 862-865, 868, 870, 873-874, 876-877, 880, 883, 886. A doctor often begins the dilation process by inserting osmotic dilators, such as laminaria (sticks of seaweed), into the cervix. The dilators can be used in combination with drugs, such as misoprostol, that increase dilation. The resulting amount of dilation is not uniform, and a doctor does not know in advance how an individual patient will respond. In general the longer dilators remain in the cervix, the more it will dilate. Yet the length of time doctors employ osmotic dilators varies. Some may keep dilators in the cervix for two days, while others use dilators for a day or less. National Abortion Federation, supra, at 464-465; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 961.
After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed. See, e. g., National Abortion Federation, supra, at 465; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 962.
Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester, may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’ body will soften, and its removal will be easier. Other doctors refrain from injecting chemical agents, believing it adds risk with little or no medical benefit. Carhart, supra, at 907-912; National Abortion Federation, supra, at 474-475.
The abortion procedure that was the impetus for the numerous bans on “partial-birth abortion,” including the Act, is a variation of this standard D&E. See M. Haskell, Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion (1992), 1 Appellant’s App. in No. 04-3379 (CA8), p. 109 (hereinafter Dilation and Extraction). The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as “intact D&E,” “dilation and extraction” (D&X), and “intact D&X.” National Abortion Federation, supra, at 440, n. 2; see also F. Cunningham et al., Williams Obstetrics 243 (22d ed. 2005) (identifying the procedure as D&X); Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology 567 (J. Scott, R. Gibbs, B. Karlan, & A. Haney eds. 9th ed. 2003) (identifying the procedure as intact D&X); M. Paul, E. Lichtenberg, L. Borgatta, D. Grimes, & P. Stubblefield, A Clinician’s Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion 136 (1999) (identifying the procedure as intact D&E). For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes. There are no comprehensive statistics indicating what percentage of all D&Es are performed in this manner.
Intact D&E, like regular D&E, begins with dilation of the cervix. Sufficient dilation is essential for the procedure. To achieve intact extraction some doctors thus may attempt to dilate the cervix to a greater degree. This approach has been called “serial” dilation. Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 856, 870, 873; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965. Doctors who attempt at the outset to perform intact D&E may dilate for two full days or use up to 25 osmotic dilators. See, e. g., Dilation and Extraction 110; Carhart, supra, at 865, 868, 876, 886.
In an intact D&E procedure the doctor extracts the fetus in a way conducive to pulling out its entire body, instead of ripping it apart. One doctor, for example, testified:
“If I know I have good dilation and I reach in and the fetus starts to come out and I think I can accomplish it, the abortion with an intact delivery, then I use my forceps a little bit differently. I don’t close them quite so much, and I just gently draw the tissue out attempting to have an intact delivery, if possible.” App. in No. 05-1382, at 74.
Rotating the fetus as it is being pulled decreases the odds of dismemberment. Carhart, supra, at 868-869; App. in No. 05-380, pp. 40-41; 5 Appellant’s App. in No. 04-3379 (CA8), at 1469. A doctor also “may use forceps to grasp a fetal part, pull it down, and re-grasp the fetus at a higher level — sometimes using both his hand and a forceps — to exert traction to retrieve the fetus intact until the head is lodged in the [cervix].” Carhart, supra, at 886-887.
Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. Dilation and Extraction 110-111. In the usual intact D&E the fetus’ head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass. See, e. g., ibid,.; App. in No. 05-380, at 577; App. in No. 05-1382, at 74, 282. Haskell explained the next step as follows:
“ At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
“ ‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
“ ‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
“‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’ ” H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).
This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms — everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus....
“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
“‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp....
“ ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’” Ibid.
Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Id., at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.
Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. See Carhart, supra, at 866, 869. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. App. in No. 05-1382, at 408-409. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Id., at 409; see also Carhart, supra, at 862, 878. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.” App. in No. 05-380, at 94; see Carhart, supra, at 858.
D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about 5 percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about 0.07 percent of second-trimester abortions. National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963.
B
After Dr. Haskell’s procedure received public attention, with ensuing and increasing public concern, bans on “ ‘partial birth abortion’ ” proliferated. By the time of the Stenberg decision, about 30 States had enacted bans designed to prohibit the procedure. 530 U. S., at 995-996, and nn. 12-13 (Thomas, J., dissenting); see also H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, at 4-5. In 1996, Congress also acted to ban partial-birth abortion. President Clinton vetoed the congressional legislation, and the Senate failed to override the veto. Congress approved another bill banning the procedure in 1997, but President Clinton again vetoed it. In 2003, after this Court’s decision in Stenberg, Congress passed the Act at issue here. H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, at 12-14. On November 5, 2003, President Bush signed the Act into law. It was to take effect the following day. 18 U. S. C. § 1531(a) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).
The Act responded to Stenberg in two ways. First, Congress made factual findings. Congress determined that this Court in Stenberg “was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge,” §2(7), 117 Stat. 1202, notes following 18 U. S. C. § 1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 768, ¶ (7) (hereinafter Congressional Findings), but that Congress was “not bound to accept the same factual findings,” id., ¶ (8). Congress found, among other things, that “[a] moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.” Id., ¶ (1).
Second, and more relevant here, the Act’s language differs from that of the Nebraska statute struck down in Stenberg. See 530 U. S., at 921-922 (quoting Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-328(1), 28-326(9) (Supp. 1999)). The operative provisions of the Act provide in relevant part:
“(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
“(b) As used in this section—
“(1) the term ‘partial-birth abortion’ means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion—
“(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
“(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
“(2) the term ‘physician’ means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
“(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician’s conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
“(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.
“(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.” 18 U. S. C. § 1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV).
The Act also includes a provision authorizing civil actions that is not of relevance here. § 1531(c).
C
The District Court in Carhart concluded the Act was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it determined the Act was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception allowing the procedure where necessary for the health of the mother. 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 1004-1030. Second, the District Court found the Act deficient because it covered not merely intact D&E but also certain other D&Es. Id., at 1030-1037.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addressed only the lack of a health exception. 413 F. 3d, at 803-804. The court began its analysis with what it saw as the appropriate question — “whether ‘substantial medical authority’ supports the medical necessity of the banned procedure.” Id., at 796 (quoting Stenberg, supra, at 938). This was the proper framework, according to the Court of Appeals, because “when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures to err on the side of protecting women’s health by including a health exception.” 413 F. 3d, at 796. The court rejected the Attorney General’s attempt to demonstrate changed evidentiary circumstances since Stenberg and considered itself bound by Stenberg’s conclusion that a health exception was required. 413 F. 3d, at 803 (explaining “[t]he record in [the] case and the record in Stenberg [were] similar in all significant respects”). It invalidated the Act. Ibid.
D
The District Court in Planned Parenthood concluded the Act was unconstitutional “because it (1) pose[d] an undue burden on a woman’s ability to choose a second trimester abortion; (2) [was] unconstitutionally vague; and (3) required] a health exception as set forth by... Stenberg.” 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1034-1035.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. Like the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, it concluded the absence of a health exception rendered the Act unconstitutional. The court interpreted Stenberg to require a health exception unless “there is consensus in the medical community that the banned procedure is never medically necessary to preserve the health of women.” 435 F. 3d, at 1173. Even after applying a deferential standard of review to Congress’ factual findings, the Court of Appeals determined “substantial disagreement exists in the medical community regarding whether” the procedures prohibited by the Act are ever necessary to preserve a woman’s health. Id., at 1175-1176.
The Court of Appeals concluded further that the Act placed an undue burden on a woman’s ability to obtain a second-trimester abortion. The court found the textual differences between the Act and the Nebraska statute struck down in Stenberg insufficient to distinguish D&E and intact D&E. 435 F. 3d, at 1178-1180. As a result, according to the Court of Appeals, the Act imposed an undue burden because it prohibited D&E. Id., at 1180-1181.
Finally, the Court of Appeals found the Act void for vagueness. Id., at 1181. Abortion doctors testified they were uncertain which procedures the Act made criminal. The court thus concluded the Act did not offer physicians clear warning of its regulatory reach. Id., at 1181-1184. Resting on its understanding of the remedial framework established by this Court in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 328-330 (2006), the Court of Appeals held the Act was unconstitutional on its face and should be permanently enjoined. 435 F. 3d, at 1184-1191.
II
The principles set forth in the joint opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), did not find support from all those who join the instant opinion. See id., at 979-1002 (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., inter alios, concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Whatever one’s views concerning the Casey joint opinion, it is evident a premise central to its conclusion — that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life — would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments of the Courts of Appeals.
Casey involved a challenge to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973). The opinion contains this summary:
“It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe’s essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.” 505 U. S., at 846 (opinion of the Court).
Though all three holdings are implicated in the instant cases, it is the third that requires the most extended discussion; for we must determine whether the Act furthers the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child.
To implement its holding, Casey rejected both Roe’s rigid trimester framework and the interpretation of Roe that considered all previability regulations of abortion unwarranted. 505 U. S., at 875-876, 878 (plurality opinion). On this point Casey overruled the holdings in two cases because they undervalued the State’s interest in potential life. See id., at 881-883 (joint opinion) (overruling Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U. S. 747 (1986), and Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U. S. 416 (1983)).
We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State “may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.” 505 U. S., at 879 (plurality opinion). It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if a regulation’s “purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Id., at 878. On the other hand, “[regulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose.” Id., at 877. Casey, in short, struck a balance. The balance was central to its holding. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar.
Ill
We begin with a determination of the Act’s operation and effect. A straightforward reading of the Act’s text demonstrates its purpose and the scope of its provisions: It regulates and proscribes, with exceptions or qualifications to be discussed, performing the intact D&E procedure.
Respondents agree the Act encompasses intact D&E, but they contend its additional reach is both unclear and excessive.. Respondents assert that, at the least, the Act is void for vagueness because its scope is indefinite. In the alternative, respondents argue the Act’s text proscribes all D&Es. Because D&E is the most common second-trimester abortion method, respondents suggest the Act imposes an undue burden. In this litigation the Attorney General does not dispute that the Act would impose an undue burden if it covered standard D&E.
We conclude that the Act is not void for vagueness, does not impose an undue burden from any overbreadth, and is not invalid on its face.
A
The Act punishes “knowingly performing] ” a “partial-birth abortion.” § 1531(a) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). It defines the unlawful abortion in explicit terms. § 1531(b)(1).
First, the person performing the abortion must “vaginally delivejr] a living fetus.” § 1531(b)(1)(A). The Act does not restrict an abortion procedure involving the delivery of an expired fetus. The Act, furthermore, is inapplicable to abortions that do not involve vaginal delivery (for instance, hysterotomy or hysterectomy). The Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. See, e. g., Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 971-972. We do not understand this point to be contested by the parties.
Second, the Act’s definition of partial-birth abortion requires the fetus to be delivered “until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.” § 1531(b)(1)(A). The Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that if an abortion procedure does not involve the delivery of a living fetus to one of these “anatomical ‘landmarks’” — where, depending on the presentation, either the fetal head or the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother — the prohibitions of the Act do not apply. Brief for Petitioner in No. 05-380, p. 46.
Third, to fall within the Act, a doctor must perform an “overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.” § 1531(b)(1)(B). For purposes of criminal liability, the overt act causing the fetus’ death must be separate from delivery. And the overt act must occur after the delivery to an anatomical landmark. This is because the Act proscribes killing “the partially delivered” fetus, which, when read in context, refers to a fetus that has been delivered to an anatomical landmark. Ibid.
Fourth, the Act contains scienter requirements concerning all the actions involved in the prohibited abortion. To begin with, the physician must have “deliberately and intentionally” delivered the fetus to one of the Act’s anatomical landmarks. § 1531(b)(1)(A). If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence, the Act is inapplicable. In addition, the fetus must have been delivered “for the purpose of performing an overt act that the [doctor] knows will kill [it].” Ibid. If either intent is absent, no crime has occurred. This follows from the general principle that where scienter is required no crime is committed absent the requisite state of mind. See generally 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.1 (2d ed. 2003) (hereinafter La-Fave); 1 C. Torcía, Wharton’s Criminal Law §27 (15th ed. 1993).
B
Respondents contend the language described above is indeterminate, and they thus argue the Act is unconstitutionally vague on its face. “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357 (1983); Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U. S. 513, 525 (1994). The Act satisfies both requirements.
The Act provides doctors “of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104,108 (1972). Indeed, it sets forth “relatively clear guidelines as to prohibited conduct” and provides “objective criteria” to evaluate whether a doctor has performed a prohibited procedure. Posters ‘N’ Things, supra, at 525-526. Unlike the statutory language in Stenberg that prohibited the delivery of a “‘substantial portion’ ” of the fetus — where a doctor might question how much of the fetus is a substantial portion — the Act defines the line between potentially criminal conduct on the one hand and lawful abortion on the other. Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 922 (quoting Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-326(9) (Supp. 1999)). Doctors performing D&E will know that if they do not deliver a living fetus to an anatomical landmark they will not face criminal liability.
This conclusion is buttressed by the intent that must be proved to impose liability. The Court has made clear that scienter requirements alleviate vagueness concerns. Posters ‘N’ Things, supra, at 526; see also Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 395 (1979
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | E | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
Few legal principles are better established than the rule requiring a plaintiff to establish causation. In the law of torts, this usually means a plaintiff must first plead and then prove that its injury would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs before us suggest that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 departs from this traditional arrangement. But looking to this particular statute's text and history, we see no evidence of an exception.
I
This case began after negotiations between two media companies failed. African-American entrepreneur Byron Allen owns Entertainment Studios Network (ESN), the operator of seven television networks-Justice Central.TV, Comedy.TV, ES.TV, Pets.TV, Recipe.TV, MyDestination.TV, and Cars.TV. For years, ESN sought to have Comcast, one of the nation's largest cable television conglomerates, carry its channels. But Comcast refused, citing lack of demand for ESN's programming, bandwidth constraints, and its preference for news and sports programming that ESN didn't offer.
With bargaining at an impasse, ESN sued. Seeking billions in damages, the company alleged that Comcast systematically disfavored "100% African American-owned media companies." ESN didn't dispute that, during negotiations, Comcast had offered legitimate business reasons for refusing to carry its channels. But, ESN contended, these reasons were merely pretextual. To help obscure its true discriminatory intentions and win favor with the Federal Communications Commission, ESN asserted, Comcast paid civil rights groups to advocate publicly on its behalf. As relevant here, ESN alleged that Comcast's behavior violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), which guarantees, among other things, "[a]ll persons... the same right... to make and enforce contracts... as is enjoyed by white citizens."
Much motions practice followed. Comcast sought to dismiss ESN's complaint, and eventually the district court agreed, holding that ESN's pleading failed to state a claim as a matter of law. The district court twice allowed ESN a chance to remedy its complaint's deficiencies by identifying additional facts to support its case. But each time, the court concluded, ESN's efforts fell short of plausibly showing that, but for racial animus, Comcast would have contracted with ESN. After three rounds of pleadings, motions, and dismissals, the district court decided that further amendments would prove futile and entered a final judgment for Comcast.
The Ninth Circuit reversed. As that court saw it, the district court used the wrong causation standard when assessing ESN's pleadings. A § 1981 plaintiff doesn't have to point to facts plausibly showing that racial animus was a "but for" cause of the defendant's conduct. Instead, the Ninth Circuit held, a plaintiff must only plead facts plausibly showing that race played "some role" in the defendant's decisionmaking process. 743 Fed.Appx. 106, 107 (2018) ; see also National Assn. of African American-Owned Media v. Charter Communications, Inc., 915 F.3d 617, 626 (CA9 2019) (describing the test as whether "discriminatory intent play[ed] any role"). And under this more forgiving causation standard, the court continued, ESN had pleaded a viable claim.
Other circuits dispute the Ninth Circuit's understanding of § 1981. Like the district court in this case, for example, the Seventh Circuit has held that "to be actionable, racial prejudice must be a but-for cause... of the refusal to transact." Bachman v. St. Monica's Congregation, 902 F.2d 1259, 1262-1263 (1990). To resolve the disagreement among the circuits over § 1981's causation requirement, we agreed to hear this case. 587 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2693, 204 L.Ed.2d 1089 (2019).
II
It is "textbook tort law" that a plaintiff seeking redress for a defendant's legal wrong typically must prove but-for causation. University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 347, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013) (citing W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 265 (5th ed. 1984)). Under this standard, a plaintiff must demonstrate that, but for the defendant's unlawful conduct, its alleged injury would not have occurred. This ancient and simple "but for" common law causation test, we have held, supplies the "default" or "background" rule against which Congress is normally presumed to have legislated when creating its own new causes of action. 570 U.S. at 346-347, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (citing Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) ). That includes when it comes to federal antidiscrimination laws like § 1981. See 570 U.S. at 346-347, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (Title VII retaliation) ; Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 176-177, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967).
Normally, too, the essential elements of a claim remain constant through the life of a lawsuit. What a plaintiff must do to satisfy those elements may increase as a case progresses from complaint to trial, but the legal elements themselves do not change. So, to determine what the plaintiff must plausibly allege at the outset of a lawsuit, we usually ask what the plaintiff must prove in the trial at its end. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ; Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346-347, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005) ; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
ESN doesn't seriously dispute these general principles. Instead, it suggests § 1981 creates an exception to one or both of them. At times, ESN seems to argue that a § 1981 plaintiff only bears the burden of showing that race was a "motivating factor" in the defendant's challenged decision, not a but-for cause of its injury. At others, ESN appears to concede that a § 1981 plaintiff does have to prove but-for causation at trial, but contends the rules should be different at the pleading stage. According to this version of ESN's argument, a plaintiff should be able to overcome at least a motion to dismiss if it can allege facts plausibly showing that race was a "motivating factor" in the defendant's decision. ESN admits this arrangement would allow some claims to proceed past the pleading stage that are destined to fail later as a matter of law. Still, the company insists, that is what the statute demands.
A
We don't doubt that most rules bear their exceptions. But, taken collectively, clues from the statute's text, its history, and our precedent persuade us that § 1981 follows the general rule. Here, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of its injury. And, while the materials the plaintiff can rely on to show causation may change as a lawsuit progresses from filing to judgment, the burden itself remains constant.
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the aftermath of the Civil War to vindicate the rights of former slaves. Section 1 of that statute included the language found codified today in § 1981(a), promising that "[a]ll persons... shall have the same right... to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, [and] give evidence... as is enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ; Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27.
While the statute's text does not expressly discuss causation, it is suggestive. The guarantee that each person is entitled to the "same right... as is enjoyed by white citizens" directs our attention to the counterfactual-what would have happened if the plaintiff had been white? This focus fits naturally with the ordinary rule that a plaintiff must prove but-for causation. If the defendant would have responded the same way to the plaintiff even if he had been white, an ordinary speaker of English would say that the plaintiff received the "same" legally protected right as a white person. Conversely, if the defendant would have responded differently but for the plaintiff's race, it follows that the plaintiff has not received the same right as a white person. Nor does anything in the statute signal that this test should change its stripes (only) in the face of a motion to dismiss.
The larger structure and history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 provide further clues. Nothing in the Act specifically authorizes private lawsuits to enforce the right to contract. Instead, this Court created a judicially implied private right of action, definitively doing so for the first time in 1975. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 459, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975) ; see also Jett v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 720, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989). That was during a period when the Court often "assumed it to be a proper judicial function to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective a statute's purpose." Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1855, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). With the passage of time, of course, we have come to appreciate that, "[l]ike substantive federal law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress" and "[r]aising up causes of action where a statute has not created them may be a proper function for common-law courts, but not for federal tribunals." Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286-287, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet, even in the era when this Court routinely implied causes of action, it usually insisted on legal elements at least as demanding as those Congress specified for analogous causes of action actually found in the statutory text. See, e.g., Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 736, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975).
That rule supplies useful guidance here. Though Congress did not adopt a private enforcement mechanism for violations of § 1981, it did establish criminal sanctions in a neighboring section. That provision permitted the prosecution of anyone who "depriv[es]" a person of "any right" protected by the substantive provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 "on account of " that person's prior "condition of slavery" or "by reason of " that person's "color or race." § 2, 14 Stat. 27. To prove a violation, then, the government had to show that the defendant's challenged actions were taken " 'on account of' " or " 'by reason of'" race-terms we have often held indicate a but-for causation requirement. Gross, 557 U.S. at 176-177, 129 S.Ct. 2343.
Nor did anything in the statute hint that a different and more forgiving rule might apply at one particular stage in the litigation. In light of the causation standard Congress specified for the cause of action it expressly endorsed, it would be more than a little incongruous for us to employ the laxer rules ESN proposes for this Court's judicially implied cause of action.
Other provisions of the 1866 statute offer further guidance. Not only do we generally presume that Congress legislates against the backdrop of the common law. Nassar, 570 U.S. at 347, 133 S.Ct. 2517. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 made this background presumption explicit, providing that "in all cases where [the laws of the United States] are not adapted to the object [of carrying the statute into effect] the common law... shall... govern said courts in the trial and disposition of such cause." § 3, 14 Stat. 27. And, while there were exceptions, the common law in 1866 often treated a showing of but-for causation as a prerequisite to a tort suit. See, e.g., Hayes v. Michigan Central R. Co., 111 U.S. 228, 241, 4 S.Ct. 369, 28 L.Ed. 410 (1884) ; Smith, Legal Cause in Actions of Tort, 25 Harv. L. Rev. 103, 108-109 (1911) ; White, The Emergence and Doctrinal Development of Tort Law, 1870-1930, 11 U. St. Thomas L. J. 463, 464-465 (2014) ; 1 F. Hilliard, Law of Torts 78-79 (1866); 1 T. Sedgwick, Measure of Damages 199 (9th ed. 1912). Nor did this prerequisite normally wait long to make its appearance; if anything, pleadings standards back then were generally even stricter than they are in federal practice today. See generally, e.g., Lugar, Common Law Pleading Modified versus the Federal Rules, 52 W. Va. L. Rev. 137 (1950).
This Court's precedents confirm all that the statute's language and history indicate. When it first inferred a private cause of action under § 1981, this Court described it as "afford[ing] a federal remedy against discrimination... on the basis of race," language (again) strongly suggestive of a but-for causation standard. Johnson, 421 U.S. at 459-460, 95 S.Ct. 1716 (emphasis added). Later, in General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982), the Court explained that § 1981 was "designed to eradicate blatant deprivations of civil rights," such as where "a private offeror refuse[d] to extend to [an African-American],... because he is [an African-American], the same opportunity to enter into contracts as he extends to white offerees." Id., at 388, 102 S.Ct. 3141 (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks omitted). Once more, the Court spoke of § 1981 using language-because of-often associated with but-for causation. Nassar, 570 U.S. at 350, 133 S.Ct. 2517. Nor did anything in these decisions even gesture toward the possibility that this rule of causation sometimes might be overlooked or modified in the early stages of a case.
This Court's treatment of a neighboring provision, § 1982, supplies a final telling piece of evidence. Because § 1982 was also first enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and uses nearly identical language as § 1981, the Court's "precedents have... construed §§ 1981 and 1982 similarly." CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 447, 128 S.Ct. 1951, 170 L.Ed.2d 864 (2008). Section 1982 guarantees all citizens "the same right... as is enjoyed by white citizens... to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property." And this Court has repeatedly held that a claim arises under § 1982 when a citizen is not allowed "to acquire property... because of color." Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 78-79, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149 (1917) (emphasis added); see also Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 419, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968) ; Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 170-171, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976). If a § 1982 plaintiff must show the defendant's challenged conduct was "because of " race, it is unclear how we might demand less from a § 1981 plaintiff. Certainly ESN offers no compelling reason to read two such similar statutes so differently.
B
What does ESN offer in reply? The company asks us to draw on, and then innovate with, the "motivating factor" causation test found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But a critical examination of Title VII's history reveals more than a few reasons to be wary of any invitation to import its motivating factor test into § 1981.
This Court first adopted Title VII's motivating factor test in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). There, a plurality and two Justices concurring in the judgment held that a Title VII plaintiff doesn't have to prove but-for causation; instead, it's enough to show that discrimination was a motivating factor in the defendant's decision. Id., at 249-250, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); see also id., at 258-259, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 268-269, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Once a plaintiff meets this lesser standard, the plurality continued, the defendant may defeat liability by establishing that it would have made the same decision even if it had not taken the plaintiff's race (or other protected trait) into account. In essence, Price Waterhouse took the burden of proving but-for causation from the plaintiff and handed it to the defendant as an affirmative defense. Id., at 246, 109 S.Ct. 1775.
But this arrangement didn't last long. Congress soon displaced Price Waterhouse in favor of its own version of the motivating factor test. In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress provided that a Title VII plaintiff who shows that discrimination was even a motivating factor in the defendant's challenged employment decision is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. § 107, 105 Stat. 1075. A defendant may still invoke lack of but-for causation as an affirmative defense, but only to stave off damages and reinstatement, not liability in general. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(m), 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) ; see also Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 94-95, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003).
While this is all well and good for understanding Title VII, it's hard to see what any of it might tell us about § 1981. Title VII was enacted in 1964; this Court recognized its motivating factor test in 1989; and Congress replaced that rule with its own version two years later. Meanwhile, § 1981 dates back to 1866 and has never said a word about motivating factors. So we have two statutes with two distinct histories, and not a shred of evidence that Congress meant them to incorporate the same causation standard. Worse yet, ESN's fallback position-that we should borrow the motivating factor concept only at the pleadings stage-is foreign even to Title VII practice. To accept ESN's invitation to consult, tinker with, and then engraft a test from a modern statute onto an old one would thus require more than a little judicial adventurism, and look a good deal more like amending a law than interpreting one.
What's more, it's not as if Congress forgot about § 1981 when it adopted the Civil Rights Act of 1991. At the same time that it added the motivating factor test to Title VII, Congress also amended § 1981. See Civil Rights Act of 1991, § 101, 105 Stat. 1072 (adding new subsections (b) and (c) to § 1981 ). But nowhere in its amendments to § 1981 did Congress so much as whisper about motivating factors. And where, as here, Congress has simultaneously chosen to amend one statute in one way and a second statute in another way, we normally assume the differences in language imply differences in meaning. Gross, 557 U.S. at 174-175, 129 S.Ct. 2343 ; see also Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983).
Still, ESN tries to salvage something from the 1991 law. It reminds us that one of the amendments to § 1981 defined the term "make and enforce contracts" to include "making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b). In all this, ESN asks us to home in on one word, "making." By using this particular word, ESN says, Congress clarified that § 1981(a) guarantees not only the right to equivalent contractual outcomes (a contract with the same final terms), but also the right to an equivalent contracting process (no extra hurdles on the road to securing that contract). And, ESN continues, if the statute addresses the whole contracting process, not just its outcome, a motivating factor causation test fits more logically than the traditional but-for test.
Comcast and the government disagree. As they see it, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 unambiguously protected only outcomes-the right to contract, sue, be a party, and give evidence. When Congress sought to define some of these terms in 1991, it merely repeated one word from the original 1866 Act (make) in a different form (making). No reasonable reader, Comcast and the government contend, would think that the addition of the present participle form of a verb already in the statute carries such a radically different meaning and so extends § 1981 liability in the new directions ESN suggests. And, we are told, the statute's original and continuing focus on contractual outcomes (not processes) is more consistent with the traditional but-for test of causation.
This debate, we think, misses the point. Of course, Congress could write an employment discrimination statute to protect only outcomes or to provide broader protection. But, for our purposes today, none of this matters. The difficulty with ESN's argument lies in its mistaken premise that a process-oriented right necessarily pairs with a motivating factor causal standard. The inverse argument-that an outcome-oriented right implies a but-for causation standard-is just as flawed. Either causal standard could conceivably apply regardless of the legal right § 1981 protects. We need not and do not take any position on whether § 1981 as amended protects only outcomes or protects processes too, a question not passed on below or raised in the petition for certiorari. Our point is simply that a § 1981 plaintiff first must show that he was deprived of the protected right and then establish causation-and that these two steps are analytically distinct.
Unable to latch onto either Price Waterhouse or the Civil Rights Act of 1991, ESN is left to cast about for some other hook to support its arguments about § 1981's operation. In a final effort, it asks us to consider the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 804, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Like the motivating factor test, McDonnell Douglas is a product of Title VII practice. Under its terms, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of race discrimination through indirect proof, the defendant bears the burden of producing a race-neutral explanation for its action, after which the plaintiff may challenge that explanation as pretextual. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 257-258, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). This burden shifting, ESN contends, is comparable to the regime it proposes for § 1981.
It is nothing of the kind. Whether or not McDonnell Douglas has some useful role to play in § 1981 cases, it does not mention the motivating factor test, let alone endorse its use only at the pleadings stage. Nor can this come as a surprise: This Court didn't introduce the motivating factor test into Title VII practice until years after McDonnell Douglas. For its part, McDonnell Douglas sought only to supply a tool for assessing claims, typically at summary judgment, when the plaintiff relies on indirect proof of discrimination. See 411 U.S. at 802-805, 93 S.Ct. 1817 ; see also Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978) ; Malamud, The Last Minuet: Disparate Treatment After Hicks, 93 Mich. L. Rev. 2229, 2259 (1995). Because McDonnell Douglas arose in a context where but-for causation was the undisputed test, it did not address causation standards. So nothing in the opinion involves ESN's preferred standard. Under McDonnell Douglas's terms, too, only the burden of production ever shifts to the defendant, never the burden of persuasion. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254-255, 101 S.Ct. 1089 ; Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-716, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). So McDonnell Douglas can provide no basis for allowing a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss when it fails to allege essential elements of a plaintiff's claim.
III
All the traditional tools of statutory interpretation persuade us that § 1981 follows the usual rules, not any exception. To prevail, a plaintiff must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, it would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right. We do not, however, pass on whether ESN's operative amended complaint "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' " under the but-for causation standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The Ninth Circuit has yet to consider that question because it assessed ESN's pleadings under a different and mistaken test. To allow that court the chance to determine the sufficiency of ESN's pleadings under the correct legal rule in the first instance, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice GINSBURG, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join the Court's opinion requiring a plaintiff who sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to plead and prove race was a but-for cause of her injury. In support of that holding, Comcast advances a narrow view of § 1981's scope. Section 1981's guarantee of "the same right... to make... contracts," Comcast urges, covers only the final decision whether to enter a contract, not earlier stages of the contract-formation process.
The Court devotes a page and a half to this important issue but declines to resolve it, as it does not bear on the choice of causation standards before us. Ante, at 1017 - 1018. I write separately to resist Comcast's attempt to cabin a "sweeping" law designed to "break down all discrimination between black men and white men" regarding "basic civil rights." Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 432-433, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original).
Under Comcast's view, § 1981 countenances racial discrimination so long as it occurs in advance of the final contract-formation decision. Thus, a lender would not violate § 1981 by requiring prospective borrowers to provide one reference letter if they are white and five if they are black. Nor would an employer violate § 1981 by reimbursing expenses for white interviewees but requiring black applicants to pay their own way. The employer could even "refus[e] to consider applications" from black applicants at all. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21.
That view cannot be squared with the statute. An equal "right... to make... contracts," § 1981(a), is an empty promise without equal opportunities to present or receive offers and negotiate over terms. A plaintiff hindered from enjoying those opportunities may be unable effectively to form a contract, and a defendant able to impair those opportunities can avoid contracting without refusing a contract outright. It is implausible that a law "intended to... secure... practical freedom," Jones, 392 U.S. at 431, 88 S.Ct. 2186 (quoting Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 474 (1866)), would condone discriminatory barriers to contract formation.
Far from confining § 1981's guarantee to discrete moments, the language of the statute covers the entirety of the contracting process. The statute defines "make and enforce contracts" to "includ[e] the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." § 1981(b). That encompassing definition ensures that § 1981 "applies to all phases and incidents of the contractual relationship." Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 302, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994). See also H. R. Rep. No. 102-40, pt. 2, p. 37 (1991) ("The Committee intends this provision to bar all racial discrimination in contracts. This list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive."). In line with the rest of the definition, the word "making" is most sensibly read to capture the entire process by which the contract is formed. American Heritage Dictionary 1086 (3d ed. 1992) ("The process of coming into being"); 9 Oxford English Dictionary 250 (2d ed. 1989) ("the process of being made").
Comcast's freeze-frame approach to § 1981 invites the Court to repeat an error it has committed before. In 1989, the Court "rea[d] § 1981 not as a general proscription of racial discrimination in all aspects of contract relations, but as limited to" certain narrow "enumerated rights." Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 181, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989). According to Patterson, the right to "make" a contract "extend[ed] only to the formation of a contract," and the right to "enforce" it encompassed only "access to legal process." Id., at 176-178, 109 S.Ct. 2363. The Court thus declined to apply § 1981 to "postformation conduct," concluding that an employee had no recourse to § 1981 for racial harassment occurring after the employment contract's formation. Id., at 178-179, 109 S.Ct. 2363.
Congress promptly repudiated that interpretation. In 1991, "with the design to supersede Patterson," Congress enacted the expansive definition of "make and enforce contracts" now contained in § 1981(b). CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 450, 128 S.Ct. 1951, 170 L.Ed.2d 864 (2008). Postformation racial harassment violates § 1981, the amendment clarifies, because the right to "make and enforce" a contract includes the manner in which the contract is carried out. So too the manner in which the contract is made.
The complaint before us contains allegations of racial harassment during contract formation. In their negotiations, Entertainment Studios alleges, Comcast required of Entertainment Studios a series of tasks that served no purpose and on which Entertainment Studios "waste[d] hundreds of thousands of dollars." App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a-50a. The Court holds today that Entertainment Studios must plead and prove that race was the but-for cause of its injury-in other words, that Comcast would have acted differently if Entertainment Studios were not African-American owned. But if race indeed accounts for Comcast's conduct, Comcast should not escape liability for injuries inflicted during the contract-formation process. The Court has reserved that issue for consideration on remand, enabling me to join its opinion.
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 concurrence proceeds to offer a view on the nature of the right, while correctly noting that the Court reserves the question for another day. We reserve the question because "we are a court of review, not of first view," Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005), and do not normally strain to address issues that are less than fully briefed and that the district and appellate courts have had no opportunity to consider. Such restraint is particularly appropriate here, where addressing the issue is entirely unnecessary to our resolution of the case.
I have previously explained that a strict but-for causation standard is ill suited to discrimination cases and inconsistent with tort principles. University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 383-385, 133
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a civil suit brought under § 4 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 4, to enjoin alleged violations of § 1 and § 2 of the Act. The civil suit was filed on the heels of a grand jury investigation in which no indictment was returned. The Government is using the grand jury transcript to prepare the civil case for trial; and appellees, who are defendants in that suit, desire the same privilege. They moved for discovery and production of the minutes under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court granted the motion, ruling that appellees had shown “good cause” as required by Rule 34. It rested on the ground that the Government was using the transcript in preparation for trial, that it would be useful to appellees in their preparation, that only in this way could appellees get the information. These reasons, the court held, outweighed the reasons behind the policy for maintaining secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. 19 F. R. D. 122, 128.
The District Court entered orders directing the Government to produce the transcript in 30 days and to permit appellees to inspect and copy it. The Government, adamant in its refusal to obey, filed a motion in the District Court requesting that those orders be amended to provide that, if production were not made, the court would dismiss the complaint. Alternatively, the Government moved the District Court to stay the order pending the filing of an appeal and an application for extraordinary writ. Appellees did not oppose the motion; and the District Court entered an amended order providing that, unless the Government released the transcript by August 24, 1956, “the Court will enter an order dismissing the complaint.” As the Government persisted in its refusal, the District Court entered judgment of dismissal. The case is here by way of appeal, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 62 Stat. 869, 989, 15 U. S. C. § 29. We postponed the question of jurisdiction to argument on the merits. 352 U. S. 997.
First. The orders of dismissal were final orders, ending the case. See United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U. S. 793.
Appellees urge that this appeal may not be maintained because dismissal of the complaint was solicited by the Government. They invoke the familiar rule that a plaintiff who has voluntarily dismissed his complaint may not sue out a writ of error. See Evans v. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73; United States v. Babbitt, 104 U. S. 767. The rule has no application here. The Government at all times opposed the production orders. It might of course have tested their validity in other ways, for example, by the route of civil contempt. Yet it is understandable why a more conventional way of getting review of the adverse ruling might be sought and any unseemly conflict with the District Court avoided. When the Government proposed dismissal for failure to obey, it had lost on the merits and was only seeking an expeditious review. This case is therefore like Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U. S. 66, where the losing party got the lower court to dismiss the complaint rather than remand for a new trial, so that it could get review in this Court. The court, in denying the motion to dismiss, said
“The plaintiffs did not consent to a judgment against them, but only that, if there was to be such a judgment, it should be final in form instead of interlocutory, so that they might come to this court without further delay.” Id., at 83.
Second. On the merits we have concluded that “good cause,” as used in Rule 34, was not established. The Government as a litigant is, of course, subject to the rulés of discovery. At the same time, we start with a long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts. See United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503, 513; Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 362. The reasons are varied. One is to encourage all witnesses to step forward and testify freely without fear of retaliation. The witnesses in antitrust suits may be employees or even officers of potential defendants, or their customers, their competitors, their suppliers. The grand jury as a public institution serving the community might suffer if those testifying today knew that the secrecy of their testimony would be lifted tomorrow. This “indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings,” United States v. Johnson, supra, at 513, must not be broken except where there is a compelling necessity. There are instances when that need will outweigh the countervailing policy. But they must be shown with particularity.
“(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.”
No such showing was made here. The relevancy and usefulness of the testimony sought were, of course, sufficiently established. If the grand jury transcript were made available, discovery through depositions, which might involve delay and substantial costs, would be avoided. Yet these showings fall short of proof that without the transcript a defense would be greatly prejudiced or that without reference to it an injustice would be done. Modern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose, as we noted in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495. They together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blindman’s buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. Id., at 501. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure. They were present in Hickman y. Taylor, supra, for there the information sought was in the trial notes of the opposing lawyer. They are present here because of the policy of secrecy of grand jury proceedings. We do not reach in this case problems concerning the use of the grand jury transcript at the trial to impeach a witness, to refresh his recollection, to test his credibility and the like. Those are cases of particularized need where the secrecy of the proceedings is lifted discretely and limitedly. We only hold that no compelling necessity has been shown for the wholesale discovery and production of a grand jury transcript under Rule 34. We hold that a much more particularized, more discrete showing of need is necessary to establish “good cause.” The court made no such particularized finding of need in case of any one witness. It ordered that the entire transcript be delivered over to the appellees. It undoubtedly was influenced by the fact that this type of case is complex, long drawn out, and expensive to prosecute and defend. It also seemed to have been influenced by the fact that the prosecution was using criminal procedures to elicit evidence in a civil case. If the prosecution were using that device, it would be flouting the policy of the law. For in these Sherman Act cases Congress has guarded against in camera proceedings by providing that “the taking of depositions . . . shall be open to the public” and that no order excluding the public shall be valid. 37 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 30.
We cannot condemn the Government for any such practice in this case. There is no finding that the grand jury proceeding was used as a short cut to goals otherwise barred or more difficult to reach. It is true that no indictment was returned in the present case. But that is no reflection on the integrity of the prosecution. For all we know, the trails that looked fresh at the start faded along the way. What seemed at the beginning to be a case with a criminal cast apparently took on a different character as the events and transactions were disclosed. The fact that a criminal case failed does not mean that the evidence obtained could not be used in a civil case. It is only when the criminal procedure is subverted that “good cause” for wholesale discovery and production of a grand jury transcript would be warranted. No such showing was made here.
Reversed.
Appellee, Colgate-Palmolive Co., moved under Rule 6 (e) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, note 5, infra.
Rule 34 provides in part:
“Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, and subject to the provisions of Rule 30 (b), 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, . . . not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within the scope of the examination permitted by Rule 26 (b) and which are in his possession, custody, or control . . .
Rule 37 (b)(2) provides:
“If any party . . . refuses to obey ... an order made under Rule 34 to produce any document or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing . . . , the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:
“(i) An order that . . . the contents of the paper ... or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
“(ii) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony . . . ;
“(iii) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;
“ (iv) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such orders ...”
Rule 41 (b) provides in part:
“Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”
While Rule 41 (b) covers motions to dismiss made by defendants, the portion quoted shows that it is not restricted to that situation.
Rule 6 (e) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in part:
“Disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury other than its deliberations and the vote of any juror may be made to the attorneys for the government for use in the performance of their duties. Otherwise a juror, attorney, interpreter or stenographer may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury only when so directed by the court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding or when permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon-a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury. No obligation of secrecy may be imposed upon any person except in accordance with this rule.”
In United States v. Rose, 215 F. 2d 617, 628-629, those reasons were summarized as follows:
See, e. g., United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 234. Cf. Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of “willfully” dealing in firearms without a federal license. The question presented is whether the term “willfully” in 18 U. S. C. § 924(a)(1)(D) requires proof that the defendant knew that his conduct was unlawful, or whether it also requires proof that he knew of the federal licensing requirement.
I
In-1968 Congress enacted the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. 82 Stat. 197-239. In Title IV of that Act Congress made findings concerning the impact of the traffic in firearms on the prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States and amended the Criminal Code to include detailed provisions regulating the use and sale of firearms. As amended, 18 U. S. C. §922 defined a number of “unlawful acts”; subsection (a)(1) made it unlawful for any person except a licensed dealer to engage in the business of dealing in firearms. Section 928 established the federal licensing program and repeated the prohibition against dealing in firearms without a license, and § 924 specified the penalties for violating “any provision of this chapter.” Read literally, § 924 authorized the imposition of a fine of up to $5,000 or a prison sentence of not more than five years, “or both,” on any person who dealt in firearms without a license even if that person believed that he or she was acting lawfully. As enacted in 1968, §§ 922(a)(1) and 924 omitted an express scienter requirement and therefore arguably imposed strict criminal liability on every unlicensed dealer in firearms. The 1968 Act also omitted any definition of the term “engaged in the business” even though that conduct was an element of the unlawful act prohibited by § 922(a)(1).
In 1986 Congress enacted the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), in part, to cure these omissions. The findings in that statute explained that additional legislation was necessary to protect law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms for lawful purposes. FOPA therefore amended § 921 to include a definition of the term “engaged in the business,” and amended §924 to add a scienter requirement as a condition to the imposition of penalties for most of the unlawful acts defined in § 922. For three categories of offenses the intent required is that the defendant acted “knowingly”; for the fourth category, which includes “any other provision of this chapter,” the required intent is that the defendant acted “willfully.” The § 922(a)(1)(A) offense at issue in this case is an "other provision” in the “willfully” category.
II
The jury having found petitioner guilty, we accept the Government’s version of the evidence That evidence proved that petitioner did not have a federal license to deal in firearms; that he used so-called “straw purchasers” in Ohio to acquire pistols that he could not have purchased himself; that the straw purchasers made false statements when purchasing the guns; that petitioner assured the straw purchasers that he would file the serial numbers off the guns; and that he resold the guns on Brooklyn street corners known for drug dealing. The evidence was unquestionably adequate to prove that petitioner was dealing in firearms, and that he knew that his conduct was unlawful. There was, however, no evidence that he was aware of the federal law that prohibits dealing in firearms without a federal license.
Petitioner was charged with a conspiracy to violate 18 U. S. C. § 922(a)(1)(A), by -willfully engaging in the business of dealing in firearms, and with a substantive violation of that provision. After the close of evidence, petitioner requested that the trial judge instruct the jury that petitioner could be convicted only if he knew of the federal licensing requirement, but the judge rejected this request. Instead, the trial judge gave this explanation of the term “willfully”:
“A person acts willfully if he acts intentionally and purposely and with the intent to do something the law forbids, that is, with the bad purpose to disobey or to disregard the law. Now, the person need not be aware of the specific law or rule that his conduct may be violating. But he must act with the intent to do something that the law forbids.”
Petitioner was found guilty on both counts. On appeal he argued that the evidence was insufficient because there was no proof that he had knowledge of the federal licensing requirement, and that the trial judge had erred by failing to instruct the jury that such knowledge was an essential element of the offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 122 F. 3d 90 (CA2 1997). It concluded that the instructions were proper and that the Government had elicited “ample proof” that petitioner had acted willfully. App. 22.
Because the Eleventh Circuit has held that it is necessary for the Government to prove that the defendant acted with knowledge of the licensing requirement, United States v. Sanchez-Corcino, 85 F. 3d 549, 553-554 (1996), we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 522 U. S. 1024 (1997).
H-i
The word “willfully” is sometimes said to be “a word of many meanings” whose construction is often dependent on the context in which it appears. See, e. g., Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, 497 (1943). Most obviously it differentiates between deliberate and unwitting conduct, but in the criminal law it also typically refers to a culpable state of mind. As we explained in United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 (1933), a variety of phrases have been used to describe that concept. As a general matter, when used in the criminal context, a “willful” act is one undertaken with a “bad purpose.” In other words, in order to establish a “willful” violation of a statute, “the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.” Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 137 (1994).
Petitioner argues that a more particularized showing is required in this case for two principal reasons. First, he argues that the fact that Congress used the adverb “knowingly” to authorize punishment of three categories of acts made unlawful by § 922 and the word “willfully” when it referred to unlicensed dealing in firearms demonstrates that the Government must shoulder a special burden in eases like this. This argument is not persuasive because the term “knowingly” does not necessarily have any reference to a eulpable state of mind or to knowledge of the law. As Justice Jackson correctly observed, “the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law.” Thus, in United States v. Bailey, 444 U. S. 394 (1980), we held that the prosecution fulfills its burden of proving a knowing violation of the escape statute “if it demonstrates that an escapee knew his actions would result in his leaving physical confinement without permission.” Id., at 408. And in Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994), we held that a charge that the defendant’s possession of an unregistered maehinegun was unlawful required proof “that he knew the weapon he possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a maehinegun.” Id., at 602. It was not, however, necessary to prove that the defendant knew that his possession was unlawful. See Rogers v. United States, 522 U. S. 252, 254-255 (1998) (plurality opinion). Thus, unless the text of the statute dictates a different result, the term “knowingly” merely requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
With respect to the three categories of conduct that are made punishable by §924 if performed “knowingly,” the background presumption that every citizen knows the law makes it unnecessary to adduce specific evidence to prove that “an evil-meaning mind” directed the “evil-doing hand.” More is required, however, with respect to the conduct in the fourth category that is only criminal when done “willfully.” The jury must find that the defendant acted with an evil-meaning mind, that is to say, that he acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.
Petitioner next argues that we must read § 924(a)(1)(D) to require knowledge of the law because of our interpretation of “willfully” in two other contexts. In certain cases involving willful violations of the tax laws, we have concluded that the jury must find that the defendant was aware of the specific provision of the tax code that he was charged with violating. See, e. g., Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192, 201 (1991). Similarly, in order to satisfy a willful violation in Ratzlaf, we concluded that the jury had to find that the defendant knew that his structuring of cash transactions to avoid a reporting requirement was unlawful. See 510 U. S., at 138, 149. Those cases, however, are readily distinguishable. Both the tax cases and Ratz-laf involved highly technical statutes that presented the danger of ensnaring individuals engaged in apparently innocent conduct. As a result, we held that these statutes “earv[e] out an exception to the traditional rule” that ignorance of the law is no excuse and require that the defendant have knowledge of the law. The danger of convicting individuals engaged in apparently innocent activity that motivated our decisions in the tax cases and Ratzlaf is not present here because the jury found that this petitioner knew that his conduct was unlawful.
Thus, the willfulness requirement of § 924(a)(1)(D) does not carve out an exception to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse; knowledge that the conduct is unlawful is all that is required.
IY
Petitioner advances a number of additional arguments based on his reading of congressional intent. Petitioner first points to the legislative history of FOPA, but that history is too ambiguous to offer petitioner much assistance. Petitioner’s main support lies in statements made by opponents of the bill. As we have stated, however, “[t]he fears and doubts of the opposition are no authoritative guide to the construction of legislation.” Schwegmann Brothers v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 394 (1951). “In their zeal to defeat a bill, they understandably tend to overstate its reach.” NLRB v. Fruit Packers, 377 U. S. 58, 66 (1964).
Petitioner next ai’gues that, at the time FOPA was passed, the “willfulness” requirements in other subsections of the statute — §§ 923(d)(l)(C)-(D) — had uniformly been interpreted by lower courts to require knowledge of the law; petitioner argues that Congress intended that “willfully” should have the same meaning in § 924(a)(1)(D). As an initial matter, the lower courts had eome to no such agreement. While some courts had stated that willfulness in § 923(d)(1) is satisfied by a disregard of a known legal obligation, willful was also interpreted variously to refer to “purposeful, intentional conduct,” “indifference] to the requirements of the law,” or merely a “conscious, intentional, deliberate, voluntary decision.” Moreover, in each of the cases in which disregard of a known legal obligation was held to be sufficient to establish willfulness, it was perfectly clear from the record that the licensee had knowledge of the law; thus, while these eases support the notion that disregard of a known legal obligation is sufficient to establish a willful violation, they in no way stand for the proposition that it is required.
Finally, petitioner argues that § 922(b)(3), which is governed by § 924(a)(l)(D)’s willfulness standard, indicates that Congress intended “willfully” to include knowledge of the law. Section 922(b)(3) prohibits licensees from selling firearms to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the licensee’s State, except where, inter alia, the transaction fully complies with the laws of both the seller’s and buyer’s State. The subsection further states that the licensee “shall be presumed, ... in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States.” Although petitioner argues that the presumption in § 922(b)(3) indicates that Congress intended willfulness to require knowledge of the law for all offenses covered by § 924(a)(1)(D), petitioner is mistaken. As noted above, while disregard of a known legal obligation is certainly sufficient to establish a willful violation, it is not necessary — and nothing in § 922(b)(3) contradicts this basic distinction.
V
One sentence in the trial court’s instructions to the jury, read by itself, contained a misstatement of the law. In a portion of the instructions that were given after the correct statement that we have already quoted, the judge stated: “In this case, the government is not required to prove that the defendant knew that a license was required, nor is the government required to grove that he had knowledge that he was breaking the law” App. 19 (emphasis added). If the judge had added the words “that required a license,” the sentence would have been accurate, but as given it was not.
Nevertheless, that error does not provide a basis for reversal for four reasons. First, petitioner did not object to that sentence, except insofar as he had argued that the jury should have been instructed that the Government had the burden of proving that he had knowledge of the federal licensing requirement. Second, in the context of the entire instructions, it seems unlikely that the jury was misled. See, e. g., United States v. Park, 421 U. S. 658, 674-675 (1975). Third, petitioner failed to raise this argument in the Court of Appeals. Finally, our grant of certiorari was limited to the narrow legal question whether knowledge of the licensing requirement is an essential element of the offense.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
“Sec. 901. (a) The Congress hereby finds and declares—
“(1) that there is a widespread traffic in firearms moving in or otherwise affecting interstate or foreign commerce, and that the existing Federal controls over such traffic do not adequately enable the States to control this traffic within their own borders through the exercise of their police power;
“(2) that the ease with which any person can acquire firearms other than a rifle or shotgun (including criminals, juveniles without the knowledge or consent of their parents or guardians, narcotics addicts, mental defectives, armed groups who would supplant the functions of duly constituted- public authorities, and others whose possession of such weapons is similarly contrary to the public interest) is a significant factor in the. prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States;
“(3) that only through adequate Federal control over interstate and foreign commerce in these weapons, and over all persons engaging in the businesses of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in them, can this grave problem be properly dealt with, and effective State and local regulation of this traffic be made possible ....” 82 Stat. 225.
82 Stat. 228. The current version of this provision, which is substantially the same as the 1968 version, is codified at 18 XJ. S. C. § 922(a)(1)(A). It states:
“(a) It shall be unlawful—
“(1) for any person—
“(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacture!’, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Ҥ924. Penalties
“(a) Whoever violates any provision of this chapter . . . shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 82 Stat. 233.
“The Congress finds that—
“(b)(2) additional legislation is required to reaffirm the intent of the Congress, as expressed in section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, that ‘it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’” lOOStat. 449.
“Section 921 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
“(21) The term ‘engaged in the business’ means—
“(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921 (a)(ll)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms ....” 100 Stat. 449-450.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 924(a)(1) currently provides:
“Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929, whoever—
“(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter;
“(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;
"(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922(1); or
"(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
“shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both”
See n. 2, swpra.
Why else would he make use of straw purchasers and assure them that he would shave the serial numbers off the guns? Moreover, the street comer sales are not consistent with a good-faith belief in the legality of the enterprise.
Although the prohibition against unlicensed dealing in firearms is set forth in §922, see n. 2, supra, the criminal sanction is set forth in § 924(a)(1), see n. 6, supra.
“KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW
“The Federal Firearms Statute which the Defendant is charged with, conspiracy to violate and with allegedly violated [sic], is a specific intent statute. You must accordingly find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant at all relevant times charged, acted with the knowledge that it was unlawful to engage in the business of firearms distribution lawfully purchased by a legally permissible transferee or gun purchaser.
“[Y]ou must be persuaded that with the actual knowledge of the federal firearms licensing laws Defendant acted in knowing and intentional violation of them.” App. 17 (citing Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135 (1994)).
App. 18-19.
“The word often denotes an act which is intentional, or knowing, or voluntary, as distinguished from accidental. But when used in a criminal statute it generally means an act done with a bad purpose (Felton v. United States, 96 U. S. 699; Potter v. United States, 155 U. S. 438; Spurr v. United States, 174 U. S. 728); without justifiable excuse (Felton v. United States, supra; Williams v. People, 26 Colo. 272; 57 Pac. 701; People v. Jewell, 138 Mich 620; 101 N. W. 835; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Batesville & W. Tel. Co., 80 Ark. 499; 97 S. W. 660; Clay v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 555; 107 S. W. 1129); stubbornly, obstinately, perversely, Wales v. Miner, 89 Ind. 118, 127; Lynch v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 762; 109 S. E. 427; Claus v. Chicago Gt. W Ry. Co., 136 Iowa 7; 111 N. W. 15; State v. Harwell, 129 N. C. 550; 40 S. E. 48. The word is also employed to characterize a thing done without ground for believing it is lawful (Roby v. Newton, 121 Ga. 679; 49 S. E. 694), or conduct marked by careless disregard whether or not one has the right so to act, United States v. Philadelphia & R. By. Co., 223 Fed. 207, 210; State v. Same, 129 Iowa 122; 105 N. W. 387; State v. Morgan, 136 N. C. 628; 48 S. E. 670.” 290 U. S., at 394-395.
See, e. g., Heikkinen v. United States, 355 U. S. 273, 279 (1958) (“There can be no willful failure by a deportee, in the sense of § 20(c), to apply to, and identify, a country willing to receive him in the absence of evidence ... of a ‘bad purpose’ or ‘[non-]justifiab!e excuse,’ or the like.... [T]t cannot be said that he acted ‘willfully’ — i. e., with a ‘bad purpose’ or without ‘justifiable excuse’”); United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389, 394 (1933) (“[W]hen used in a criminal statute [willfully] generally means an act done with a bad purpose”); Felton v. United States, 96 U. S. 699, 702 (1878) (“Doing or omitting to do a thing knowingly and wilfully, implies not only a knowledge of the thing, but a determination with a bad intent to do it or to omit doing it. 'The word “wilfully,” ’ says Chief Justice Shaw, ‘in the ordinary sense in which it is used in statutes, means not merely “voluntarily,” but with a bad purpose.’ 20 Pick. (Mass.) 220. ‘It is frequently understood,’ says Bishop, ‘as signifying an evil intent without justifiable excuse.’ Grim. Law, vol. i. sect. 428”); 1 L. Sand, J. Siffert, W. Loughlin, & S. Reiss, Modern Federal Jury Instructions ¶ 3A.01, p. 3A-18 (1997) (“ ‘Willfully’ means to act with knowledge that one’s conduct is unlawful and with the intent to do something the law forbids, that is to say with the bad purpose to disobey or to disregard the law”).
In his opinion dissenting from the Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of a. statute authorizing punishment for the knowing violation of an Interstate Commerce regulation, Justice Jackson wrote:
“It is further suggested that a defendant is protected against indefiniteness because conviction is authorized only for knowing violations. The argument seems to be that the jury can find that defendant knowingly violated the regulation only if it finds that it knew the meaning of the regulation he was accused of violating. With the exception of Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, which rests on a very particularized basis, the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law. I do not suppose the Court intends to suggest that if petitioner knew nothing of the. existence of such a regulation its ignorance would constitute a defense.” Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U. S. 337, 345 (1952).
Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419 (1985), was such a case. We there concluded that both the term “knowing” in 7 U. S. G. § 2024(c) and the term “knowingly” in § 2024(b)(1) literally referred to knowledge of the law as well as knowledge of the relevant facts. See id., at 428-430.
Justice Jackson’s translation of the terms mens rea and actus reus is found in his opinion for the Court in Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 251 (1952).
Even in tax eases, we have not always required this heightened mens rea. In United States v. Pomponio, 429 U. S. 10 (1976) (per curiam), for example, the jury was instructed that a willful act is one done “with [the] bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law.” Id., at 11. We approved of this instruction, concluding that “[t]he trial judge . . . adequately instructed the jury on willfulness.” Id., at 13.
As we stated in Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192, 199-200 (1991):
“The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common-law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term ‘willfully’ as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule [that every person is presumed to know the law]. This special treatment of criminal tax offenses is largely due to the complexity of the tax laws.”
See Bates v. United States, 522 U. S. 23, 31, n. 6 (1997) (noting that Ratzlaf s holding was based on the “particular statutory context of currency structuring”); Ratzlaf, 510 U. S., at 149 (Court’s holding based on “particular contex[tj” of currency structuring statute).
Id., at 144-145 (“[C]urrency structuring is not inevitably nefarious-Nor is a person who structures a currency transaction invariably motivated by a desire to keep the Government in the dark”; Government's construction of the statute would criminalize apparently innocent activity); Cheek, 498 U. S., at 205 (“[I]n *our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law,’ and “‘[i]t is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care.”’ United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346, 360-361 (1973) (quoting Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, 496 (1943))”); Murdock, 290 U. S., at 396 (“Congress did not intend that a person, by reason of a bona fide misunderstanding as to his liability for the tax, as to his duty to make a return, or as to the adequacy of the records he maintained, should become a criminal by his mere failure to measure up to the prescribed standard of conduct”21
Cheek, 498 U. S., at 200; see also Ratzlaf, 510 U. S., at 149 (noting the “venerable principle that ignorance of the law generally is no defense to a criminal charge,” but concluding that Congress intended otherwise in the “particular contex[t]” of the currency structuring statute).
Even before Ratzlaf was decided, then-Chief Judge Breyer explained why there was a need for specificity under those statutes that is inapplicable when there is no danger of conviction of a defendant with an innocent state of mind. He wrote:
“I believe that criminal prosecutions for ‘currency law* violations, of the sort at issue here, very much resemble criminal prosecutions for tax law violations. Compare 26 TJ. S. C. §§60501, 7203 with 31 TJ. S. C. §§5322, 5324. Both sets of laws are technical; and both sets of laws sometimes criminalize conduct that would not strike an ordinary citizen as immoral or likely unlawful. Thus, both sets of laws may lead to the unfair result of criminally prosecuting individuals who subjectively and honestly believe they have not acted criminally. Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192 ... (1991), sets forth a legal standard that, by requiring proof that the defendant was subjectively aware of the duty at issue, would avoid such unfair results.” United States v. Aversa, 984 F. 2d 493, 502 (CA1 1993) (concurring opinion).
He therefore concluded that the “same standards should apply in both” the tax eases and in eases such as Ratzlaf. 984 F. 2d, at 503.
Moreover, requiring only knowledge that the conduct is unlawful is fully consistent with the purpose of FOPA, as FOPA was enacted to protect law-abiding citizens who might inadvertently violate the law. See n. 4, supra; see also United States v. Andrade, 136 F. 3d 104, 108-109 (CA1 1998).
For example, Representative Hughes, a staunch opponent of the bill, stated that the willfulness requirement would “make it next to impossible to convict dealers, particularly those who engage in business without acquiring a license, because the prosecution would have to show that the dealer was personally aware of every detail of the law, and that he made a conscious decision to violate the law.” 132 Gong. Rec. 6876 (1986). Even petitioner's amicus acknowledges that this statement was “undoubtedly an exaggeration.” Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae 14.
See also Andrade, 135 F. 3d, at 108-109.
See, e.g., Perri v. Department of the Treasury, 637 F. 2d 1332, 1336 (CA9 1981); Stein’s Inc. v. Blumenthal, 649 F. 2d 463, 467-468 (CA7 1980).
Rich v. United States, 383 F. Supp. 797, 800 (SD Ohio 1974).
Lewin v. Blumenthal, 590 F. 2d 268, 269 (CA8 1979); Fin & Feather Sport Shop v. United States Treasury Department, 481 F. Supp. 800, 807 (Neb. 1979).
Prino v. Simon, 606 F. 2d 449, 451 (CA4 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Stein’s, 649 F. 2d, at 467 (“[Ilf a person 1) intentionally does an act which is prohibited, irrespective of evil motive or reliance on erroneous advice, or 2) acts with careless disregard of statutory requirements, the violation is willful” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Perri, 637 F. 2d, at 1336 (“The district court found Perri knew a straw-man transaction would violate the Act”); Stein’s, 649 F. 2d, at 468 (“The record shows that the plaintiff’s agents were instructed on the requirements of the law and acknowledged an understanding of the Secretary’s regulations. Nevertheless, and despite repeated warnings from the Secretary, violations continued to occur” (footnote omitted)); Powers v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 505 F. Supp. 695, 698 (ND Fla. 1980) (“Bureau representatives inspected Powers August 31, 1976. They pointed out his many violations, gave him a copy of the regulations, thoroughly explained his obligations, and gave him a pamphlet explaining his obligations. As of that date Powers knew his obligations”); Shyda v. Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 448 F. Supp. 409, 415 (MD Pa. 1977) (“[A]t the formal administrative hearing petitioner admitted on the stand under oath that he was aware of the specific legal obligation at issue”); Mayesh v. Schultz, 58 F. R. D. 537, 540 (SD Ill. 1973) (“The uncontroverted evidence shows clearly that plaintiff was aware of the above holding period requirements. Mr. Mayesh had been previously advised on the requirements under Illinois law, and he dearly acknowledged that he was aware of them”); McLemore v. United States Treasury Department, 317 F. Supp. 1077, 1078 (ND Fla. 1970) (finding that both the owner of the pawnshop, as well as his employees, had knowledge of the law).
In Mayesh, for example, the court stated:
“The uncontroverted evidence shows clearly that plaintiff was aware of the above holding period requirements. Mr. Mayesh had been previously advised on the requirements under Illinois law, and he clearly acknowledged that he was aware of them.... Since the material facts are undisputed, as a matter of law the plaintiff clearly and knowingly violated the Illinois holding provisions . . . , and hence, 18 U. S. C. § 922(b)(2). This court can only consider such action to have been ‘wilful’ as a matter of law. There is no basis for trial of any disputed facts in this connection. This is sufficient to justify refusal of license renewal.” 58 F. R. D., at 540. See also, e. g., Perri, 637 F. 2d, at 1336 (stating that when a dealer understands the requirements of the law, but knowingly fails to follow them or is in different to them, willfulness “is established,” i. e., is satisfied); Stein’s, 649 F. 2d, at 468 (“Evidence of repeated violations with knowledge of the law’s requirements has been held sufficient to establish willfulness” (emphasis added)); McLemore, 317 F. Supp., at 1078-1079.
18 U.S.C.§ 922(b)(3).
Petitioner also argues that the statutory language — ‘‘willfully violates any other provision of this chapter” — indicates a congressional intent to attach liability only when a defendant possesses specific knowledge of the “provision[s] of [the] chapter.” We rejected a similar argument in United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U. S. 558 (1971). Although that case involved the word “knowingly” (in the phrase “knowingly violates any such regulation”), the response is the same:
“We . . . see no reason why the word ‘regulations’ [or the phrase ‘any other provision of this chapter’] should not be construed as a shorthand designation for specific acts or omissions which violate the Act. The Act, so viewed, does not signal an exception to the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse ....” Id., at 562.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the proceeds of the sale by the United States Government of standing timber on allotted lands on the Quinaielt Indian Reservation may be made subject to capital-gains tax, consistently with applicable treaty and statutory provisions and the Government’s role as respondents’ trustee and guardian.
When white men first came to the Olympic Peninsula, in what is now the State of Washington, they found the Quinaielt Tribe of Indians and their neighboring allied tribes occupying a tract of country lying between the Coast Range and the Pacific Ocean. This vast tract, with the exception of a small portion reserved for their exclusive use, was ceded by the Quinaielts and their neighbors to the United States in exchange for protection and tutelage by the treaty of July 1, 1855, and January 25, 1856, 12 Stat. 971. According to this treaty, the Quinaielts were to have exclusive use of their reservation “and no white man shall be permitted to reside thereon without permission of the tribe . . . .” Article II. Years later, Congress passed the General Allotment Act of 1887. Thereunder, Indians were to be allotted lands on their reservations not to exceed 160 acres of grazing land or 80 acres of agricultural land, and 25 years after allotment the allottees were to receive the lands discharged of the trust under which the United States had theretofore held them, and to obtain a patent “in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever,” though the President might extend the period.
Respondents, husband and wife, were born on the reservation, and are described by the Government as full-blood, noncompetent Quinaielt Indians. They have lived on the reservation all their lives with the exception of the time served by respondent husband in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II.
Pursuant to the treaty and under the General Allotment Act of 1887, respondent husband was allotted from the treaty-guaranteed reservation 93.25 acres and received a trust patent therefor dated October 1, 1907. During the tax year here in question, the fee title to this land was still held by the United States in trust for him, and was not subject to alienation or encumbrance by him, except with the consent of the United States Government, which consent had never been given. The land was forest land, covered by coniferous trees from one hundred years to several hundred years old. It was not adaptable to agricultural purposes, and was of little value after the timber was cut.
In the year 1943, the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the United States Department of the Interior entered into a contract of sale for the standing timber on respondent’s allotted land for the total price of $15,080.80. The Government received the sum of $8,418.28 on behalf of respondent in that year.
Upon demand of petitioner, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Washington, respondents filed a joint income tax return on October 10, 1947, for the tax year 1943, reporting long-term capital gain from the sale of the timber in that year. Simultaneously, they paid the taxes shown due. Thereafter, they filed a timely claim for refund of the taxes paid and contended that the proceeds from the sale of timber from the allotted land were not subject to federal income taxation because such taxation would be in violation of the provisions of the Qui-naielt Treaty, the trust patent, and the General Allotment Act. The claim for refund was denied, and this action was instituted. The District Court found that the tax had been unlawfully collected and ordered the refund. 110 F. Supp. 924. The Court of Appeals, agreeing with the District Court but recognizing a conflict between this case and the decision of the Tenth Circuit in the case of Jones v. Taunah, 186 F. 2d 445, affirmed. 220 F. 2d 349. Because of the apparent conflict, we granted certiorari. 350 U. S. 816.
The Government urges us to view this case as an ordinary tax case without regard to the treaty, relevant statutes, congressional policy concerning Indians, or the guardian-ward relationship between the United States and these particular Indians. It argues:
“As citizens of the United States they are taxable under the broad provisions of Sections 11 and 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which imposes a tax on the net income of every individual, derived from any source whatever. There is no exemption from tax in the Quinaielt Treaty, the General Allotment Act, the taxing statute, or in any other legislation dealing with taxpayers’ affairs. . . .
“Even if it be assumed that the United States would be prohibited from imposing a direct tax on the allotted land held in trust for the taxpayers, there would, nevertheless, be no prohibition against a federal tax on the income derived from the land, since a tax on such income is not the same as a tax on the source of the income, the land.”
We agree with the Government that Indians are citizens and that in ordinary affairs of life, not governed by treaties or remedial legislation, they are subject to the payment of income taxes as are other citizens. We also agree that, to be valid, exemptions to tax laws should be clearly expressed. But we cannot agree that taxability of respondents in these circumstances is unaffected by the treaty, the trust patent or the Allotment Act.
The courts below held that imposition of the tax here in question is inconsistent with the Government’s promise to transfer the fee “free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever.” Although this statutory provision is not expressly couched in terms of nontaxability, this Court has said that
“Doubtful expressions are to be resolved in favor of the weak and defenseless people who are the wards of the nation, dependent upon its protection and good faith. Hence, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, 'The language used in treaties with the Indians should never be construed to their prejudice. If words be made use of, which are susceptible of a more extended meaning than their plain import, as connected with the tenor of the treaty, they should be considered as used only in the latter sense.’ Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 582.” Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U. S. 363, 367.
Thus, the general words “charge or incumbrance” might well be sufficient to include taxation. But Congress, in an amendment to the General Allotment Act, gave additional force to respondents’ position. Section 6 of that Act was amended to include a proviso—
“That the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, and he is authorized, whenever he shall be satisfied that any Indian allottee is competent and capable of managing his or her affairs at any time to cause to be issued to such allottee a patent in fee simple, and thereafter all restrictions as to sale, in-cumbrance, or taxation of said land shall be removed and said land shall not be liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issuing of such patent . ...”
The Government argues that this amendment was directed solely at permitting state and local taxation after a transfer in fee, but there is no indication in the legislative history of the amendment that it was to be so limited. The fact that this amendment antedated the federal income tax by 10 years also seems irrelevant. The literal language of the proviso evinces a congressional intent to subject an Indian allotment to all taxes only-after a patent in fee is issued to the allottee. This, in turn, implies that, until such time as the patent is issued, the allotment shall be free from all taxes, both those in being and those which might in the future be enacted.
The first opinion of an Attorney General touching on this question seemed to construe the language of the amendment to Section 6 as exempting from the income tax income derived from restricted allotments. And even without such a clear statutory basis for exemption, a later Attorney General advised that he was—
“[U]liable, by implication, to impute to Congress under the broad language of our Internal Revenue Acts an intent to impose a tax for the benefit of the Federal Government on income derived from the restricted property of these wards of the nation; property the management and control of which rests largely in the hands of officers of the Government charged by law with the responsibility and duty of protecting the interests and welfare of these dependent people. In other words, it is not lightly to be assumed that Congress intended to tax the ward for the benefit of the guardian.”
Two of these opinions were published as Treasury Decisions. On the basis of these opinions and decisions, and a series of district and circuit court decisions, it was said by Felix S. Cohen, an acknowledged expert in Indian law, that “It is clear that the exemption accorded tribal and restricted Indian lands extends to the income derived directly therefrom.” These relatively contemporaneous official and unofficial writings are entitled to consideration. The Government makes much of a subsequent Attorney General’s opinion, which expressly overruled an earlier opinion, on the authority of Superintendent of Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner, 295 U. S. 418.
That case is distinguishable from the case at hand. It involved what the Court characterized as “income derived from investment of surplus income from land,” or income on income, which Cohen termed “reinvestment income.” The purpose of the allotment system was to protect the Indians’ interest and “to prepare the Indians to take their place as independent, qualified members of the modern body politic.” Board of Commissioners v. Seber, 318 U. S. 705, 715. To this end, it is necessary to preserve the trust and income derived directly therefrom, but it is not necessary to exempt reinvestment income from tax burdens. It is noteworthy that the Superintendent case did not involve an attempt to tax the land “surplus.”
The wisdom of the congressional exemption from tax embodied in Section 6 of the General Allotment Act is manifested by the facts of the instant case. Respondent’s timber constitutes the major value of his allotted land. The Government determines the conditions under which the cutting is made. Once logged off, the land is of little value. The land no longer serves the purpose for which it was by treaty set aside to his ancestors, and for which it was allotted to him. It can no longer be adequate to his needs and serve the purpose of bringing him finally to a state of competency and independence. Unless the proceeds of the timber sale are preserved for respondent, he cannot go forward when declared competent with the necessary chance of economic survival in competition with others. This chance is guaranteed by the tax exemption afforded by the General Allotment Act, and the solemn undertaking in the patent. It is unreasonable to infer that, in enacting the income tax law, Congress intended to limit or undermine the Government’s undertaking. To tax respondent under these circumstances would, in the words of the court below, be "at the least, a sorry breach of faith with these Indians.”
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
24 Stat. 388, 25 U. S. C. § 331 et seq.
25 U.S.C. §331.
Id., § 348.
Ibid. The trust period here involved has regularly been extended by Executive Order. See note following 25 U. S. C. § 348, and see 25 U. S. C. §462, which provides: “The existing periods of trust placed upon any Indian lands and any restriction on alienation thereof are extended and continued until otherwise directed by Congress.”
The term “patent” inadequately describes respondent’s interest. “Congress . . . was careful to avoid investing the allottee with the title in the first instance, and directed that there should be issued to him what ... is in reality an allotment certificate . . . .” Monson v. Simonson, 231 U. S. 341, 345.
In pertinent part, the patent provides:
“Now know ye, That the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, has allotted, and by these presents does allot, unto the said Horton Capoeman, the land above described, and hereby declares that it does and will hold the land thus allotted (subject to all statutory provisions and restrictions) for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the said Indian, and that at the expiration of said period the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever, . . . .”
This sale seems to have followed a pattern generally adopted by the Government in selling timber from Indian allotments. Huge areas of forest are put up for competitive bids by lumber companies. These tracts include the tribal forest lands and individual allotments, with the consent of tribal councils and individual allottees. The successful bidder is required to make an immediate advance payment of a large proportion of the estimated value of the lumber in the tract. Since as much as 640 million board feet have been sold at one time, this requirement makes it economically infeasible for any but the largest companies to submit bids. The uncertainties of such large scale operations, which are to be carried on over 25- or 30-year periods, coupled with local quality and accessibility variables, has resulted in substantially lower than prevailing market bids. In some instances, the return to other sellers of comparable timber was two or three times that received by the Indians. See Transcript of November 28, 1955, Joint Hearing of Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight Function of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and of Subcommittee on Public Works and Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations, 2151-2217, and passim.
Brief for Petitioner, pp. 7-8.
25 U. S. C. § 349.
See S. Rep. No. 1998, 59th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1558, 59th Cong., 1st Sess.
This provision was relied upon by Chief Judge Phillips, dissenting in Jones v. Taunah, 186 F. 2d 445, 449.
34 Op. Atty. Gen. 275, 281 (1924). And see id., 302 (1924).
Id., 439, 445 (1925). This ruling was followed in 35 Op. Atty. Gen. 1 (1925). And cf. id., 107 (1926).
T. D. 3570, III-1 Cum. Bull. 85 (1924); T. D. 3754, IV-2 Cum. Bull. 37 (1925).
Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 265. He distinguished cases permitting the imposition of income taxes upon income derived from unrestricted lands, and upon reinvestment income. Id., at 265-266. Mr. Cohen was Chairman of the Department of Interior Board of Appeals, and Assistant Solicitor of the Department. The Handbook has a foreword by Harold L. Ickes, then Secretary of the Interior, and was printed by the United States Government Printing Office.
39 Op. Atty. Gen. 107 (1937).
34 id., 439.
295 U. S., at 421.
The Government also relies upon Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 691, but that case also is not controlling, since it held only that a competent Indian, who had unrestricted control over lands and income therefrom, was not exempt from income tax solely because of his status as an Indian. Such a tax is specifically authorized by Section 6 of the General Allotment Act.
See United States v. Eastman, 118 F. 2d 421.
See 220 F. 2d, at 350. In its answer filed in the District Court, the Government admitted that the lands "are generally unsuitable for agricultural purposes . . . .” R. 31.
220 F. 2d 350.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the original version of the “escheat” provision of the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, Pub. L. 97-459, Tit. II, 96 Stat. 2519, effected a “taking” of appellees’ decedents’ property without just compensation.
I
Towards the end of the 19th century, Congress enacted a series of land Acts which divided the communal reservations of Indian tribes into individual allotments for Indians and unallotted lands for non-Indian settlement. This legislation seems to have been in part animated by a desire to force Indians to abandon their nomadic ways in order to “speed the Indians’ assimilation into American society,” Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U. S. 463, 466 (1984), and in part a result of pressure to free new lands for further white settlement. Ibid. Two years after the enactment of the General Allotment Act of 1887, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388, Congress adopted a specific statute authorizing the division of the Great Reservation of the Sioux Nation into separate reservations and the allotment of specific tracts of reservation land to individual Indians, conditioned on the consent of three-fourths of the adult male Sioux. Act of Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 405, 25 Stat. 888. Under the Act, each male Sioux head of household took 320 acres of land and most other individuals 160 acres. 25 Stat. 890. In order to protect the allottees from the improvident disposition of their lands to white settlers, the Sioux allotment statute provided that the allotted lands were to be held in trust by the United States. Id., at 891. Until 1910, the lands of deceased allottees passed to their heirs “according to the laws of the State or Territory” where the land was located, ibid., and after 1910, allottees were permitted to dispose of their interests by will in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. 36 Stat. 856, 25 U. S. C. § 373. Those regulations generally served to protect Indian ownership of the allotted lands.
The policy of allotment of Indian lands quickly proved disastrous for the Indians. Cash generated by land sales to whites was quickly dissipated, and the Indians, rather than farming the land themselves, evolved into petty landlords, leasing their allotted lands to white ranchers and farmers and living off the meager rentals. Lawson, Heirship: The Indian Amoeba, reprinted in Hearing on S. 2480 and S. 2663 before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., 82-83 (1984). The failure of the allotment program became even clearer as successive generations came to hold the allotted lands. Thus 40-, 80-, and 160-acre parcels became splintered into multiple undivided interests in land, with some parcels having hundreds, and many parcels having dozens, of owners. Because the land was held in trust and often could not be alienated or partitioned, the fractionation problem grew and grew over time.
A 1928 report commissioned by the Congress found the situation administratively unworkable and economically wasteful. L. Meriam, Institute for Government Research, The Problem of Indian Administration 40-41. Good, potentially productive, land was allowed to lie fallow, amidst great poverty, because of the difficulties of managing property held in this manner. Hearings on H. R. 11113 before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1966) (remarks of Rep. Aspinall). In discussing the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Representative Howard said:
“It is in the case of the inherited allotments, however, that the administrative costs become incredible. ... On allotted reservations, numerous cases exist where the shares of each individual heir from lease money may be 1 cent a month. Or one heir may own minute fractional shares in 30 or 40 different allotments. The cost of leasing, bookkeeping, and distributing the proceeds in many cases far exceeds the total income. The Indians and the Indian Service personnel are thus trapped in a meaningless system of minute partition in which all thought of the possible use of land to satisfy human needs is lost in a mathematical haze of bookkeeping.” 78 Cong. Rec. 11728 (1934).
In 1934, in response to arguments such as these, the Congress acknowledged the failure of its policy and ended further allotment of Indian lands. Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984, 25 U. S. C. §461 et seq.
But the end of future allotment by itself could not prevent the further compounding of the existing problem caused by the passage of time. Ownership continued to fragment as succeeding generations came to hold the property, since, in the order of things, each property owner was apt to have more than one heir. In 1960, both the House and the Senate undertook comprehensive studies of the problem. See House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Indian Heirship Land Study, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1961); Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Indian Heirship Land Survey, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1960-1961). These studies indicated that one-half of the approximately 12 million acres of allotted trust lands were held in fractionated ownership, with over 3 million acres held by more than six heirs to a parcel. Id., at pt. 2, p. x. Further hearings were held in 1966, Hearings on H. R. 11113, supra, but not until the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983 did the Congress take action to ameliorate the problem of fractionated ownership of Indian lands.
Section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act — the es-cheat provision at issue in this case — provided:
“No undivided fractional interest in any tract of trust or restricted land within a tribe’s reservation or otherwise subjected to a tribe’s jurisdiction shall descedent [sic] by intestacy or devise but shall escheat to that tribe if such interest represents 2 per centum or less of the total acreage in such tract and has earned to its owner less than $100 in the preceding year before it is due to escheat.” 96 Stat. 2519.
Congress made no provision for the payment of compensation to the owners of the interests covered by § 207. The statute was signed into law on January 12, 1983, and became effective immediately.
The three appellees — Mary Irving, Patrick Pumpkin Seed, and Eileen Bissonette — are enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. They are, or represent, heirs or devisees of members of the Tribe who died in March, April, and June 1983. Eileen Bissonette’s decedent, Mary Poor Bear-Little Hoop Cross, purported to will all her property, including property subject to § 207, to her five minor children in whose name Bissonette claims the property. Chester Irving, Charles Leroy Pumpkin Seed, and Edgar Pumpkin Seed all died intestate. At the time of their deaths, the four decedents owned 41 fractional interests subject to the provisions of §207. App. 20, 22-28, 32-33, 37-39. The Irving estate lost two interests whose value together was approximately $100; the Bureau of Indian Affairs placed total values of approximately $2,700 on the 26 escheatable interests in the Cross estate and $1,816 on the 13 escheatable interests in the Pumpkin Seed estates. But for § 207, this property would have passed, in the ordinary course, to appellees or those they represent.
Appellees filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, claiming that § 207 resulted in a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court concluded that the statute was constitutional. It held that appellees had no vested interest in the property of the decedents prior to their deaths and that Congress had plenary authority to abolish the power of testamentary disposition of Indian property and to alter the rules of intestate succession. App. to Juris. Statement 21a-26a.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. Irving v. Clark, 758 F. 2d 1260 (1985). Although it agreed that appellees had no vested rights in the decedents’ property, it concluded that their decedents had a right, derived from the original Sioux allotment statute, to control disposition of their property at death. The Court of Appeals held that appellees had standing to invoke that right and that the taking of that right without compensation to decedents’ estates violated the Fifth Amendment.
hH hH
The Court of Appeals concluded that appellees have standing to challenge § 207. 758 F. 2d, at 1267-1268. The Government does not contest this ruling. As the Court of Appeals recognized, however, the existence of a case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court’s deliberations. Id., at 1267, n. 12. We are satisfied that the necessary case or controversy exists in this case. Section 207 has deprived appellees of the fractional interests they otherwise would have inherited. This is sufficient injury-in-fact to satisfy Article III of the Constitution. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 112 (1976).
In addition to the constitutional standing requirements, we have recognized prudential standing limitations. As the court below recognized, one of these prudential principles is that the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests. 758 F. 2d, at 1267-1268. That general principle, however, is subject to exceptions. Appellees here do not assert that their own property rights have been taken unconstitutionally, but rather that their decedents’ right to pass the property at death has been taken. Nevertheless, we have no difficulty in finding the concerns of the prudential standing doctrine met here.
For obvious reasons, it has long been recognized that the surviving claims of a decedent must be pursued by a third party. At common law, a decedent’s surviving claims were prosecuted by the executor or administrator of the estate. For Indians with trust property, statutes require the Secretary of the Interior to assume that general role. 25 U. S. C. § § 371-380. The Secretary’s responsibilities in that capacity, however, include the administration of the statute that the appellees claim is unconstitutional, see 25 U. S. C. §§2202, 2209, so that he can hardly be expected to assert appellees’ decedents’ rights to the extent that they turn on that point. Under these circumstances, appellees can appropriately serve as their decedents’ representatives for purposes of asserting the latters’ Fifth Amendment rights. They are situated to pursue the claims vigorously, since their interest in receiving the property is indissolubly linked to the decedents’ right to dispose of it by will or intestacy. A vindication of decedents’ rights would ensure that the fractional interests pass to ap-pellees; pressing these rights unsuccessfully would equally guarantee that appellees take nothing. In short, permitting appellees to raise their decedents’ claims is merely an extension of the common law’s provision for appointment of a decedent’s representative. It is therefore a “settled practice of the courts” not open to objection on the ground that it permits a litigant to raise third parties’ rights. Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U. S. 405, 406 (1900).
r — ¶ hH hH
The Congress, acting pursuant to its broad authority to regulate the descent and devise of Indian trust lands, Jefferson v. Fink, 247 U. S. 288, 294 (1918), enacted §207 as a means of ameliorating, over time, the problem of extreme fractionation of certain Indian lands. By forbidding the passing on at death of small, undivided interests in Indian lands, Congress hoped that future generations of Indians would be able to make more productive use of the Indians’ ancestral lands. We agree with the Government that encouraging the consolidation of Indian lands is a public purpose of high order. The fractionation problem on Indian reservations is extraordinary and may call for dramatic action to encourage consolidation. The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, appearing as amicus curiae in support of the Secretary of the Interior, is a quintessential victim of fractionation. Forty-acre tracts on the Sisseton-Wahpeton Lake Traverse Reservation, leasing for about $1,000 annually, are commonly subdivided into hundreds of undivided interests, many of which generate only pennies a year in rent. The average tract has 196 owners and the average owner undivided interests in 14 tracts. The administrative headache this represents can be fathomed by examining Tract 1305, dubbed “one of the most fractionated parcels of land in the world.” Lawson, Heirship: The Indian Amoeba, reprinted in Hearing on S. 2480 and S. 2663 before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., 85 (1984). Tract 1305 is 40 acres and produces $1,080 in income annually. It is valued at $8,000. It has 439 owners, one-third of whom receive less than $.05 in annual rent and two-thirds of whom receive less than $1. The largest interest holder receives $82.85 annually. The common denominator used to compute fractional interests in the property is 3,394,923,840,000. The smallest heir receives $.01 every 177 years. If the tract were sold (assuming the 439 owners could agree) for its estimated $8,000 value, he would be entitled to $.000418. The administrative costs of handling this tract are estimated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs at $17,560 annually. Id., at 86, 87. See also Comment, Too Little Land, Too Many Heirs — The Indian Heirship Land Problem, 46 Wash. L. Rev. 709, 711-713 (1971).
This Court has held that the Government has considerable latitude in regulating property rights in ways that may adversely affect the owners. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470, 491-492 (1987); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 125-127 (1978); Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590, 592-593 (1962). The framework for examining the question whether a regulation of property amounts to a taking requiring just compensation is firmly established and has been regularly and recently reaffirmed. See, e. g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, supra, at 485; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1004-1005 (1984); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 295 (1981); Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260-261 (1980); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 174-175 (1979); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, supra, at 124. As The Chief Justice has written:
“[T]his Court has generally ‘been unable to develop any “set formula” for determining when “justice and fairness” require that economic injuries caused by public action be compensated by the government, rather than remain disproportionately concentrated on a few persons.’ [Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S.], at 124. Rather, it has examined the ‘taking’ question by engaging in essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries that have identified several factors — such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action — that have particular significance. Ibid. ” Kaiser Aetna v. United States, supra, at 175.
There is no question that the relative economic impact of § 207 upon the owners of these property rights can be substantial. Section 207 provides for the escheat of small undivided property interests that are unproductive during the year preceding the owner’s death. Even if we accept the Government’s assertion that the income generated by such parcels may be properly thought of as de minimis, their value may not be. While the Irving estate lost two interests whose value together was only approximately $100, the Bureau of Indian Affairs placed total values of approximately $2,700 and $1,816 on the escheatable interests in the Cross and Pumpkin Seed estates. See App. 20, 21-28, 29-39. These are not trivial sums. There are suggestions in the legislative history regarding the 1984 amendments to §207 that the failure to “look back” more than one year at the income generated by the property had caused the escheat of potentially valuable timber and mineral interests. S. Rep. No. 98-632, p. 12 (1984); Hearing on H. J. Res. 158 before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., 20, 26, 32, 75 (1984); Amendments to the Indian Land Consolidation Act: Hearing on H. J. Res. 158 before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., 8, 29 (1983). Of course, the whole of appellees’ decedents’ property interests were not taken by § 207. Appel-lees’ decedents retained full beneficial use of the property during their lifetimes as well as the right to convey it inter vivos. There is no question, however, that the right to pass on valuable property to one’s heirs is itself a valuable right. Depending on the age of the owner, much or most of the value of the parcel may inhere in this “remainder” interest. See 26 CFR §20.2031-7(f) (Table A) (1986) (value of remainder interest when life tenant is age 65 is approximately 32% of the whole).
The extent to which any of appellees’ decedents had “investment-backed expectations” in passing on the property is dubious. Though it is conceivable that some of these interests were purchased with the expectation that the owners might pass on the remainder to their heirs at death, the property has been held in trust for the Indians for 100 years and is overwhelmingly acquired by gift, descent, or devise. Because of the highly fractionated ownership, the property is generally held for lease rather than improved and used by the owners. None of the appellees here can point to any specific investment-backed expectations beyond the fact that their ancestors agreed to accept allotment only after'ceding to the United States large parts of the original Great Sioux Reservation.
Also weighing weakly in favor of the statute is the fact that there is something of an “average reciprocity of advantage,” Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922), to the extent that owners of escheatable interests maintain a nexus to the Tribe. Consolidation of Indian lands in the Tribe benefits the members of the Tribe. All members do not own escheatable interests, nor do all owners belong to the Tribe. Nevertheless, there is substantial overlap between the two groups. The owners of escheatable interests often benefit from the escheat of others’ fractional interests. Moreover, the whole benefit gained is greater than the sum of the burdens imposed since consolidated lands are more productive than fractionated lands.
If we were to stop our analysis at this point, we might well find § 207 constitutional. But the character of the Government regulation here is extraordinary. In Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S., at 176, we emphasized that the regulation destroyed “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property — the right to exclude others.” Similarly, the regulation here amounts to virtually the abrogation of the right to pass on a certain type of property — the small undivided interest— to one’s heirs. In one form or another, the right to pass on property — to one’s family in particular — has been part of the Anglo-American legal system since feudal times. See United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 627-628 (1896). The fact that it may be possible for the owners of these interests to effectively control disposition upon death through complex inter vivos transactions such as revocable trusts is simply not an adequate substitute for the rights taken, given the nature of the property. Even the United States concedes that total abrogation of the right to pass property is unprecedented and likely unconstitutional. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12-14. Moreover, this statute effectively abolishes both descent and devise of these property interests even when the passing of the property to the heir might result in consolidation of property — as for instance when the heir already owns another undivided interest in the property. Cf. 25 U. S. C. § 2206(b) (1982 ed., Supp. III). Since the escheatable interests are not, as the United States argues, necessarily de minimis, nor, as it also argues, does the availability of inter vivos transfer obviate the need for descent and devise, a total abrogation of these rights cannot be upheld. But cf. Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51 (1979) (upholding abrogation of the right to sell endangered eagles’ parts as necessary to environmental protection regulatory scheme).
In holding that complete abolition of both the descent and devise of a particular class of property may be a taking, we reaffirm the continuing vitality of the long line of cases recognizing the States’, and where appropriate, the United States’, broad authority to adjust the rules governing the descent and devise of property without implicating the guarantees of the Just Compensation Clause. See, e. g., Irving Trust Co. v. Day, 314 U. S. 556, 562 (1942); Jefferson v. Fink, 247 U. S., at 294. The difference in this case is the fact that both descent and devise are completely abolished; indeed they are abolished even in circumstances when the governmental purpose sought to be advanced, consolidation of ownership of Indian lands, does not conflict with the further descent of the property.
There is little doubt that the extreme fractionation of Indian lands is a serious public problem. It may well be appropriate for the United States to ameliorate fractionation by means of regulating the descent and devise of Indian lands. Surely it is permissible for the United States to prevent the owners of such interests from further subdividing them among future heirs on pain of escheat. See Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U. S. 516, 542 (1982) (Brennan, J., dissenting). It may be appropriate to minimize further compounding of the problem by abolishing the descent of such interests by rules of intestacy, thereby forcing the owners to formally designate an heir to prevent escheat to the Tribe. What is certainly not appropriate is to take the extraordinary step of abolishing both descent and devise of these property interests even when the passing of the property to the heir might result in consolidation of property. Accordingly, we find that this regulation, in the words of Justice Holmes, “goes too far.” Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S., at 415. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Court of Appeals, without explanation, went on to “declare” that not only the original version of § 207, but also the amended version not before it, 25 U. S. C. §2206 (1982 ed., Supp. III), unconstitutionally took property without compensation. Since none of the property which es-cheated in this case did so pursuant to the amended version of the statute, this “declaration” is, at best, dicta. We express no opinion on the constitutionality of § 207 as amended.
Justice Stevens argues that weighing in the balance the fact that § 207 takes the right to pass property even when descent or devise results in consolidation of Indian lands amounts to an unprecedented importation of overbreadth analysis into our Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. Post, at 724-726. The basis for this argument is his assertion that none of appel-lees’ decedents actually attempted to pass the property in a way that might have resulted in consolidation. But the fact of the matter remains that before §207 was enacted appellees’ decedents had the power to pass on their property at death to those who already owned an interest in the subject property. This right too was abrogated by § 207; each of the appel-lees’ decedents lost this stick in their bundles of property rights upon the enactment of § 207. It is entirely proper to note the extent of the rights taken from appellees’ decedents in assessing whether the statute passes constitutional muster under the Penn Central balancing test. This is neither overbreadth analysis nor novel. See, e. g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470, 493-502 (1987) (discussing, in general terms, the extent of the abrogation of coal extraction rights caused by the Subsidence Act); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 136-137 (1978) (discussing extent to which air rights abrogated by the designation of Grand Central Station as a landmark, noting that not all new construction prohibited, and noting the availability of transferable development rights).
Justice Stevens’ objections are perhaps better directed at the question whether there is third-party standing to challenge this statute under the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause. But as we have shown, there is certainly no Article III bar to permitting appellees to raise their decedents’ claims, supra, at 711, and Justice Stevens himself concedes that prudential considerations do not bar consideration of the Fifth Amendment claim. Post, at 724.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 330(a)(1), regulates court awards of professional fees, including fees for services rendered by attorneys in connection with bankruptcy proceedings. Petitioner, a bankruptcy attorney, sought compensation under the section for legal services he provided to a bankrupt debtor after the proceeding was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. His application for fees was denied by the Bankruptcy Court, the District Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Each court held that in a Chapter 7 proceeding § 330(a)(1) does not authorize payment of attorney’s fees unless the attorney has been appointed under §327 of the Code. See 11 U. S. C. §§327 and 701 et seq. Petitioner was not so appointed, and his fee request was denied. Having granted the petition for certiorari to review this holding, we now affirm.
I
In 1994 Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 (Act), 108 Stat. 4106. The subject of professional fees was addressed and comprehensive changes were made. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 330.LH[5], pp. 330-75 to 330-76 (rev. 15th ed. 2003). Most of the changes served to clarify the standards for the award of professional fees; but various courts disagree over the proper interpretation of the portion of the statute relevant to this dispute, concerning attorney’s fees.
The Act replaced the predecessor section to the one in issue here. Compare 108 Stat. 4130-4131 (§ 224(b) of the Act amending 11 U. S. C. § 330(a)) with 11 U. S. C. § 330(a) (1988 ed.). Before the 1994 Act, § 330(a) had read as follows:
“(a) After notice to any parties in interest and to the United States trustee and a hearing, and subject to sections 326, 328, and 329 of this title, the court may award to a trustee, to. an examiner, to a professional person employed under section 327 or 1103 of this title, or to the debtor’s attorney—
“(1) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered by such trustee, examiner, professional person, or attorney . . . and by any paraprofessional persons employed by such trustee, professional person, or attorney .. . ; and
“(2) reimbursement for actual, necessary Ibid, (emphasis added to highlight text later deleted).
Pursuant to the 1994 Act, 11 U. S. C. § 330(a)(1) now reads as follows:
“(a)(1) After notice to the parties in interest and the United States Trustee and a hearing, and subject to sections 326,328, and 329, the court may award to a trustee, an examiner, a professional person employed under section 327 or 1103—
“(A) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered by the trustee, examiner, professional person, or attorney and by any paraprofessional person employed by any such person; and
“(B) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.”
As can be noted, the 1994 enactment’s principal, substantive alteration was its deletion of the five words at the end of what was § 330(a) and is now § 330(a)(1): “or to the debtor’s attorney.”
The deletion created an apparent It left current § 330(a)(1) with a missing “or” that infects its grammar (i. e., “an examiner, [or] a professional person ...”). Furthermore, the Act’s inclusion of the word “attorney” in § 330(a)(1)(A) defeats the neat parallelism that otherwise marks the relationship between §§ 330(a)(1) and 330(a)(1)(A) (i. e., in § 330(a)(1): “trustee, . . . examiner, [or] professional person”; in § 330(a)(1)(A): “trustee, examiner, professional person, or attorney”) and so casts some doubt on the proper presence of “attorney.” That the pre-1994 text had no grammatical error and was parallel in its structure strengthens the sense that error exists in the new text.
The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, when asked to interpret current § 380(a)(1), concluded that its language was plain irrespective of these quirks and history. Under the statutory language as written, those courts held, fees may be awarded to attorneys for services rendered only to the extent they are payments to “a professional person employed under section 327,” see, e. g., § 327(a) (authorizing an appointed trustee in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action to “employ one or more attorneys ... to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties under this title”); § 327(e) (authorizing an appointed trustee in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action to “employ, for a specified special purpose, other than to represent the trustee in conducting the case, an attorney that has represented the debtor,.. .”). See In re Pro-Snax Distributors, Inc., 157 F. 3d. 414 (CA5 1998); In re American Steel Product, Inc., 197 F. 3d 1354 (CA11 1999). The Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits, in contrast, concluded that the text’s apparent errors rendered the section ambiguous, requiring consideration of the provision’s legislative history. That history, those courts held, shows Congress intended § 330(a)(1) to continue to allow compensation of Chapter 7 debtors’ attorneys, irrespective of qualification under §327. In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc., 76 F. 3d 66 (CA2 1996); In re Top Grade. Sausage, Inc., 227 F. 3d 123 (CA3 2000); In re Century Cleaning Services, Inc., 195 F. 3d 1053 (CA9 1999). See also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶330.LH[5], at 330-75 to 330-76.
This interpretive divide became relevant to petitioner in his representation of Equipment Services, Inc. (ESI). ESI retained petitioner to prepare, file, and prosecute a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding on its behalf. He did so, all the while representing ESI with the approval of the court under §327. See In re Equipment Services, Inc., 290 F. 3d 739, 742 (CA4 2002) (case below). See also 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a) (authorizing debtor-in-possession to exercise the statutory rights and powers of an estate trustee, including to retain counsel under §327). Three months into the Chapter 11 reorganization, the United States Trustee (Government) filed a motion to convert the action into a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. The court granted the Government’s motion and appointed an estate trustee pursuant to §701, 11 U. S. C. § 701(a). This terminated ESI’s status as debtor-in-possession and so terminated petitioner’s service under § 327 as an attorney for the debtor-in-possession. Yet petitioner continued to provide legal services to ESI, the debtor, even though he did not have the trustee’s authorization to do so. He prepared reports detailing debts incurred and property acquired since the initial filing; he amended asset schedules; and he appeared at a hearing on an adversary complaint.
In due course petitioner filed an application seeking fees under § 330(a)(1) for the time he spent on ESI’s behalf after the Chapter 7 conversion. The Government objected to the application. It argued that § 330(a)(1) makes no provision for the estate to compensate an attorney not authorized under §327. The court agreed and denied the fees. In re Equipment Services, Inc., 253 B. R. 724 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Va. 2000). (Petitioner was paid fees for the services he provided to ESI before conversion of the proceeding to Chapter 7 and when ESI was the debtor-in-possession. The parties do not contest those fees.) •
Petitioner unsuccessfully sought reversal of the Bankruptcy Court’s determination, first from the District Court, see In re Equipment Services, Inc., 260 B. R. 273 (WD Va. 2001), then from the Court of Appeals, see 290 F. 3d 739 (CA4 2002). Both courts concluded the plain language of § 330(a)(1) controlled and that attorneys who provide services to debtors in Chapter 7 proceedings must be hired by the trustee under § 327 to be eligible for compensation. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that its holding deepened the divide among the various Circuits, but held fast to the statute’s plain language, “particularly because application of that plain language supports a reasonable interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code,” id., at 745. We granted the petition for certiorari, 538 U. S. 905 (2003), and now resolve the issue.
II
Petitioner argues that the existing statutory text is ambiguous and so requires us to consult legislative history to determine whether Congress intended to allow fees for services rendered by a debtor’s attorney in a Chapter 7 proceeding, where that attorney is not authorized under § 327. He makes the case for ambiguity, for the most part, by comparing the present statute with its predecessor. Thus, he says the statute is ambiguous because subsection (A)’s “attorney” is “facially irreconcilable” with the section’s first part since
“[e]ither Congress inadvertently omitted the ‘debtor’s attorney’ from the ‘payees’ list, on which the court of appeals relied, or it inadvertently retained the reference to the attorney in the latter, ‘payees’ list.” Brief for Petitioner 17.
Similarly, with respect to the missing conjunction “or” he says,
“[tjhere is no apparent reason, other than a drafting error, that Congress would have rewritten the statute to produce a grammatically incorrect provision.” Ibid.
This is the analysis followed by the Courts of Appeals that hold the statute is ambiguous. See In re Top Grade Sausage, supra, at 129 (noting in its search for ambiguity that “[p]rior to amendment, it was undisputed that the repetition of officers in § 330(a)(1)(A) was meant to parallel the officers previously listed in § 330(a)(1)”); see also In re Century Cleaning Services, 195 F. 3d, at 1057-1058 (engaging in same resort to previous enactment to inquire as to the current text’s ambiguity). One determines ambiguity, under this contention, by relying on the grammatical soundness of the prior statute. That contention is wrong.
The starting point in discerning congressional intent is the existing statutory text, see Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 438 (1999), and not the predecessor statutes. It is well established that “when the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts — at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd — is to enforce it according to its terms.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 241 (1989), in turn quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 485 (1917)). So we begin with the present statute.
A
The statute is awkward, and even ungrammatical; but that does not make it ambiguous on the point at issue. In its first part, the statute authorizes an award of compensation to one of three types of persons: trustees, examiners, and § 327 professional persons. A debtor’s attorney not engaged as provided by § 327 is simply not included within the class of persons eligible for compensation. In subsection (A) the statute further defines what type of compensation may be awarded: compensation that is reasonable; and for actual, necessary services; and rendered by four types of persons (the same three plus attorneys). Unless the applicant for compensation is in one of the named classes of persons in the first part, the kind of service rendered is irrelevant.
The missing conjunction “or” does not change our conclusion. The Government points to numerous federal statutes that inadvertently lack a conjunction. They are read, nonetheless, for their plain meaning. See Brief for Respondent 17, n. 4. Here, the missing conjunction neither alters the text’s substance nor obscures its meaning. This is not a case where a “not” is missing or where an “or” inadvertently substitutes for an “and.” The sentence may be awkward; yet it is straightforward.
Subsection (A)’s nonparalleled fourth category of persons who can render compensable services does not cloud the statute’s meaning. Petitioner reasons that since the section is a single sentence, and since it appears to strive for parallelism between those authorized to receive fees and those whose services are compensable, there is an ambiguity as to what “attorney” in § 330(a)(1)(A) refers to in § 330(a)(1). He also points to neighboring §331, which provides for both debtors’ attorneys and §327 professional persons to receive interim compensation after an order for relief is entered but before an application for §330 fees is filed. He argues that since §331 contemplates debtors’ attorneys’ receiving interim compensation there is reason to conclude that “attorney” in § 330(a)(1)(A) refers to debtors’ attorneys in § 330(a)(1), though they go unmentioned in that clause.
Subsection (A)’s “attorney,” however, can be read in a straightforward fashion to refer to those attorneys whose fees are authorized by § 330(a)(1): attorneys qualified as § 327 professional persons, that is, in a Chapter 7 context, those employed by the trustee and approved by the court. See § 327(a) (appointed trustee may “employ one or more attorneys ... to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties under this title); § 327(e) (appointed trustee may “employ, for a specified special purpose, other than to represent the trustee in conducting the case, an attorney that has represented the debtor, . . .”). Likewise, § 331’s reference to interim compensation for debtors’ attorneys most straightforwardly refers to debtors’ attorneys authorized under § 327.
It must be acknowledged that, under our reading of the text, the word “attorney” in subsection (A) may well be sur-plusage. Subsection (A)’s reference to §327 professional persons undoubtedly includes attorneys, as much as does §330(a)(l)’s reference to professional persons. That is not controlling, however. Surplusage does not always produce ambiguity and our preference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute. See Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U. S. 84, 94 (2001) (the preference “is sometimes offset by the canon that permits a court to reject words ‘as surplusage’ if ‘inadvertently inserted or if repugnant to the rest of the statute’”). Where there are two ways to read the text — either attorney is surplusage, in which case the text is plain; or attorney is nonsurplusage (i. e., it refers to an ambiguous component in § 330(a)(1)), in which case the text is ambiguous — applying the rule against surplusage is, absent other indications, inappropriate. We should prefer the plain meaning since that approach respects the words of Congress. In this manner we avoid the pitfalls that plague too quick a turn to the more controversial realm of legislative history.
B
The plain meaning that § 330(a)(1) sets forth does not lead to absurd results requiring us to treat the text as if it were ambiguous. See supra, at 534 (citing Hartford Underwriters). Petitioner disagrees and argues that our interpretation will “entail an inexplicable, wholesale departure from ... the guiding principle of the ‘prompt and effectual administration’ of federal bankruptcy law.” Brief for Petitioner 30. He says that our reading “attributed] to Congress an illogical, penny-wise and pound-foolish determination to eliminate entirely — as a purportedly asset-preserving measure — compensation that is essential to debtors’ receipt of legal services.” Id., at 35.
These arguments overstate the effect of § 330(a)(1). Under the text’s instruction compensation remains available to debtors’ attorneys through various permitted means. First, while § 330(a)(1) requires proper authorization for payment to attorneys from estate ftmds in Chapter 7 filings, it does not extend throughout all bankruptcy law. Compensation for debtors’ attorneys in Chapter 12 and 13 bankruptcies, for example, is not much disturbed by §330 as a whole. See, e.g., 11 U. S. C. § 330(a)(4)(B) (“In a chapter 12 or chapter 13 case in which the debtor is an individual, the court may allow reasonable compensation to the debtor’s attorney”).
Compensation for debtors’ .attorneys working on Chapter 7 bankruptcies, moreover, is not altogether prohibited. Sections 327 and 330, taken together, allow Chapter 7 trustees to engage attorneys, including debtors’ counsel, and allow courts to award them fees. See §§ 327(a) and (e). Section 327’s limitation on debtors’ incurring debts for professional services without the Chapter 7 trustee’s approval is not absurd. In the context of a Chapter 7 liquidation it advances the trustee’s responsibility for preserving the estate.
If we add to all this the apparent sound functioning of the bankruptcy system under the plain meaning approach, petitioner’s arguments become unconvincing. Seeming order has attended the rule’s application for five years in the Fifth Circuit and for four years in the Eleventh Circuit. See In re American Steel Product, Inc., 197 F. 3d 1354 (CA11 1999); In re Pro-Snax Distributors, Inc., 157 F. 3d 414 (CA5 1998). It appears to be routine for debtors to pay reasonable fees for legal services before filing for bankruptcy to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. See generally Collier Compensation, Employment and Appointment of Trustees.and Professionals in Bankruptcy Cases ¶3.02[1], p. 3-2 (2002) (“In the majority of cases, the debtor’s counsel will accept an individual or a joint consumer chapter 7 case only after being paid a retainer that covers the ‘standard fee’ and the cost of filing the petition”). So our interpretation accords with common practice. Section 330(a)(1) does not prevent a debtor from engaging counsel before a Chapter 7 conversion and paying reasonable compensation in advance to ensure that the filing is in order. Indeed, the Code anticipates these arrangements. See, e. g., § 329 (debtors’ attorneys must disclose fees they receive from a debtor in the year prior to its bankruptcy filing and courts may order excessive payments returned to the estate).
C
Petitioner’s argument stumbles on still harder ground in the face of another canon of interpretation. His interpretation of the Act — reading the word “attorney” in § 330(a) (1)(A) to refer to “debtors’ attorneys” in § 330(a)(1) — would have us read an absent word into the statute. That is, his argument would result “not [in] a construction of [the] statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope.” Iselin v. United States, 270 U. S. 245, 251 (1926). With a plain, nonabsurd meaning in view, we need not proceed in this way. “There is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress’ silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.” Mobil Oil Corn. v. Higginbotham, 436 U. S. 618, 625 (1978).
Our unwillingness to soften the import of Congress’ chosen words even if we believe the words lead to a harsh outcome is longstanding. It results from “deference to the supremacy of the Legislature, as' well as recognition that Congressmen typically vote on the language of a bill.” United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 95 (1985) (citing Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 9 (1962)).
Adhering to conventional doctrines of statutory interpretation, we hold that § 330(a)(1) does not authorize compensation awards to debtors’ attorneys from estate funds, unless they are employed as authorized by § 327. If the attorney is to be paid from estate funds under § 330(a)(1) in a Chapter 7 case, he must be employed by the trustee and approved by the court.
Ill
Though we find it unnecessary to rely on the legislative history behind.the 1994 enactment of §330(a)(1), we find it instructive that the history creates more confusion than clarity about the congressional intent. History and policy considerations lend support both to petitioner’s interpretation and to the holding we reach based on the plain language of the statute.
Petitioner, for instance, cites evidence supporting the conclusion that a scrivener’s error obscures what was Congress’ real intent. For over 100 years debtors’ attorneys have been considered by Congress and the courts to be an integral part of the bankruptcy process. See Bankruptcy Act of 1898, ch. 541, §§ 59(d) and 64(b), 30 Stat. 561, 563. See also In re Kross, 96 F. 816 (SDNY 1899). It is fair to doubt that Congress would so rework their longstanding role without announcing the change in the congressional record. Cf. Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U. S. 213, 221 (1998) (“We . . . will not read the Bankruptcy Code to erode past bankruptcy practice absent a clear indication that Congress intended such a departure” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
The legislative processes behind the change also lend some support to petitioner’s claim. In 1994 the original proposed draft of new § 330(a)(1) featured two changes: stylistic changes throughout the section and the addition of a new provision giving the Government a right to object to fee applications. See S. 540, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993), reprinted in S. Rep. No. 103-168 (1993). The right to object provision was added at §330(a)(l)’s end. Thus it came immediately after the critical text “or to the debtor’s attorney,” which the draft edited to read “or the debtors [sic] attorney.” Ibid.. Before voting the Act into law, however, Congress amended the proposed draft. See 140 Cong. Rec. 8383 (1994) (setting out amendment 1645 to S. 540). Amendment 1645 made only two changes to § 330(a)(1): It deleted the Government’s right to object provision and the critical words (“or the debtors [sic] attorney”). The rest of the original proposed draft remained intact. Legislative history explains the first deletion, for the provision was installed elsewhere, as new § 330(a)(2). Nothing, however, explains the second. That the Government’s right to object was deleted and reinstated (i. e., reorganized), while the words at issue, which had preceded the moved provision, were deleted with no notation in the legislative history suggests the scrivener just reached too far in his deletion. These factors combined to convince a leading treatise on bankruptcy law, Collier, that the deletion was a scrivener’s error and ought not have any effect. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 330.LH[5], at 330-75 to 330-76.
There are other aspects of the legislative record, however, that undermine this interpretation. These considerations suggest Congress may have intended the change the scrivener worked. For example, amendment 1645 was part of a reform Act designed to curtail abuses in fee awards, according to statements by the amendment’s sponsor. See 140 Cong. Rec., at 28753 (statement of Sen. Metzenbaum). These abuses were not ghosts seen only by Congress. Some bankruptcy courts had reached the same conclusion. See, e. g., In re NRG Resources, Inc., 64 B. R. 643 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD La. 1986). The deletion at issue furthered this reform by ensuring that Chapter 7 debtors’ attorneys would receive no estate compensation absent the trustee’s authorization of their work. This objective is not inconsistent with the interest of involving debtors’ attorneys in bankruptcy proceedings. As noted, the Act still allows debtors’ attorneys to be compensated in different ways. See supra, at 536-539.
Amendment 1645, viewed in its entirety, gives further reason to think Congress may have intended the change. The amendment added a new section that authorizes fee awards to debtors’ attorneys in Chapter 12 and 13 bankruptcies. 140 Cong. Rec., at 8383 (setting out new 11 U. S. C. § 330(a) (4)(B)). Since the amendment’s deletion of “or the debtors [sic] attorney” from the original proposed draft affected Chapter 12 and 13 debtors’ attorneys as much as Chapter 7 debtors’ attorneys, § 330(a)(4)(B) shows a special intent to authorize the formers’ fee awards in the face of the new, broad exclusion.
If Congress’ action does not prove the point, the House of Representatives’ inaction may. The House passed the Act after having the deletion, as well as its impact, called to its attention. See Bankruptcy Reform: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 551 (1994). The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA), which represents those lawyers most likely to be affected by § 330(a)(l)’s change, declined to object to the deletion. Ibid, (noting the deletion but stating that the NACBA did “not oppose” amendment 1645’s passage). This alert, followed by the Legislature’s nonresponse, should support a presumption of legislative awareness and intention. The Act may now contain surplusage, along with grammatical error; but that may have been the result of trying to make the substantive change with the fewest possible textual alterations or of an error by the scrivener in carrying out the change.
These competing interpretations of the legislative history make it difficult to say with assurance whether petitioner or the Government lays better historical claim to the congressional intent. The alert to the change in policy was given, to be sure, before the House passed the final version, but that particular circumstance cannot bear too much weight. The alert was not the subject of testimony from any witness at the congressional hearing. It consisted of but two sentences contained within 472 pages of written statements delivered to the legislative subcommittee for its August 17, 1994, hearing day. Those 472 pages were added to 236 pages of prepared statements and testimony transcribed from the day’s testifying witnesses. Within the NACBA’s filing, the two relevant sentences appear on the 18th page of the 27-page report. Nothing in the legislative history confirms that this particular point bore on the congressional deliberations or was given specific consideration.
These uncertainties illustrate the difficulty of relying on legislative history here and the advantage of our determination to rest our holding on the statutory text.
* * *
If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform it to its intent. “It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what we might think ... is the preferred result.” United States v. Granderson, 511 U. S. 39, 68 (1994) (concurring opinion). This allows both of our branches to adhere to our respected, and respective, constitutional roles. In the meantime, we must determine intent from the statute before us. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join this opinion in its entirety. Justice Scalia joins this opinion except for Part III.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | F | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal to review a decree enjoining the Standard Oil Company of California and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Standard Stations, Inc., from enforcing or entering into exclusive supply contracts with any independent dealer in petroleum products and automobile accessories. 78 F. Supp. 850. The use of such contracts was successfully assailed by the United States as violative of § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act.
The Standard Oil Company of California, a Delaware corporation, owns petroleum-producing resources and refining plants in California and sells petroleum products in what has been termed in these proceedings the “Western area” — Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington. It sells through its own service stations, to the operators of independent service stations, and to industrial users. It is the largest seller of gasoline in the area. In 1946 its combined sales amounted to 23% of the total taxable gallonage sold there in that year: sales by company-owned service stations constituted '6.8% of the total, sales under exclusive dealing contracts with independent service - stations, 6.7% of the total; the remainder were sales to industrial users. Retail' service-station sales by Standard’s six leading competitors absorbed 42.5% of the total taxable gallonage'; the remaining retail sales were divided between more than seventy small companies. ■ It is undisputed that Standard’s major competitors employ similar exclusive dealing arrangements. In 1948 only 1.6% of retail outlets were what is known as “split-pump” stations, that is, sold the gasoline of more than one supplier^
Exclusive supply contracts with Standard had been entered into, as of March 12, 1947, by the operators of 5,937 independent stations, or 16% of the retail gasoline outlets in the Western area, which purchased from Standard in 1947, $57,646,233 worth of gasoline' and $8,200,089.21 worth of other products. Some outlets are covered by more than one contract so that in all about 8,000 exclusive supply contracts are -here in issue. These are of several types, but a feature common to each is the dealer’s undertaking to purchase from Standard all his requirements of one or more products. Two types, covering 2,777 outlets, bind the dealer to purchase of Standard all his requirements of gasoline and other petroleum products as well as tires, tubes, and batteries. The remaining written agreements, 4,368 in number,, bind the dealer to ^purchase of Standard all his requirements of petroleum products only. It was also found that independent dealers had entered 742 oral contracts by which they agreed to sell only Standard’s gasoline. In some instances dealers who contracted to purchase from Standard all their requirements of tires, tubes, and batteries, had also orally agreed to purchase of Standard their requirements of other automobile accessories. Of the written agreements, 2,712 were for varying specified terms; the rest were effective from year to year but terminable “at the end of the first 6 months of any contract year, or at the end. of any such year, by giving to the other at least 30 days prior thereto written notice....” Before 1934 Standard’s sales of petroleum products through independent service stations were made pursuant to agency agreements, but in that year Standard adopted the first of its several requirements-purchase contract forms, and by 1938 requirements contracts had wholly superseded the agency method of distribution.
Between 1936 and 1946 Standard’s sales of gasoline through independent dealers remained at a practically constant proportion of the area’s total sales; its sales of lubricating oil declined slightly during that period from 6.2% to 5% of the total. Its proportionate sales of tires and batteries for 1946 were slightly higher than they were in 1936, though somewhat lower than for some intervening years; they have never, as to either of these products, exceeded 2% of the total sales in the Western area. 0
Since § 3 of the Clayton Act was directed to prohibiting specific practices even though not covered by the broad terms of the Sherman Act, it is appropriate to consider first whether the enjoined contracts fall within the prohibition of the narrower Act. The relevant provisions of § 3 are:
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise^ machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States on the condition, 'agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods... of a competitor or competitors of the... seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to. substantially lessen competition. or tend, to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”
Obviously the contracts here at issue would be proscribed if § 3 stopped short of the qualifying clause beginning, “where the effect of such lease, sale,, or contract for sale..,..” If effect is to be given that clause, however, it is by no means obvious, in view of Standard’s minority share of the “line of commerce” involved, of the fact that that share has not recently increased, and of the claims of these contracts to economic utility, that the effect of the contracts may be to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. It is the qualifying clause,therefore, which must be.construed.
The District Court held that the requirement of show-, ing~-an actual or potential léssening of competition or a tendency to establish monopoly was adequately met by proof that the contracts covered “a substantial number of óutlets and a substantial amount of products, whether considered comparatively or not.” 78 F. Supp. at 875. Given such quantitative substantiality, the.substantial ^lessening of competition — so the court reasoned — is an automatic resúlt, for the very existence of such contracts denies dealers opportunity to deal in the products of comr peting suppliers and excludes suppliers from access to the outlets controlled by those dealers. Having adopted this standard of proof, the court excluded-as immaterial testimony bearing on “the economic merits or demerits of the present system as contrastéd with a system which prevailed prior to its establishment and which would prevail if the court, declared the present arrangement [invalid].” The court likewise deemed it unnecessary to. make findings, on the basis of evidence that wag admitted, whether the number of Standard’s competitors had increased or decreased since the inauguration of the requirements-' contract system, whether the number of their dealers had increased or decreased, and as to other matters which would have shed light on the comparative status of Standard and its competitors before and after the adoption of that system. The court concluded:
“Grant that, on a comparative basis, and in relation to the entire trade in these products in the area, the restraint is not integral. Admit also that control of distribution results in lessening of costs and that its abandonment might increase costs..... Concede further, that the arrangement was entered into in good faith, with the honest belief that control of distribution and consequent concentration of representation were economically beneficial to the in-, dustry and to the public, that they have continued for over fifteen years openly, notoriously and unmolested by the Government, and have been practiced by other major oil companies competing with Standard, that the number of Standard outlets so controlled, may have decreased, and the quantity of products supplied to them may have declined, on a comparative basis. Nevertheless, as I read the latest cases of the Supreme Court, I am compelled to find the practices here involved to be violative of both statutes. For they affect injuriously a sizeable ■part of interstate commerce, or, —to use the current phrase, — ‘an appreciable segment’ of interstate commerce.” '
The issue before us, therefore, is whether the requirement of showing that the effect of the agreements “may be tp substantially lessen competition” may be met simply by proof that a substantial portion of commerce is affected or whether it must also be demonstrated that competitive activity has actually diminished or probably will diminish.
Since the Clayton Act became effective, this Court has passed on the applicability of § 3 in eight cases, in five of which it upheld determinations that the challenged agreement' was violative of that Section. Three of these— United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 258 U. S. 451; International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U. S. 131; International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392 — involved contracts tying to the use of a patented article all purchases of an unpatented product used in connection with the patented article. The other two cases — Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Hoiuston Co., 258 U. S. 346; Fashion Originators’ Guild v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 312 U. S. 457 — involved requirements contracts not unlike those here in issue.
The Standard Fashion case, the first of the five holding that the Act had been violated, settled one question of interpretation of § 3. The Court said:
“Section 3 condemns sales or agreements where the effect of such sale or contract of sale ‘may’ be to substantially ~ lessen competition or tend to create monopoly.... But we do not think that the purpose in using the word ‘may’ was to prohibit the mere possibility of the consequences described. It was intended to prevent such agreements as would under the circumstances disclosed probably lessen competition, or create an actual tendency to monopoly.” 258 U. S. at 356-57: See also Federal Trade Comm’n v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 46, n. 14.
The Court wént on to add that the fact that the Section “was not intended to reach every remote lessening of competition is shown in the requirement that such.lessening must be substantial,” but because it deemed the finding of two lower courts that the contracts in question did substantially lessen competition and tend to create monopoly amply supported by evidence that the defendant controlled two-fifths of the nation’s pattern agencies, it did not pause to indicate where the line between a “remote” and a “substantial” lessening should be. drawn.
All but one of the later cases also regarded domination of the market as sufficient in itself to support the inference that competition had been or probably would be lessened. In the United Shoe Machinery case, referring, inter alia, to the clause incorporated in all United’s leases of patented machinery requiring the use by the lessee of materials supplied by United, the Court observed:
“That such restrictive and tying agreements must necessarily lessen competition and tend to monopoly is, we believe,... apparent. When it is considered that the United Company occupies a dominating position in supplying shoe machinery of the classes involved, these covenants signed by the lessee and binding upon him effectually prevent him from acquiring the machinery of a competitor of the lessor except at the risk of forfeiting the right to. use the machines furnished by the United Company which may be absolutely essential to the prosecution and success of his business.” 258 U. S. at 457-58.
In the International Business Machines case, the defendants were the sole manufacturers of a patented tabulating machine requiring the use of unpatented cards. The lessees of the machines were bound by tying clauses to use in them only the cards supplied by the defendants-, who, between them, divided the whole of the $3,000,000 annual gross of this business also. The Court concluded:
“These facts, and others, which we do not stop to enumerate, can leave no doubt that the effect of the condition in appellant’s leases ‘may be to substantially lessen competition,’ and that it tends to create monopoly, and has in fact been an important and effective step in the creation of monopoly.” 298 U. S. at 136.
The Fashion Originators’ Guild case involved an association of dress manufacturers which sold more than 60% of all but the cheapest women’s garments. In rejecting the relevance of evidence that the Guild’s use of requirements contracts was a “reasonable and necessary” measure of protection against “the devastating evils growing from the pirating of original designs,” the Court again emphasized the presence and the consequences of economic power:
“The purpose and object of this combination, its potential power, its tendency to monopoly, the coercion it could and did practice upon a rival method of competition, all brought if within the policy of the prohibition declared, by.the Sherman and Clayton Acts.” 312 U. S. at 467-68. ■
It is thus apparent that none of these cases controls tne disposition of the present appeal, for Standard’s share of the retail market for gasoline, even including sales through company-owned stations, is hardly large enough to conclude as a mat.ter of law that it occupies a dominant position, nor did the trial court so find. The cases do indicate, however,, that some sort of showing as to the actual or probable economic consequences of the agreements, if only,the inferences to be drawn from the fact of dominant power, is important, and to that extent they tend to support appellant’s position.
Two of the three cases decided by this Court which have held § 3 inapplicable also lend support to the view that such a showing is necessary. These are, Federal Trade Comm’n v. Sinclair Co., 261 U. S. 463, and Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 299 U. S. 3. The third—Federal Trade Comm’n v. Curtis Pub. Co., 260 U. S. 568— went off on the ground that the contract involved was one of agency and so is of no present relevance. The Sinclair case involved the lease of gasoline pumps and storage tanks on condition that the dealer would use them only for Sinclair’s gasoline, but Sinclair did not own patents on the' pumps or tanks and evidently did.not otherwise control their supply. Although the Trade Commission had found that few dealers needed more than one pump, the Court concluded that “the record does not show that the probable effect of the practice will be unduly to lessen competition.” 261U. S. at 475. The basis of this conclusion was thus summarized:
“Many competitors seek to sell excellent brands of gasoline and no one of them is essential to the retail business. The lessee is free to buy wherever he chooses; he may freely accept and use as many pumps-as he wishes and may discontinue any or all of them. He may carry on business as his judgment dictates and his means permit, save only that he cannot use the lessor’s equipment for dispensing another’s brand. By investing a comparatively small sum, he-can buy an outfit and use it without hindrance. 'Hercan have respondent’s gasoline, with the pump or without the pump, and many competitors seek to supply his needs.” Id. at 474. ■
The present case differs of course in- the fact that a dealer who has entered into a requirements contract with Standard cannot consistently with that contract sell the petroleum products of a competitor of Standard’s no matter how many pumps he has, but the case is significant for the importance it attaches, in the absence of a showing that the supplier dominated the market, to the practical effect of the contracts. The same is true of the Pick case, in which this Court affirmed in a brief per curiam opinion the finding of the District Court, concurred in by the Court of Appeals, that the effect of contracts by which dealers agreed not to sell other automobile parts than those manufactured by General Motors “had not been in any way substantially to lessen competition or to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.” 299 U. S. at' 4.
But then came International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392. That decision, at least as to contracts tying the sale of a nonpatentéd to a patented product, rejected the necessity of demonstrating economic consequences once it has been established that “the volume of business affected” is not “insignificant or insubstantial”, and that the effect of the contracts is to “foreclose competitors from [a] substantial market.” Id. at 396. Upon that basis we affirmed a summary judgment granting an injunction against the leasing of machines for the utilization of salt products on the condition that the lessee use in them only salt supplied by defendant. It was established by pleadings or admissions that defendant was the country’s largest producer of salt for industrial purposes, that it owned patents on the leased machines, that about 900 leases were outstanding,-and that in 1944 defendant sold about $500,000 worth of salt for use in these machines. It was not established that equivalent machines were.unobtainable, it was not indicated what proportion of the business of supplying such machines was controlled by defendant, and it was deemed irrelevant that there was no evidence as to the actual effect of the tying clauses upon competition. It is clear, therefore, that unless a distinction is to be drawn for purposes of the applicability of § 3 between requirements contracts and contracts tying the sale of a nonpatented to a patented product, the showing that Standard’s requirements contracts affected a gross business of $58,000,000 comprising 6.7% of the total in the area goes far toward supporting the inference that competition has been or probably will be substantially lessened.
In favor of confining the standard laid down by the International Salt case to tying agreements, important economic differences may be noted. Tying agreements serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition. The justification most often advanced in their defense — the protection of the good will of the manufacturer of the tying device — fails in the usual situation because specification of the type and quality of the product to be used in connection with the tying device is protection enough. If the manufacturer’s brand of the tied product, is in fact superior to that of competitors, the buyer will presumably choose it anyway. The only situation, indeed, in which the protection of good will may necessitate the use of tying clauses is where specifications for a substitute would be so detailed that they could not practicably be supplied. In the usual case only the prospect of reducing competition would persuade a seller to adopt such a contract and only his control of the supply of the tying device, whether conferred by patent monopoly or otherwise obtained, could induce a buyer to enter one. See Miller, Unfair Competition 199 et seq. (1941) ; Note, 49 Col. L. Rev. 241, 246 (1949). The existence of market control of the tying device, therefore, affords a strong foundation for the presumption that it has been or probably will be used to limit competition in the tied product also.
_ Requirements contracts, on the other hand, may well be of economic advantage to buyers as well as to sellers, and thus indirectly of advantage to the consuming public. In the case of the buyer, they may assure supply, afford protection against rises in price, enable long-term planning on the basis of known costs, and obviate the expense and risk of storage in the quantity necessary for a commodity having a fluctuating demand. From the seller’s point of view, requirements contracts may make possible the substantial reduction of selling expenses, give protection against price fluctuations, and — of particular advantage to a newcomer to the field to whom it is important to know what capital expenditures are justified— offer the possibility of a predictable market. See'Stockhausen, The Commercial and Anti-Trust Aspects of Term Requirements Contracts, 23 N. Y. U. L. Q. Rev. 412, 413-14 (1948). They may be useful, moreover, to a seller trying to establish a foothold against the counterattacks of entrenched competitors. See id. at 424 et seq.; Excelsior Motor Mfg. & Supply Co. v. Sound Equipment, Inc., 73 F. 2d 725, 728 (C. A. 7th Cir.); General Talking Pictures Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 18 F. Supp. 650, 666 (D. Del.). Since these advantages of requirements contracts may often be sufficient to account for their use, the coverage by such contracts of a substantial amount of business affords a weaker basis for the inference that competition may be lessened than would similar coverage by tying clauses, especially where use of the latter is combined with market control of the tying device. A patent, moreover, although in fact there may be many competing substitutes for the patented article, is at least prima facie evidence of such control. And so we could not dispose of this case merely by citing International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392.
Thus, even though the qualifying clause of § 3 is. appended without distinction of terms equally to the prohibition of tying clauses and of requirements contracts, pertinent considerations support, certainly as a matter of economic reasoning, varying standards as to each for the.proof necessary to fulfill the conditions of that clause. If this distinction were accepted, various tests of the economic usefulness or restrictive effect of requirements contracts would become relevant. Among them would be evidence that competition has flourished despite use of the contracts, and under this test much of the evidence tendered by appellant in this case would be important.'See, as examples of the consideration of such evidence, B. S. Pearsall Butter Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 292 Fed. 720 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 80 F. 2d 641, 644 (C. A. 7th Cir.), aff’d, 299 U. S. 3. Likewise bearing on whether or not the contracts were being used to suppress competition, would be the conformity of the length of their term to the reasonable requirements of the field of commerce in which they were used. See Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 144 F. 2d 211, 220 (C. A. 7th Cir.), aff’d, 324 U. S. 726; United States v. Pullman Co., 50 F. Supp. 123, 127-29 (E. D. Pa.). Still another test would be the status of the defendant as a struggling newcomer or an established competitor. Perhaps most important, however, would be the defendant’s degree of market control, for the greater the dominance of his position, the stronger the inference that an important factor in attaining and maintaining that position has been the use of requirements contracts to stifle competition rather than to serve legitimate economic needs. See Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co., supra, 258 U. S. 346; Fashion Originators’ Guild v. Federal Trade Comm’n, supra, 312 U. S. 457.
Yet serious difficulties would attend the attempt to apply these tests. We may assume, as did the court below, that no improvement of Standard’s competitive position has coincided with the period during which the requirements-contract system of distribution has been in effect. We may assume further that the duration of the contracts is not excessive and that Standard does not by itself dominate the market. But Standard was a major competitor when the present system was adopted, and it is possible that its position would have deteriorated but for the adoption of that system. When it is remembered that all the other major suppliers have also been using requirements contracts, and when it is noted that the relative share of the business which fell to each has remained about the same during the period of their use, it would not be farfetched to infer that their effect has been to enable the established suppliers individually to maintain their own standing and at the same time collectively, even though not collusively, to prevent a late arrival from wresting away more than an insignificant portion of the market. If, indeed, this were a result of the system, it would seem unimportant that a short-run by-product of stability may have been greater efficiency and lower costs, for it is the theory of the antitrust laws that the long-run advantage of the community depends upon the removal of restraints upon competition. See Fashion Originators’ Guild v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 312 U. S. 457, 467-68; United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 427-29 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
Moreover, to demand that bare inference be supported by evidence as to what would have happened but for the adoption of the practice that was m fact adopted or to require firm prediction of an increase of competition as a probable result of ordering the abandonment of the practice, would be a standard of proof, if not virtually impossible to meet, at least most ill-suited for ascertainment by courts. Before the system of requirements contracts was instituted, Standard sold gasoline through independent service-station operators as its agents, and it might revert 'to this system if the judgment below were sustained. Or it might, as opportunity presented itself, add service stations now operated independently to the number managed by its subsidiary, Standard Stations, Inc. From the point of view of maintaining or extending competitive advantage, either of these alternatives would be just as effective as the use of requirements contracts, although of course insofar as they resulted in a tendency to monopoly they might encounter the anti-monopoly provisions of the Sherman Act. See United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416 (C. A. 2d Cir.). As appellant points out, dealers might order petroleum products in quantities sufficient to meet their estimated needs for the period during which requirements contracts are now effective, and even that would foreclose competition to some degree. So long as. these diverse ways of restricting competition remain open, therefore, there can be no conclusive proof that the use of requirements contracts has actually reduced competition below the level which it would otherwise, have reached or maintained.
We are dealing here with a particular form of agreement specified by- § 3 and not with different arrangements, by way of integration or otherwise, that may tend to lessen competition. To interpret that section as requiring proof that competition has actually diminished would make its very explicitness a means of conferring immunity upon the practices which it singles out. Congress has authoritatively determined that, those practices are detrimental where their effect may be to lessen competition. It has not left at large for determination in each case the ultimate demands, of the “public interest,” as the English lawmakers, considering and finding inapplicable to their own situation our experience with the specific prohibition of trade practices legislatively determined to be undesirable, have recently chosen to do. Though it may be that such an alternative to the present system as buying out independent dealers and making them dependent employees of Standard Stations, Inc., would be a greater detriment to the public interest than perpetuation of the system, this is an issue, like the choice between greater efficiency and freer competition, that has not been submitted to our decision. We are faced, not with a broadly phrased expression of general policy, but merely a broadly phrased qualification of an otherwise narrowly directed statutory provision.
In this connection it is significant that the qualifying language was not added until after the House and Senate bills reached Conference. The conferees responsible for adding that languagé were at pains, in answering protestations that the qualifying clause seriously weakened the section, to disclaim any intention seriously to augment the burden of proof to be sustained in establishing violation of it. It seems hardly likely that, having with one hand set up an express prohibition against a practice thought to be beyond the reach of the Sherman Act, Congress meant, with the other hand, to reestablish the necessity of meeting the same tests of detriment to the public interest as that Act had been interpreted as requiring. Yet the economic investigation which appellant would have us require is of the same broad scope as was adumbrated with reference to unreasonable restraints of trade in Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U. S. 231. To insist upon such an investigation would be to. stultify the force of Congress’ declaration that requirements contracts are to be prohibited wherever their effect “may be” to substantially lessen competition. If in fact it is economically desirable for service stations to confine themselves to the sale of the petroleum products of a single supplier, they will continue to do so though not bound by contract, and if in fact it is important to retail dealers to assure the supply of their requirements by obtaining the commitment of a single supplier to fulfill them, competition for their patronage'should enable them to insist upon such an arrangement without binding them to refrain from looking, elsewhere.
We conclude, therefore, that the qualifying clause of § 3 is satisfied by proof that competition has been foreclosed in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected. It cannot be gainsaid that obsérvance by a dealer of his requirements contract with Standard does effectively foreclose whatever opportunity there might be for competing suppliers to attract his patronage, and it is clear that the affected proportion of retail sales of petroleum products is substantial. In view of the widespread adoption of such contracts by Standard’s competitors and the availability of alternative ways of obtaining an assured market, evidence that competitive activity has not actually declined is inconclusive. Stands ard’s use of the contracts creates just such a potential clog on competition as it was the purpose of § 3 to remove wherever, were it to become actual, it would impede a substantial amount of competitive activity.
Since the decree below is sustained by our interpretation of § 3 of the Clayton Act, we need not go on to consider whether it might also be sustained.by § l.of the Sherman Act.
One last point remains to be disposed of. - Appellant contends that its requirements contracts with California dealers, because nearly all the products sold to them are produced in California, do not substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore should have been exempted from the decree. It finds support for this contention in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, 247. But the effect of appellant’s requirements contracts with California retail dealers is to prevent them from dealing with suppliers from outside the State as well, as within the State and is thus, to lessen competition in both interstate and intrastate commerce. Appellant has ■not suggested that if these dealers were not bound by their contracts with it that they would continue to purchase only products originating within the State. The Addystón casé, on the other hand, déalt not with the diminution of competition between suppliers brought about by the action of one at the expense of the rest, whether within or without the State, but a combination among them to restrain competition. Modification of the decree was required only to make clear that it did not reach a combination among the defendants doing business in a single State which was confined to transactions taking place within that same State.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas.
The economic theories which the Court has read into the Anti-Trust Laws have favored rather than discouraged monopoly. As a result of the big; business philosophy underlying United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U. S. 32; United States v. United States Steel Cory., 251 U. S. 417; United States v. International Harvester Co., 274 U. S. 693, big business has become bigger and bigger. Monopoly has flourished. Cartels have increased their hold on the nation. The trusts wax strong. There is less and less place for the independent.
The full force of the Anti-Trust Laws has not been felt on our economy. It has been deflected. Niggardly interpretations have robbed those laws of much of their efficacy. There are exceptions. Price fixing is illegal per se. The use of patents to obtain monopolies on unpatented articles is condemned. Monopoly that has been built as a result of unlawful tactics, e. g., through practices that are restraints of trade, is broken up. But when it comes to monopolies built in gentlemanly ways— by mergers, purchases of assets or control and the like— the teeth have largely been drawn from the Act.
We announced that the existence of monopoly power, coupled with the purpose or intent to monopolize, was unlawful. But to date that principle has not shoWn bright promise in application. Under the guise of increased efficiency big business has received approval for easy growth. United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495, represents the current attitude of the Court on this problem. In that case United States Steel — the giant of the industry — was allowed to fasten its tentacles tighter on the economy by acquiring the assets of a steel company in the Far West where competition was beginning to develop.
The increased concentration of 'industrial power in the hands of a few has changed habits of thought. A new age has been introduced. It is more and more an age of “monopoly competition.” Monopoly competition is a regime of friendly alliances, of quick and easy accommodation of prices even without the benefit of trade associations, of what Brandéis said was euphemistically called “cooperation.” While this is not true in all fields, it has become alarmingly apparent in many.
The lessons Brandéis taught on the curse of bigness have largely been forgotten in high places. Size is allowed to become a menace to existing and putative competitors. Price control is allowed to escape the influences of the competitive market and to gravitate into the hands of the few. But beyond all that there is the effect on the community when independents are swallowed up by the trusts and entrepreneurs become employees of absentee owners; Then there is a serious loss in citizenship. Local leadership is diluted. He who was a leader in the village becomes dependent on outsiders for his action and policy. Clerks responsible to a superior in a distant place take the place of resident proprietors beholden to no one. These are the prices which the nation pays for the almost ceaseless growth in bigness on the part of industry.
These problems may not appear on the surface' to have relationship to the case before us. But they go to the very heart of the problem.
It is common knowledge that a host of filling stations in the country are locally owned and operated. Others are owned and operated by the big oil companies. This case involves directly only the former. It pertains to requirements contracts that the oil companies make with these independents.. It is plain that a filling-station owner who is tied to an oil company for his supply of products is not an available customer for the products of other suppliers. The same is true of a filling-station owner who.purchases his inventory a year in advance.. His demand is. withdrawn from the market for the duration of the contract in the one case and for a year in the other. The result in each case is to lessen competition if the standard is day-to-day purchases. Whether it is a substantial lessening of competition within the meaning of the Anti-Trust Laws is a question of degree and may vary from industry to industry.
The Court answers the question for the oil industry by a formula which under our decisions promises to wipe out large segments of independent filling-station operators. The method of doing business under requirements contracts at least keeps the independents alive. They survive as small business units.''The situation is not ideal from either their point of view or that of the nation. But the alternative -which the Court offers is far worse from the point of view of both.
The elimination of these' requirements contracts sets the stage for Standard and the other oil companies to build service-station empires of their own. The opinion of the Court does more than set the stage for that development.. It is an advisory opinion as well, stating to the oil companies' how they can with impunity build their empires.. The formula suggested by the Court is either the use of the “agency” device, which in practical effect means control of filling stations by the oil companies (cf. Federal Trade Commission v. Curtis Co., 260. U. S. 568), or the outright acquisition of them by subsidiary corporations or otherwise. See United States v. Columbia Steel Co., supra. Under the approved judicial doctrine either of those devices means increasing the monopoly of the oil companies over the retail field.
When the choice is thus given, I dissent from the outlawry of the requirements contract on the present facts. The effect which it has on
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to clarify the application of the Sherman Act to municipal governments and to the citizens who seek action from them.
I
Petitioner Columbia Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (COA), a South Carolina corporation, entered the billboard business in the city of Columbia, South Carolina (also a petitioner here), in the 1940’s. By 1981 it controlled more than 95% of what has been conceded to be the relevant market. COA was a local business owned by a family with deep roots in the community, and enjoyed close relations with the city’s political leaders. The mayor and other members of the city council were personal friends of COA’s majority owner, and the company and its officers occasionally contributed funds and free billboard space to their campaigns. According to respondent Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., these beneficences were part of a “longstanding” “secret anticompetitive agreement” whereby “the City and COA would each use their [sic] respective power and resources to protect... COA’s monopoly position,” in return for which “City Council members received advantages made possible by COA’s monopoly.” Brief for Respondent 12, 16.
In 1981, Omni, a Georgia corporation, began erecting billboards in and around the city. COA responded to this competition in several ways. First, it redoubled its own billboard construction efforts and modernized its existing stock. Second — according to Omni — it took a number of anticompet-itive private actions, such as offering artificially low rates, spreading untrue and malicious rumors about Omni, and attempting to induce Omni’s customers to break their contracts. Finally (and this is what gives rise to the issue we address today), COA executives met with city officials to seek the enactment of zoning ordinances that would restrict billboard construction. COA was not alone in urging this course; concerned about the city’s recent explosion of billboards, a number of citizens, including writers of articles and editorials in local newspapers, advocated restrictions.
In the spring of 1982, the city council passed an ordinance requiring the council’s approval for every billboard constructed in downtown Columbia. This was later amended to impose a 180-day moratorium on the construction of billboards throughout the city, except as specifically authorized by the council. A state court invalidated this ordinance on the ground that its conferral of unconstrained discretion upon the city council violated both the South Carolina and Federal Constitutions. The city then requested the State’s regional planning authority to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the local billboard situation as a basis for developing a final, constitutionally valid, ordinance. In September 1982, after a series of public hearings and numerous meetings involving city officials, Omni, and COA (in all of which, according to Omni, positions contrary to COA’s were not genuinely considered), the city council passed a new ordinance restricting the size, location, and spacing of billboards. These restrictions, particularly those on spacing, obviously benefited COA, which already had its billboards in place; they severely hindered Omni’s ability to compete.
In November 1982, Omni filed suit against COA and the city in Federal District Court, charging that they had violated §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2, as well as South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, S. C. Code Ann. §39-5-140 (1976). Omni contended, in particular, that the city’s billboard ordinances were the result of an anticompetitive conspiracy between city officials and COA that stripped both parties of any immunity they might otherwise enjoy from the federal antitrust laws. In January 1986, after more than two weeks of trial, a jury returned general verdicts against the city and COA on both the federal and state claims. It awarded damages, before trebling, of $600,000 on the §1 Sherman Act claim, and $400,000 on the § 2 claim. The jury also answered two special interrogatories, finding specifically that the city and COA had conspired both to restrain trade and to monopolize the market. Petitioners moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, contending among other things that their activities were outside the scope of the federal antitrust laws. In November 1988, the District Court granted the motion.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court and reinstated the jury verdict on all counts. 891 F. 2d 1127 (1989). We granted certiorari, 496 U. S. 935 (1990).
] — I
In the landmark case of Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), we rejected the contention that a program restricting the marketing of privately produced raisins, adopted pursuant to California’s Agricultural Prorate Act, violated the Sherman Act. Relying on principles of federalism and state sovereignty, we held that the Sherman Act did not apply to anticompetitive restraints imposed by the States “as an act of government.” Id., at 352.
Since Parker emphasized the role of sovereign States in a federal system, it was initially unclear whether the governmental actions of political subdivisions enjoyed similar protection. In recent years, we have held that Parker immunity does not apply directly to local governments, see Hallie v. Eau Claire, 471 U. S. 34, 38 (1985); Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, 455 U. S. 40, 50-51 (1982); Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U. S. 389, 412-413 (1978) (plurality opinion). We have recognized, however, that a municipality’s restriction of competition may sometimes be an authorized implementation of state policy, and have accorded Parker immunity where that is the case.
The South Carolina statutes under which the city acted in the present case authorize municipalities to regulate the use of land and the construction of buildings and other structures within their boundaries. It is undisputed that, as a matter of state law, these statutes authorize the city to regulate the size, location, and spacing of billboards. It could be argued, however, that a municipality acts beyond its delegated authority, for Parker purposes, whenever the nature of its regulation is substantively or even procedurally defective. On such an analysis it could be contended, for example, that the city’s regulation in the present case was not “authorized” by S. C. Code Ann. § 5-23-10 (1976), see n. 3, supra, if it was not, as that statute requires, adopted “for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community.” As scholarly commentary has noted, such an expansive interpretation of the Par/cer-defense authorization requirement would have unacceptable consequences.
“To be sure, state law ‘authorizes’ only agency decisions that are substantively and procedurally correct. Errors of fact, law, or judgment by the agency are not ‘authorized.’ Erroneous acts or decisions are subject to reversal by superior tribunals because unauthorized. If the antitrust court demands unqualified ‘authority’ in this sense, it inevitably becomes the standard reviewer not only of federal agency activity but also of state and local activity whenever it is alleged that the governmental body, though possessing the power to engage in the challenged conduct, has actually exercised its power in a manner not authorized by state law. We should not lightly assume that Lafayette’s authorization requirement dictates transformation of state administrative review into a federal antitrust job. Yet that would be the consequence of making antitrust liability depend on an undiscriminating and mechanical demand for ‘authority’ in the full administrative law sense.” P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 212.3b, p. 145 (Supp. 1989).
We agree with that assessment, and believe that in order to prevent Parker from undermining the very interests of federalism it is designed to protect, it is necessary to adopt a concept of authority broader than what is applied to determine the legality of the municipality’s action under state law. We have adopted an approach that is similar in principle, though not necessarily in precise application, elsewhere. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349 (1978). It suffices for the present to conclude that here no more is needed to establish, for Parker purposes, the city’s authority to regulate than its unquestioned zoning power over the size, location, and spacing of billboards.
Besides authority to regulate, however, the Parker defense also requires authority to suppress competition — more specifically, “clear articulation of a state policy to authorize anticompetitive conduct” by the municipality in connection with its regulation. Hallie, 471 U. S., at 40 (internal quotation omitted). We have rejected the contention that this requirement can be met only if the delegating statute explicitly permits the displacement of competition, see id., at 41-42. It is enough, we have held, if suppression of competition is the “foreseeable result” of what the statute authorizes, id., at 42. That condition is amply met here. The very purpose of zoning regulation is to displace unfettered business freedom in a manner that regularly has the effect of preventing normal acts of competition, particularly on the part of new entrants. A municipal ordinance restricting the size, location, and spacing of billboards (surely a common form of zoning) necessarily protects existing billboards against some competition from newcomers.
The Court of Appeals was therefore correct in its conclusion that the city’s restriction of billboard construction was prima facie entitled to Parker immunity. The Court of Appeals upheld the jury verdict, however, by invoking a “conspiracy” exception to Parker that has been recognized by several Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., Whitworth v. Perkins, 559 F. 2d 378 (CA5 1977), vacated, 435 U. S. 992, aff’d on rehearing, 576 F. 2d 696 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 911 (1979). That exception is thought to be supported by two of our statements in Parker: “[W]e have no question of the state or its municipality becoming a participant in a private agreement or combination by others for restraint of trade, cf. Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 450.” Parker, 317 U. S., at 351-352 (emphasis added). “The state in adopting and enforcing the prorate program made no contract or agreement and entered into no conspiracy in restraint of trade or to establish monopoly but, as sovereign, imposed the restraint as an act of government which the Sherman Act did not undertake to prohibit.” Id., at 352 (emphasis added). Parker does not apply, according to the Fourth Circuit, “where politicians or political entities are involved as conspirators” with private actors in the restraint of trade. 891 F. 2d, at 1134.
There is no such conspiracy exception. The rationale of Parker was that, in light of our national commitment to federalism, the general language of the Sherman Act should not be interpreted to prohibit anticompetitive actions by the States in their governmental capacities as sovereign regulators. The sentences from the opinion quoted above simply clarify that this immunity does not necessarily obtain where the State acts not in a regulatory capacity but as a commercial participant in a given market. That is evident from the citation of Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 450 (1941), which held unlawful under the Elkins Act certain rebates and concessions made by Kansas City, Kansas, in its capacity as the owner and operator of a wholesale produce market that was integrated with railroad facilities. These sentences should not be read to suggest the general proposition that even governmental regulatory action may be deemed private — and therefore subject to antitrust liability — when it is taken pursuant to a conspiracy with private parties. The impracticality of such a principle is evident if, for purposes of the exception, “conspiracy” means nothing more than an agreement to impose the regulation in question. Since it is both inevitable and desirable that public officials often agree to do what one or another group of private citizens urges upon them, such an exception would virtually swallow up the Parker rule: All anticompetitive regulation would be vulnerable to a “conspiracy” charge. See Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶203.3b, at 34, and n. 1; Elhauge, The Scope of Antitrust Process, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 667, 704-705 (1991).
Omni suggests, however, that “conspiracy” might be limited to instances of governmental “corruption,” defined variously as “abandonment of public responsibilities to private interests,” Brief for Respondent 42, “corrupt or bad faith decisions,” id., at 44, and “selfish or corrupt motives,” ibid. Ultimately, Omni asks us not to define “corruption” at all, but simply to leave that task to the jury: “[a]t bottom, however, it was within the jury’s province to determine what constituted corruption of the governmental process in their community.” Id., at 43. Omni’s amicus eschews this emphasis on “corruption,” instead urging us to define the conspiracy exception as encompassing any governmental act “not in the public interest.” Brief for Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 5.
A conspiracy exception narrowed along such vague lines is similarly impractical. Few governmental actions are immune from the charge that they are “not in the public interest” or in some sense “corrupt.” The California marketing scheme at issue in Parker itself, for example, can readily be viewed as the result of a “conspiracy” to put the “private” interest of the State’s raisin growers above the “public” interest of the State’s consumers. The fact is that virtually all regulation benefits some segments of the society and harms others; and that it is not universally considered contrary to the public good if the net economic loss to the losers exceeds the net economic gain to the winners. Parker was not written in ignorance of the reality that determination of “the public interest” in the manifold areas of government regulation entails not merely economic and mathematical analysis but value judgment, and it was not meant to shift that judgment from elected officials to judges and juries. If the city of Columbia’s decision to regulate what one local newspaper called “billboard jungles,” Columbia Record, May 21, 1982, p. 14-A, col. 1; App. in No. 88-1388 (CA4), p. 3743, is made subject to ex post facto judicial assessment of “the public interest,” with personal liability of city officials a possible consequence, we will have gone far to “compromise the States’ ability to regulate their domestic commerce,” Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U. S. 48, 56 (1985). The situation would not be better, but arguably even worse, if the courts were to apply a subjective test: not whether the action was in the public interest, but whether the officials involved thought it to be so. This would require the sort of deconstruction of the governmental process and probing of the official “intent” that we have consistently sought to avoid. “[W]here the action complained of... was that of the State itself, the action is exempt from antitrust liability regardless of the State’s motives in taking the action.” Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U. S. 558, 579-580 (1984). See also Llewellyn v. Crothers, 765 F. 2d 769, 774 (CA9 1985) (Kennedy, J.).
The foregoing approach to establishing a “conspiracy” exception at least seeks (however impractically) to draw the line of impermissible action in a manner relevant to the purposes of the Sherman Act and of Parker: prohibiting the restriction of competition for private gain but permitting the restriction of competition in the public interest. Another approach is possible, which has the virtue of practicality but the vice of being unrelated to those purposes. That is the approach which would consider Parker inapplicable only if, in connection with the governmental action in question, bribery or some other violation of state or federal law has been established. Such unlawful activity has no necessary relationship to whether the governmental action is in the public interest. A mayor is guilty of accepting a bribe even if he would and should have taken, in the public interest, the same action for which the bribe was paid. (That is frequently the defense asserted to a criminal bribery charge — and though it is never valid in law, see, e. g., United States v. Jannotti, 673 F. 2d 578, 601 (CA3) (en banc), cert. denied, 457 U. S. 1106 (1982), it is often plausible in fact.) When, moreover, the regulatory body is not a single individual but a state legislature or city council, there is even less reason to believe that violation of the law (by bribing a minority of the decisionmakers) establishes that the regulation has no valid public purpose. Cf. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 130 (1810). To use unlawful political influence as the test of legality of state regulation undoubtedly vindicates (in a rather blunt way) principles of good government. But the statute we are construing is not directed to that end. Congress has passed other laws aimed at combating corruption in state and local governments. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act). “Insofar as [the Sherman Act] sets up a code of ethics at all, it is a code that condemns trade restraints, not political activity.” Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127, 140 (1961).
For these reasons, we reaffirm our rejection of any interpretation of the Sherman Act that would allow plaintiffs to look behind the actions of state sovereigns to base their claims on “perceived conspiracies to restrain trade,” Hoover, 466 U. S., at 580. We reiterate that, with the possible market participant exception, any action that qualifies as state action is “ipso facto... exempt from the operation of the antitrust laws,” id., at 568. This does not mean, of course, that the States may exempt private action from the scope of the Sherman Act; we in no way qualify the well-established principle that “a state does not give immunity to those who violate the Sherman Act by authorizing them to violate it, or by declaring that their action is lawful.” Parker, 317 U. S., at 351 (citing Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 332, 344-347 (1904)). See also Schwegmann Brothers v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384 (1951).
1 — H I — I I — I
While Parker recognized the States’ freedom to engage in anticompetitive regulation, it did not purport to immunize from antitrust liability the private parties who urge them to engage in anticompetitive regulation. However, it is obviously peculiar in a democracy, and perhaps in derogation of the constitutional right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” U. S. Const., Arndt. 1, to establish a category of lawful state action that citizens are not permitted to urge. Thus, beginning with Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., supra, we have developed a corollary to Parker: The federal antitrust laws also do not regulate the conduct of private individuals in seeking anticompetitive action from the government. This doctrine, like Parker, rests ultimately upon a recognition that the antitrust laws, “tailored as they are for the business world, are not at all appropriate for application in the political arena.” Noerr, supra, at 141. That a private party’s political motives are selfish is irrelevant: “Noerr shields from the Sherman Act a concerted effort to influence public officials regardless of intent or purpose.” Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U. S. 657, 670 (1965).
Noerr recognized, however, what has come to be known as the “sham” exception to its rule: “There may be situations in which a publicity campaign, ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action, is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor and the application of the Sherman Act would be justified.” 365 U. S., at 144. The Court of Appeals concluded that the jury in this case could have found that COA’s activities on behalf of the restrictive billboard ordinances fell within this exception. In our view that was error.
The “sham” exception to Noerr encompasses situations in which persons use the governmental process — as opposed to the outcome of that process — as an anticompetitive weapon. A classic example is the filing of frivolous objections to the license application of a competitor, with no expectation of achieving denial of the license but simply in order to impose expense and delay. See California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508 (1972). A “sham” situation involves a defendant whose activities are “not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action” at all, Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U. S. 496, 500, n. 4 (1988), not one “who ‘genuinely seeks to achieve his governmental result, but does so through improper means,’” id., at 508, n. 10 (quoting Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. v. Joor Mfg., Inc., 827 F. 2d 458, 465, n. 5 (CA9 1987)).
Neither of the Court of Appeals’ theories for application of the “sham” exception to the facts of the present case is sound. The court reasoned, first, that the jury could have concluded that COA’s interaction with city officials “ ‘was actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relations [sic] of a competitor.’” 891 F. 2d, at 1139 (quoting Noerr, supra, at 144). This analysis relies upon language from Noerr, but ignores the import of the critical word “directly.” Although COA indisputably set out to disrupt Omni’s business relationships, it sought to do so not through the very process of lobbying, or of causing the city council to consider zoning measures, but rather through the ultimate product of that lobbying and consideration, viz., the zoning ordinances. The Court of Appeals’ second theory was that the jury could have found “that COA’s purposes were to delay Omni’s entry into the market and even to deny it a meaningful access to the appropriate city administrative and legislative fora.” 891 F. 2d, at 1139. But the purpose of delaying a competitor’s entry into the market does not render lobbying activity a “sham,” unless (as no evidence suggested was true here) the delay is sought to be achieved only by the lobbying process itself, and not by the governmental action that the lobbying seeks. “If Noerr teaches anything it is that an intent to restrain trade as a result of the government action sought... does not foreclose protection.” Sullivan, Developments in the Noerr Doctrine, 56 Antitrust L. J. 361, 362 (1987). As for “denying]... meaningful access to the appropriate city administrative and legislative fora,” that may render the manner of lobbying improper or even unlawful, but does not necessarily render it a “sham.” We did hold in California Motor Transport, supra, that a conspiracy among private parties to monopolize trade by excluding a competitor from participation in the regulatory process did not enjoy Noerr protection. But California Motor Transport involved a context in which the conspirators’ participation in the governmental process was itself claimed to be a “sham,” employed as a means of imposing cost and delay. (“It is alleged that petitioners ‘instituted the proceedings and actions... with or without probable cause, and regardless of the merits of the cases. ’ ” 404 U. S., at 512.) The holding of the case is limited to that situation. To extend it to a context in which the regulatory process is being invoked genuinely, and not in a “sham” fashion, would produce precisely that conversion of antitrust law into regulation of the political process that we have sought to avoid. Any lobbyist or applicant, in addition to getting himself heard, seeks by procedural and other means to get his opponent ignored. Policing the legitimate boundaries of such defensive strategies, when they are conducted in the context of a genuine attempt to influence governmental action, is not the role of the Sherman Act. In the present case, of course, any denial to Omni of “meaningful access to the appropriate city administrative and legislative fora” was achieved by COA in the course of an attempt to influence governmental action that, far from being a “sham,” was if anything more in earnest than it should have been. If the denial was wrongful there may be other remedies, but as for the Sherman Act, the Noerr exemption applies.
Omni urges that if, as we have concluded, the “shank’ exception is inapplicable, we should use this case to recognize another exception to Noerr immunity — a “conspiracy” exception, which would apply when government officials conspire with a private party to employ government action as a means of stifling competition. We have left open the possibility of such an exception, see, e. g., Allied Tube, supra, at 502, n. 7, as have a number of Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., Oberndorf v. Denver, 900 F. 2d 1434, 1440 (CA10 1990); First American Title Co. of South Dakota v. South Dakota Land Title Assn., 714 F. 2d 1439, 1446, n. 6 (CA8 1983), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1042 (1984). At least one Court of Appeals has affirmed the existence of such an exception in dicta see Duke & Co. v. Foerster, 521 F. 2d 1277, 1282 (CA3 1975), and the Fifth Circuit has adopted it as holding, see Affiliated Capital Corp. v. Houston, 735 F. 2d 1555, 1566-1568 (1984) (en banc).
Giving full consideration to this matter for the first time, we conclude that a “conspiracy” exception to Noerr must be rejected. We need not describe our reasons at length, since they are largely the same as those set forthlnPart ITabove for rejecting a “conspiracy” exception to ~Parker. As we have described, Parker and Noerr are complementary expressions of the principle that the antitrust laws regulate business, not politics; thejormer decision protects the States’ acts of governing, and the latter the citizens’ participation in government. Insofar3^hp idéhtificáfioltí of an immunity-destroying “conspiracy” — is—concerned. Parker and Noerr generally present two faces of the same coin. The Noerr-invalidating conspiracy alleged here is "just" the Parker-invalidating conspiracy viewed, from the standpoint of the private-sector participants rather than the governmental participants. The same factors which, as we have described above, make it impracticable or beyond'thP''purpose--of the antitrust laws to identify anXrnval'idatelawmakihg that"Has' been infected by selfishlyTñotivatred agreement~witN~prlvate~ interests likewise make it impracticSHebr FéyondThat-scope to identify and iñvalidateTobbying that has produced’selfisTily motivated agreenaeñTwítirpub'Hc-efficials; — ^-t-would-be - unlikely that any effort to influence legisl'aNve~actiom~eGuM succeed unless~on‘e'or~nrore-members-of-the- legislativelDody became... ‘co-conspirators’” in some sense with the private party urging such action, Metro Cable Co. v. CATV of Rockford, Inc., 516 F. 2d 220, 230 (CA7 1975). And if the invalidating “conspiracy” is limited to one that involves some element of unlawfulness (beyond mere anticompetitive motivation), the invalidation would have nothing to do with the policies of the antitrust laws. In Noerr itself, where the private party “deliberately deceived the public and public officials” in its successful lobbying campaign, we said that “deception, reprehensible as it is, can be of no consequence so far.as the Sherman Act is concerned.” 365 U. S., at 145.
<J
Under Parker and Noerr, therefore, both the city and COA are entitled to immunity from the federal antitrust laws for their activities relating to enactment of the ordinances. This determination does not entirely resolve the dispute before us, since other activities are atlssuelnThe^Ease with re'-spect to COA. Omni asserts thatTCUAIehgagecl m private anticompetitive actions such as trade hbel, the setting of artificially low rates, and inducement to breach of contract. Thus, although the jury’s geñerSNerclict against COA cannot be permitted to stand f since it was based on instructions that erroneously permitted liability for seeking the ordinances, see Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U. S. 19, 29-30 (1962)), if the evidence wassuf-ficient to sustain a verdict on the basis of these other actions alone, and if this theory of liability-hasJieen properly preserved, Omni would be entitled to a new trial.
There also remains to be considered the effect of our judgment upon Omni’s claim against COA under~the SoutiTCaro-lina Unfair Trade Practices Act. ^The District Court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdS^Vn this Claim as~well as the Sherman Act claims; the Court of Appeals reyersed on the ground that “a finding of conspiracy to restrain competition is tantamount to a finding” that the South Carolina law had been violated, 891 F. 2d, at 1143. Given our_reyer-^ sal of the “conspiracy” holding, that reasoning is no longer applicable.
We leave these remaining questions for determination by the Court of Appeals on remand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice White and Justice Marshall join, dissenting.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides in part: “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.” 15 U. S. C. § 1 (emphasis added). Although we have previously recognized that a completely literal interpretation of the word “every” cannot have been intended by Congress, the Court today carries this recognition to an extreme by deciding that agreements between municipalities, or their officials, and private parties to use the zoning power to confer exclusive privileges in a particular line of commerce are beyond the reach of § 1. History, tradition, and the facts of this case all demonstrate that the Court’s attempt to create a “better” and less inclusive Sherman Act, cf. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U. S. 83, 101 (1991), is ill advised.
I
As a preface to a consideration of the “state action” and so-called “Noerr-Pennington” exemptions to the Sherman Act, it is appropriate to remind the Court that one of the classic common-law examples of a prohibited contract in restraint of trade involved an agreement between a public official and a private party. The public official — the Queen of England— had granted one of her subjects a monopoly in the making, importation, and sale of playing cards in order to generate revenues for the crown. A competitor challenged the grant in The Case of Monopolies, 11 Co. Rep. 84, 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (Q. B. 1602), and prevailed. Chief Justice Popham explained on behalf of the bench:
“The Queen was... deceived in her grant; for the Queen... intended it to be for the weal public, and it will be employed for the private gain of the patentee, and for the prejudice of the weal public; moreover the Queen meant that the abuse should be taken away, which shall never be by this patent, but potius the abuse will be increased for the private benefit of the patentee, and therefore... this grant is void jure Regio.” Id., at 87a; 77 Eng. Rep., at 1264.
In the case before us today, respondent alleges that the city of Columbia, S. C., has entered into a comparable agreement to give the private petitioner a monopoly in the sale of billboard advertising. After a 3-week trial, a jury composed of citizens of the vicinage found that, despite the city fathers’ denials, there was indeed such an agreement, presumably motivated in part by past favors in the form of political advertising, in part by friendship, and in part by the expectation of a beneficial future relationship — and in any case, not exclusively by a concern for the general public interest. Today the Court acknowledges the anticompetitive consequences of this and similar agreements but decides that they should be exempted from the coverage of the Sherman Act because it fears that enunciating a rule that allows the motivations of public officials to be probed may mean that innocent municipal officials may be harassed with baseless charges. The holding evidences an unfortunate lack of confidence in our judicial system and will foster the evils the Sherman Act was designed to eradicate.
II
There is a distinction between economic regulation, on the one hand, and regulation designed to protect the public health, safety, and.environment. In antitrust parlance a “regulated industry” is one in which decisions about prices and output are made not by individual firms, but rather by a public body or a collective process subject to governmental approval. Economic regulation of the motor carrier and airline industries was imposed by the Federal Government in the 1930’s; the “deregulation” of those industries did not eliminate all the other types of regulation that continue to protect our safety and environmental concerns.
The antitrust laws reflect a basic national policy favoring free markets over regulated markets. In essence, the Sherman Act prohibits private unsupervised regulation of the prices and output of goods in the marketplace. That prohibition is inapplicable to specific industries which Congress has exempted from the antitrust laws and subjected to regulatory supervision over price and output decisions. Moreover, the so-called “state-action” exemption from the Sherman Act reflects the Court’s understanding that Congress did not intend the statute to pre-empt a State’s economic regulation of commerce within its own borders.
The contours of the state-action exemption are relatively well defined in our cases. Ever since our decision in Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332 (1904), which upheld a Texas statute fixing the rates charged by pilots operating in the Port of Galveston, it has been clear that a State’s decision to displace competition with economic regulation is not prohibited by the Sherman Act. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Social Security Act a married woman whose husband retires or becomes disabled is granted benefits if she has a minor or other dependent child in her care. A divorced woman whose former husband retires or becomes disabled does not receive such benefits. The issue in the present case is whether this difference in the statutory treatment of married and divorced women is permissible under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I
Section 202 (b)(1) of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 623, as added and amended, 42 U. S. C. § 402 (b) (1) (1970 ed. and Supp. V), provides for the payment of “wife's insurance benefits.” To qualify under this section a woman must be the wife or “divorced wife” of an individual entitled to old-age or disability benefits. Then, assuming that she meets the other statutory requirements, the woman is eligible to receive a monthly payment if she “has attained age 62 or (in the case of a wife) has in her care (individually or jointly with [her husband]) a child entitled to a child’s insurance benefit. . . .” 42 U. S. C. § 402 (b) (1) (B) (emphasis supplied). As the italicized phrase indicates, a woman under 62 who has in her care an entitled child must currently be married to the wage earner in order to be eligible to receive benefits. A divorced woman receives monthly payments if she is 62 or over and her ex-husband retires or becomes disabled, but if she is under 62, she receives no benefits even if she has a young or disabled child in her care.
The appellee, Helen De Castro, was divorced from her husband in 1968, after more than 20 years of marriage. She cares for a disabled child who is eligible for and receives child’s insurance benefits under the Act. In May 1971 her former husband applied for and later was granted old-age insurance benefits. Mrs. De Castro applied for wife’s insurance benefits shortly thereafter. At the time of her ■application she was 56 years old. Her application was denied by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare because no wife’s benefits are payable to a divorced wife under 62 years of age.
Mrs. De Castro then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking judicial review of the Secretary’s decision. Her complaint alleged that § 202 (b) (1) (B) of the Social Security Act “operates to arbitrarily discriminate against divorced wives,” and prayed for an order directing the Secretary to pay benefits to her, a declaration that § 202 (b)(1)(B) is unconstitutional, and an injunction against that section’s application.
A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2282. The court considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and granted the relief prayed for in the complaint, holding that the wife’s benefits provision “invidiously discriminates against divorced wives . . . in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” De Castro v. Weinberger, 403 F. Supp. 23, 30. Central to the court’s ruling was its determination that “there is no rational basis for concluding that a married wife having a dependent child in her care has a greater economic need than a divorced wife caring for such a child.” Id., at 28. The Secretary appealed directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 425 U. S. 957.
II
The basic principle that must govern an assessment of any constitutional challenge to a law providing for governmental payments of monetary benefits is well established. Governmental decisions to spend money to improve the general public welfare in one way and not another are “not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment.” Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 640. In enacting legislation of this kind a government does not deny equal protection “merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some 'reasonable basis/ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification 'is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.' ” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485.
To be sure, the standard by which legislation such as this must be judged “is not a toothless one,” Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 510. But the challenged statute is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. “So long as its judgments are rational, and not invidious, the legislature's efforts to tackle the problems of the poor and the needy are not subject to a constitutional straitjacket.” Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 546. It is with this principle in mind that we consider the specific constitutional issue presented by this litigation.
The old-age and disability insurance aspects of the Social Security system do not purport to be general public assistance laws that simply pay money to those who need it most. That was not the predominant purpose of these benefit provisions when they were enacted or when they were amended. Rather, the primary objective was to provide workers and their families with basic protection against hardships created by the loss of earnings due to illness or old age.
The wife’s insurance benefit at issue here is consistent with this overriding legislative aim: It enables a married woman already burdened with dependent children to meet the additional need created when her husband reaches old age or becomes disabled. Accordingly, the District Court’s observation that many divorced women receive inadequate child-support payments, while undoubtedly true, is hardly in point. The same can be said of the District Court’s statement that “there is no rational basis for concluding that a married wife having a dependent child in her care has a greater economic need than a divorced wife caring for such a child.” For whatever relevance these observations might have in a case involving a constitutional attack on a statute that gave monetary benefits to women based on their general overall need, that is not this case.
Section 202 (b)(1)(B) of the Act addresses the particular consequences for his family of a wage earner’s old age or disability. Congress could rationally have decided that the resultant loss of family income, the extra expense that often attends illness and old age, and the consequent disruption in the family’s economic well-being that may occur when the husband stops working justify monthly payments to a wife who together with her husband must still care for a dependent child.
Indeed, Congress took note of exactly these kinds of factors when it amended the Social Security Act in 1958. Between 1950 and 1958 wives under retirement age with dependent children received benefits only when their husbands became entitled to old-age insurance payments. Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, § 101 (a), 64 Stat. 482. Congress then amended the Act to provide the same benefits when the wage earner becomes disabled. Social Security Amendments of 1958, § 205 (b)(1), 72 Stat. 1021. Both the House and Senate Committee reports accompanying the proposed legislation explained that the purpose of the monthly payments was to give “recognition to the problems confronting families whose breadwinners” stop work. The focus was specifically on “adequate protection for [the husband’s] family,” and the reports mentioned the high medical expenses often associated with disability and the possibility that the wife might have to forgo work in order to care for her disabled husband. H. R. Rep. No. 2288, 85th Cong,, 2d Sess., 12-13 (1958); S. Rep. No. 2388, 85th Cong.,, 2d Sess., 10-11 (1958).
In view of the legislative purpose, it is hardly surprising that the congressional judgment evidently was a different one with respect to divorced women. Divorce by its nature works a drastic change ■ in the economic and personal relationship between a husband and wife. Ordinarily it means that they will go their separate ways. Congress could have rationally assumed that divorced husbands and wives depend less on each other for financial and other support than do couples who stay married. The problems that a divorced wife may encounter when her former husband becomes old or disabled may well differ in kind and degree from those that a woman married to a retired or disabled husband must face. For instance, a divorced wife need not forgo work in order to stay at home to care for her disabled husband. She may not feel the pinch of the extra expenses accompanying her former husband’s old age or disability. In short, divorced couples typically live separate lives. It was not irrational for Congress to recognize this basic fact in deciding to defer monthly payments to divorced wives of retired or disabled wage earners until they reach the age of 62.
This is not to say that a husband’s old age or disability may never affect his divorced wife. Many women receive alimony or child support after divorce that their former husbands might not be able to pay when they stop work. But even for this group' — which does not include the appellee in the present case — Congress was not constitutionally obligated to use the Social Security Act to subsidize support payments. It could rationally decide that the problems created for divorced women remained less pressing than those faced by women who continue to live with their husbands.
In any event, the constitutional question “is not whether a statutory provision precisely filters out those, and only those, who are in the factual position which generated the congressional concern reflected in the statute.” Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 777. We conclude, accordingly, that the statutory classifications involved in this case are not of such an order as to infringe upon the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The judgment is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall concurs in the judgment.
It is well settled that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause encompasses equal protection principles. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 768-770.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 402 (b) (1) (1970 ed. and Supp. V) provides in full:
"(b) Wife’s insurance benefits.
“(1) The wife (as defined in section 416 (b) of this title) and every divorced wife (as defined in section 416 (d) of this title) of an individual entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits, if such wife or such divorced wife—
“(A) has filed application for wife’s insurance benefits,
“(B) has attained age 62 or (in the case of a wife) has in her care (individually or jointly with such individual) at the time of filing such application a child entitled to a child’s insurance benefit on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of such individual,
“ (C) in the case of a divorced wife, is not married, and
“(D) is not entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits, or is entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits based on a primary insurance amount which is less than one-half of the primary insurance amount of such individual,
“shall (subject to subsection (s) of this section) be entitled to a wife’s insurance benefit for each month, beginning with the first month in which she becomes so entitled to such insurance benefits and ending with the month preceding the first month in which any of the following occurs—
“(E) she dies,
“(F) such individual dies,
“(G) in the case of a wife, they are divorced and either (i) she has not attained age 62, or (ii) she has attained age 62 but has not been married to such individual for a period of 20 years immediately before the date the divorce became effective,
“(H) in the case of a divorced wife, she marries a person other than such individual,
“(I) in the case of a wife who has not attained age 62, no child of such individual is entitled to a child’s insurance benefit,
“(J) she becomes entitled to an old-age or disability insurance benefit based on a primary insurance amount which is equal to or exceeds one-half of the primary insurance amount of such individual, or
“(K) such individual is not entitled to disability insurance benefits and is not entitled to old-age insurance benefits.”
The Act defines “divorced wife” as “a woman divorced from an individual, but only if she had been married to such individual for a period of 20 years immediately before the date the divorce became effective.” 42 U. S. C. §416 (d)(1). The term “divorce” refers to a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. § 416 (d) (4).
The conditions upon which a child is entitled to receive “child’s insurance benefits” are set out in § 202 (d) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 402 (d) (1970 ed. and Supp. V). Generally, the child must be dependent on the wage earner and either under 18 years old (or a full-time student under 22 years old) or under a disability.
The Act also provides for the payment of “widow’s insurance benefits” and “mother’s insurance benefits.” 42 U. S. C. §§402 (e), (g) (1970 ed. and Supp. V). Divorced and married women, with or without dependent children, are eligible to receive monthly payments under these sections in certain circumstances not pertinent here.
The old-age and disability insurance programs are distinct from the provisions for public assistance to the aged and disabled also contained in the Social Security Act. 42 U. S. C. §§ 301-306, 1351-1355, partially repealed by Pub. L. No. 92-603, §§303 (a), (b), 86 Stat. 1484; 42 U. S. C. §§ 1381 — 1383c (1970 ed., Supp. V). The insurance programs are contributory in nature and are designed to prevent public dependency by protecting workers and their families against common economic hazards. Congress in 1935 contemplated that the old-age insurance benefits would be “payable wholly regardless of the need of the recipient.” H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1935). The public-assistance-for-the-aged program, on the other hand, was designed “to provide for old people who are dependent upon the public for support . . . ,” id., at 4, and the statute specifically referred to “aged needy individuals.” Social Security Act, § 1, 49 Stat. 620. See also H. R. Rep. No. 615, supra, at 3-6; S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 4r-7 (1935); Message of the President Recommending Legislation on Economic Security, H. R. Doc. No. 81,74th Cong,, 1st Sess., 20-28 (1935).
In 1950 the Act was amended to provide for grants-in-aid to the States so that assistance could be furnished “to needy individuals eighteen years of age or older who are permanently and totally disabled.” Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, § 351, 64 Stat. 555. In 1956 Congress created a program for disability insurance benefits. Social Security Amendments of 1956, § 103 (a), 70 Stat. 815. Again, the insurance program, unlike the public assistance provisions, was not need based, but instead was designed to protect against the specific economic hardships created by involuntary, premature retirement. See H. R. Rep. No. 1300, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 27-28, 53-54 (1949); Recommendations for Social Security Legislation, Reports of the Advisory Council on Social Security, S. Doc. No. 208, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 69-70, 95-97 (1949); S. Rep. No. 2133, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 3-4 (1956); H. R. Rep. No. 1189, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 3-6 (1955).
“Wife’s insurance benefits” first became part of the Social Security-Act in 1939. Amendments enacted that year provided for monthly payments to wives 65 years or older whose husbands were entitled to old-age benefits. Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, § 201, 53 Stat. 1362. In 1950 Congress dropped the age requirement for women with retired husbands and entitled children in their care. Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, § 101 (a), 64 Stat. 482. In 1958 Congress extended similar benefits to wives of any age who had entitled children and disabled husbands. Social Security Amendments of 1958, §205 (b)(1), 72 Stat. 1021. While the legislative history of the 1950 amendments is sparse, the congressional purpose presumably was to recognize a family need created when the husband reaches old age and stops working. Certainly the sole purpose could not have been to allow the wife to remain at home to take care of the child, as the appellee suggests, because the presence of the retired husband at home ordinarily would ensure parental supervision. Similarly, when Congress provided benefits in 1958 to wives with disabled husbands, it had purposes beyond the mere encouragement of the wife to stay home and take care of the children. See H. R. Rep. No. 2288, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 12-13 (1958); S. Rep. No. 2388, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 10-11 (1958).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Rutledge
announced the judgment of the Court and the following opinion, in which
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Murphy join.
This appeal questions the power of Mississippi, as affected by the commerce clause, to impose a tax measured by gross receipts from the operation of a pipe line wholly within the state.
Appellant is a Delaware corporation which has qualified to do business in Mississippi as a foreign corporation. It owns and operates pipe lines which are used to transport oil from lease tanks in various oil fields in Mississippi to loading racks adjacent to railroads elsewhere in the state. From these racks the oil is pumped into railroad tank cars for shipment outside the state. If there are no tank cars available the oil is stored in tanks near the racks. But such delays in loading are usually of short duration and never exceed a week, according to appellant’s uncontradicted statement. ' When delivered to appellant the oil is accompanied by shipping orders from the producer or owner directing that the oil be transported to out-of-state destinations. There are no refineries in Mississippi. There is no through bill of lading from the point of origin at the fields to the destination outside the state. Appellant ships the oil by rail as agent of the owner on bills of lading showing the owner as shipper, the appellant as agent of the shipper, and indicating-the destination specified in the shipping orders issued to appellant. Appellant is paid by the producer at the rate per barrel specified in its tariff for transporting the oil from the gathering point to the rack, and is paid an additional- charge for loading the oil in the tank cars.
The chairman of the Mississippi State Tax Commission, appellee, levied a tax against appellant for the years 1944, 1945 and the first half of 1946, in the sum of $20,296.36, measured by appellant's receipts for transporting oil from the lease tanks to the railroad loading platforms, pursuant to the following sections of the Mississippi Code, Miss. Code, 1942, Ann., tit. 40, c. 3, § 10105, and § 10109 (1948 Cum. Supp.), which provide:-
“10105. . . . There is hereby levied and shall be collected annual privilege taxes, measured by the amount or volume of business done, against the persons, on account of the business activities, and in the amounts to be determined by the application of rates against values, or gross income, or gross proceeds of sales, as the case may be, as follows [see sections following]:''
“10109. . . . Upon every person engaging or continuing within-this state in the business of operating a pipe line for transporting for compensation or hire from one point to another in this state oil or natural gas or artificial gas through pipes or conduits in this state, there is likewise hereby levied and shall be collected a tax, on account of the business engaged in,- equal tó two per cent of the gross income of the business.
“There shall-be excepted from the gross income used in determining the measure- of the tax imposed in this section so much thereof as is derived from the business conducted in commerce between this state and other states of the United States, or between this state and foreign countries which the state of Mississippi is prohibited from taxing under the constitution of the United States of America. . .
The State Tax Commission sustained the assessment. The trial court dismissed a declaration seeking review of the Commission’s action. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed that judgment, overruling appellant’s contention that because the tax was levied on the privilege of conducting an interstate business and measured by gross receipts therefrom the tax could not be imposed without offending the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. 203 Miss. 715, 35 So. 2d 73.
The state supreme court held that the operation of these pipe lines between points within the state was intrastate rather than interstate commerce, and that the tax was therefore “merely on the privilege of operating a pipe line wholly within this State as a local activity. ... a tax on the privilege of doing an intrastate business, and-measured by a percent of gross income as a matter of convenience.” 203 Miss, at 732, 35 So. 2d at 81.
Appellant contends that operation of the pipe lines between points in Mississippi was in fact interstate commerce, and that the tax was construed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi to be a tax on the privilege of operating the pipe lines. From these premises, together with the major premise that no state can tax the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, appellant concludes that the tax may not constitutionally be imposed.
We do not pause to consider whether the business of operating the intrastate pipe lines is interstate commerce, for, even if we assume that it is, Mississippi has power to impose the tax involved in this case. Further, we do not find it necessary to dispute that the Supreme Court of Mississippi construed the statute as imposing a tax on the privilege of operating a pipe line wholly within the state, and not a tax solely upon the “local activities of ‘maintaining, keeping in repair, and otherwise in manning the facilities’ ” situated in Mississippi, Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80, 92-93, or upon the gross receipts themselves, Central Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653. While we are of course bound by the construction given a state statute by the highest court of the State, we are concerned with the practical operation of challenged state tax statutes, not with their descriptive labels.
The statute is not invalidated by the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution merely because, unlike the statute attacked in Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, supra, it imposes a “direct” tax on the “privilege” of engaging in interstate commerce. Any notions to the contrary should not have survived Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U. S. 217, which flatly rules the case at bar. That case sustained a state statute which imposed upon an interstate railroad corporation “an annual excise tax [measured by,apportioned gross receipts], for the privilege of exercising its franchises in this State.” The Grand Trunk decision has been approved by this Court as recently as the other controlling case of Central Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, supra at 658, 663, in which the Court permitted New York to impose a tax on the gross receipts from the operation of an interstate bus line, provided that tax was apportioned according to mileage traveled within the state. The Mealey case is not distinguished by saying that it involved only a tax on gross receipts and not a tax on interstate commerce itself, for gross receipts táxes have long been regarded as “direct” in cases which are supposed to support the proposition that “direct” taxes on interstate commerce are invalid under the commerce clause.
Since all the activities upon which the tax is imposed are carried on in Mississippi, there is no due process objection to the tax. The tax does not discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of competing intrastate commerce of like character. The nature of the. subject of taxation makes apportionment unnecessary; there is no attempt to tax interstate' activity carried on outside Mississippi’s borders. No other state can repeat the tax. For these reasons the commerce clause does not invalidate this tax.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Appellant also gathers oil which is transported through the Mississippi pipe lines directly into interstate trunk lines, through which the oil is carried outside the state. Mississippi has not attempted to tax the receipts attributable to shipments of this kind.
All appellant’s transportation of oil in Mississippi is covered by-tariffs which are published and filed with the Interstate. Commerce Commission as required by the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 49U.S.C. §§1 (1), 1 (3), and 6.
Other provisions of the Mississippi Code not here involved impose franchise, net income and ad valorem property tdxes, all of which appellant paid for the years involved. This fact does not of course preclude Mississippi from exacting a different tax for the protection upon which one or moré of these taxes is based'. E. g., Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80, 85.
Minnesota v. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270, 273; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 287 U. S. 509, 513.
International Harvester Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, 322 U. S. 340, 346, 347; Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363.
See concurring opinion in Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, 259.
Nothing in the Grand Trunk opinion suggests the explanation hazarded by Mr. Justice Holmes in Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 226, that the tax in the Grand Trunk case was sustained on the ground that it was imposed in lieu of ad valorem taxes. A copy of the statute reprinted in the margin of the Reports discloses that the tax was “in lieu of all taxes upon such railroad, its property and stock,” except that cities and towns were permitted to tax not only all buildings owned by the railroad but also railroad-., owned “lands and fixtures” outside the right of way. 142 U. S. 217-218, n. 1.
See the cases discussed in Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250, 255-257; concurring opinion in Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, 264 — 266. As the cited discussions point out, most of the cases invalidating ■ “direct” taxes on interstate commerce are explicable on the ground that the taxes were not fairly apportioned. But cf. the following cases, which involve apportioned franchise or privilege taxes measured by a standard other than gross receipts: Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. Monier, 266 U. S. 555; Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Massachusetts, 268 U. S. 203; cf. Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Alabama, 288 U. S. 218.
Nippert v. Richmond, 327 U. S. 416, 423-424; Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444-445; separate opinion in International Harvester Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, 322 U. S. 340, 352-353; concurring opinion in Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, 271; concurring opinion in Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80, 96.
Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U. S. 454; Hale v. Bimco Trading Co., 306 U. S. 375; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434.
Cf. Gwin, White & Prince v. Henneford, 305 U. S. 434, 439-440; Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U. S. 307, 311-312; Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250, 255-257.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Congress has provided copyright protection for original works of art, but not for industrial designs. The line between art and industrial design, however, is often difficult to draw. This is particularly true when an industrial design incorporates artistic elements. Congress has afforded limited protection for these artistic elements by providing that "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features" of the "design of a useful article" are eligible for copyright protection as artistic works if those features "can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." 17 U.S.C. § 101.
We granted certiorari to resolve widespread disagreement over the proper test for implementing § 101's separate-identification and independent-existence requirements. 578 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1823, 194 L.Ed.2d 829 (2016). We hold that a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work-either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression-if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated. Because that test is satisfied in this case, we affirm.
I
Respondents Varsity Brands, Inc., Varsity Spirit Corporation, and Varsity Spirit Fashions & Supplies, Inc., design, make, and sell cheerleading uniforms. Respondents have obtained or acquired more than 200 U.S. copyright registrations for two-dimensional designs appearing on the surface of their uniforms and other garments. These designs are primarily "combinations, positionings, and arrangements of elements" that include "chevrons..., lines, curves, stripes, angles, diagonals, inverted [chevrons], coloring, and shapes." App. 237. At issue in this case are Designs 299A, 299B, 074, 078, and 0815. See Appendix, infra.
Petitioner Star Athletica, L.L.C., also markets and sells cheerleading uniforms. Respondents sued petitioner for infringing their copyrights in the five designs. The District Court entered summary judgment for petitioner on respondents' copyright claims on the ground that the designs did not qualify as protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works. It reasoned that the designs served the useful, or "utilitarian," function of identifying the garments as "cheerleading uniforms" and therefore could not be "physically or conceptually" separated under § 101"from the utilitarian function" of the uniform. 2014 WL 819422, *8-*9 (W.D.Tenn., Mar. 1, 2014).
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. 799 F.3d 468, 471 (2015). In its view, the "graphic designs" were "separately identifiable" because the designs "and a blank cheerleading uniform can appear'side by side'-one as a graphic design, and one as a cheerleading uniform." Id., at 491 (quoting Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 924.2(B) (3d ed. 2014) (Compendium)). And it determined that the designs were " 'capable of existing independently' " because they could be incorporated onto the surface of different types of garments, or hung on the wall and framed as art. 799 F.3d, at 491, 492.
Judge McKeague dissented. He would have held that, because "identifying the wearer as a cheerleader" is a utilitarian function of a cheerleading uniform and the surface designs were "integral to" achieving that function, the designs were inseparable from the uniforms. Id., at 495-496.
II
The first element of a copyright-infringement claim is "ownership of a valid copyright." Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). A valid copyright extends only to copyrightable subject matter. See 4 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright § 13.01[A] (2010) (Nimmer). The Copyright Act of 1976 defines copyrightable subject matter as "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
"Works of authorship" include "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works," § 102(a)(5), which the statute defines to include "two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans," § 101. And a work of authorship is " 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when it[ is] embodi[ed] in a" "material objec[t]... from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated." Ibid. (definitions of "fixed" and "copies").
The Copyright Act also establishes a special rule for copyrighting a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work incorporated into a "useful article," which is defined as "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." Ibid. The statute does not protect useful articles as such. Rather, "the design of a useful article" is "considered a pictorial, graphical, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." Ibid.
Courts, the Copyright Office, and commentators have described the analysis undertaken to determine whether a feature can be separately identified from, and exist independently of, a useful article as "separability." In this case, our task is to determine whether the arrangements of lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes appearing on the surface of respondents' cheerleading uniforms are eligible for copyright protection as separable features of the design of those cheerleading uniforms.
A
As an initial matter, we must address whether separability analysis is necessary in this case.
1
Respondents argue that "[s]eparability is only implicated when a [pictorial, graphic, or sculptural] work is the 'design of a useful article.' " Brief for Respondents 25. They contend that the surface decorations in this case are "two-dimensional graphic designs that appear on useful articles," but are not themselves designs of useful articles. Id., at 52. Consequently, the surface decorations are protected two-dimensional works of graphic art without regard to any separability analysis under § 101. Ibid. ; see 2 W. Patry, Copyright § 3:151, p. 3-485 (2016) (Patry) ("Courts looking at two-dimensional design claims should not apply the separability analysis regardless of the three-dimensional form that design is embodied in"). Under this theory, two-dimensional artistic features on the surface of useful articles are "inherently separable." Brief for Respondents 26.
This argument is inconsistent with the text of § 101. The statute requires separability analysis for any "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features" incorporated into the "design of a useful article." "Design" refers here to "the combination" of "details" or "features" that "go to make up" the useful article. 3 Oxford English Dictionary 244 (def. 7, first listing) (1933) (OED). Furthermore, the words "pictorial" and "graphic" include, in this context, two-dimensional features such as pictures, paintings, or drawings. See 4 id., at 359 (defining "[g]raphic" to mean "[o]f or pertaining to drawing or painting"); 7 id., at 830 (defining "[p]ictorial" to mean "of or pertaining to painting or drawing"). And the statute expressly defines "[p]ictorial, graphical, and sculptural works" to include "two-dimensional... works of... art." § 101. The statute thus provides that the "design of a useful article" can include two-dimensional "pictorial" and "graphic" features, and separability analysis applies to those features just as it does to three-dimensional "sculptural" features.
2
The United States makes a related but distinct argument against applying separability analysis in this case, which respondents do not and have not advanced. As part of their copyright registrations for the designs in this case, respondents deposited with the Copyright Office drawings and photographs depicting the designs incorporated onto cheerleading uniforms. App. 213-219; Appendix, infra. The Government argues that, assuming the other statutory requirements were met, respondents obtained a copyright in the deposited drawings and photographs and have simply reproduced those copyrighted works on the surface of a useful article, as they would have the exclusive right to do under the Copyright Act. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14-15, 17-22. Accordingly, the Government urges, separability analysis is unnecessary on the record in this case. We generally do not entertain arguments that were not raised below and that are not advanced in this Court by any party, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014), because "[i]t is not the Court's usual practice to adjudicate either legal or predicate factual questions in the first instance," CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 578 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1642, 1653, 194 L.Ed.2d 707 (2016). We decline to depart from our usual practice here.
B
We must now decide when a feature incorporated into a useful article "can be identified separately from" and is "capable of existing independently of" "the utilitarian aspects" of the article. This is not a free-ranging search for the best copyright policy, but rather "depends solely on statutory interpretation." Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 214, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954). "The controlling principle in this case is the basic and unexceptional rule that courts must give effect to the clear meaning of statutes as written." Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 476, 112 S.Ct. 2589, 120 L.Ed.2d 379 (1992). We thus begin and end our inquiry with the text, giving each word its "ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." Walters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U.S. 202, 207, 117 S.Ct. 660, 136 L.Ed.2d 644 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not, however, limit this inquiry to the text of § 101 in isolation. "[I]nterpretation of a phrase of uncertain reach is not confined to a single sentence when the text of the whole statute gives instruction as to its meaning." Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2191, 2203, 186 L.Ed.2d 275 (2013). We thus "look to the provisions of the whole law" to determine § 101's meaning. United States v. Heirs of Boisdore, 8 How. 113, 122, 12 L.Ed. 1009 (1849).
1
The statute provides that a "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural featur [e]" incorporated into the "design of a useful article" is eligible for copyright protection if it (1) "can be identified separately from," and (2) is "capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." § 101. The first requirement-separate identification-is not onerous. The decisionmaker need only be able to look at the useful article and spot some two- or three-dimensional element that appears to have pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities. See 2 Patry § 3:146, at 3-474 to 3-475.
The independent-existence requirement is ordinarily more difficult to satisfy. The decisionmaker must determine that the separately identified feature has the capacity to exist apart from the utilitarian aspects of the article. See 2 OED 88 (def. 5) (defining "[c]apable" of as "[h]aving the needful capacity, power, or fitness for"). In other words, the feature must be able to exist as its own pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work as defined in § 101 once it is imagined apart from the useful article. If the feature is not capable of existing as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work once separated from the useful article, then it was not a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature of that article, but rather one of its utilitarian aspects.
Of course, to qualify as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work on its own, the feature cannot itself be a useful article or "[a]n article that is normally a part of a useful article" (which is itself considered a useful article). § 101. Nor could someone claim a copyright in a useful article merely by creating a replica of that article in some other medium-for example, a cardboard model of a car. Although the replica could itself be copyrightable, it would not give rise to any rights in the useful article that inspired it.
2
The statute as a whole confirms our interpretation. The Copyright Act provides "the owner of [a] copyright" with the "exclusive righ[t]... to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies." § 106(1). The statute clarifies that this right "includes the right to reproduce the [copyrighted] work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise." § 113(a).
Section 101 is, in essence, the mirror image of § 113(a). Whereas § 113(a) protects a work of authorship first fixed in some tangible medium other than a useful article and subsequently applied to a useful article, § 101 protects art first fixed in the medium of a useful article. The two provisions make clear that copyright protection extends to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works regardless of whether they were created as freestanding art or as features of useful articles. The ultimate separability question, then, is whether the feature for which copyright protection is claimed would have been eligible for copyright protection as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work had it originally been fixed in some tangible medium other than a useful article before being applied to a useful article.
3
This interpretation is also consistent with the history of the Copyright Act. In Mazer, a case decided under the 1909 Copyright Act, the respondents copyrighted a statuette depicting a dancer. The statuette was intended for use as a lamp base, "with electric wiring, sockets and lamp shades attached." 347 U.S., at 202, 74 S.Ct. 460. Copies of the statuette were sold both as lamp bases and separately as statuettes. Id., at 203, 74 S.Ct. 460. The petitioners copied the statuette and sold lamps with the statuette as the base. They defended against the respondents' infringement suit by arguing that the respondents did not have a copyright in a statuette intended for use as a lamp base. Id., at 204-205, 74 S.Ct. 460.
Two of Mazer's holdings are relevant here. First, the Court held that the respondents owned a copyright in the statuette even though it was intended for use as a lamp base. See id., at 214, 74 S.Ct. 460. In doing so, the Court approved the Copyright Office's regulation extending copyright protection to works of art that might also serve a useful purpose. See ibid. (approving 37 C.F.R. § 202.8(a) (1949) (protecting "works of artistic craftsmanship, in so far as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned")).
Second, the Court held that it was irrelevant to the copyright inquiry whether the statuette was initially created as a freestanding sculpture or as a lamp base. 347 U.S., at 218-219, 74 S.Ct. 460 ("Nor do we think the subsequent registration of a work of art published as an element in a manufactured article, is a misuse of copyright. This is not different from the registration of a statuette and its later embodiment in an industrial article"). Mazer thus interpreted the 1909 Act consistently with the rule discussed above: If a design would have been copyrightable as a standalone pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, it is copyrightable if created first as part of a useful article.
Shortly thereafter, the Copyright Office enacted a regulation implementing the holdings of Mazer. See 1 Nimmer § 2A.08[B][1][b] (2016). As amended, the regulation introduced the modern separability test to copyright law:
"If the sole intrinsic function of an article is its utility, the fact that the article is unique and attractively shaped will not qualify it as a work of art. However, if the shape of a utilitarian article incorporates features, such as artistic sculpture, carving, or pictorial representation, which can be identified separately and are capable of existing independently as a work of art, such features will be eligible for registration." 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(c) (1960) (punctuation altered).
Congress essentially lifted the language governing protection for the design of a useful article directly from the post-Mazer regulations and placed it into § 101 of the 1976 Act. Consistent with Mazer, the approach we outline today interprets §§ 101 and 113 in a way that would afford copyright protection to the statuette in Mazer regardless of whether it was first created as a standalone sculptural work or as the base of the lamp. See 347 U.S., at 218-219, 74 S.Ct. 460.
C
In sum, a feature of the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright if, when identified and imagined apart from the useful article, it would qualify as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or when fixed in some other tangible medium.
Applying this test to the surface decorations on the cheerleading uniforms is straightforward. First, one can identify the decorations as features having pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities. Second, if the arrangement of colors, shapes, stripes, and chevrons on the surface of the cheerleading uniforms were separated from the uniform and applied in another medium-for example, on a painter's canvas-they would qualify as "two-dimensional... works of... art," § 101. And imaginatively removing the surface decorations from the uniforms and applying them in another medium would not replicate the uniform itself. Indeed, respondents have applied the designs in this case to other media of expression-different types of clothing-without replicating the uniform. See App. 273-279. The decorations are therefore separable from the uniforms and eligible for copyright protection.
The dissent argues that the designs are not separable because imaginatively removing them from the uniforms and placing them in some other medium of expression-a canvas, for example-would create "pictures of cheerleader uniforms." Post, at 1035 - 1036 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Petitioner similarly argues that the decorations cannot be copyrighted because, even when extracted from the useful article, they retain the outline of a cheerleading uniform. Brief for Petitioner 48-49.
This is not a bar to copyright. Just as two-dimensional fine art corresponds to the shape of the canvas on which it is painted, two-dimensional applied art correlates to the contours of the article on which it is applied. A fresco painted on a wall, ceiling panel, or dome would not lose copyright protection, for example, simply because it was designed to track the dimensions of the surface on which it was painted. Or consider, for example, a design etched or painted on the surface of a guitar. If that entire design is imaginatively removed from the guitar's surface and placed on an album cover, it would still resemble the shape of a guitar. But the image on the cover does not "replicate" the guitar as a useful article. Rather, the design is a two-dimensional work of art that corresponds to the shape of the useful article to which it was applied. The statute protects that work of art whether it is first drawn on the album cover and then applied to the guitar's surface, or vice versa. Failing to protect that art would create an anomaly: It would extend protection to two-dimensional designs that cover a part of a useful article but would not protect the same design if it covered the entire article. The statute does not support that distinction, nor can it be reconciled with the dissent's recognition that "artwork printed on a t-shirt" could be protected. Post, at 1019 (internal quotation marks omitted).
To be clear, the only feature of the cheerleading uniform eligible for a copyright in this case is the two-dimensional work of art fixed in the tangible medium of the uniform fabric. Even if respondents ultimately succeed in establishing a valid copyright in the surface decorations at issue here, respondents have no right to prohibit any person from manufacturing a cheerleading uniform of identical shape, cut, and dimensions to the ones on which the decorations in this case appear. They may prohibit only the reproduction of the surface designs in any tangible medium of expression-a uniform or otherwise.
D
Petitioner and the Government raise several objections to the approach we announce today. None is meritorious.
1
Petitioner first argues that our reading of the statute is missing an important step. It contends that a feature may exist independently only if it can stand alone as a copyrightable work and if the useful article from which it was extracted would remain equally useful. In other words, copyright extends only to "solely artistic" features of useful articles. Brief for Petitioner 33. According to petitioner, if a feature of a useful article "advance[s] the utility of the article," id., at 38, then it is categorically beyond the scope of copyright, id., at 33. The designs here are not protected, it argues, because they are necessary to two of the uniforms' "inherent, essential, or natural functions"-identifying the wearer as a cheerleader and enhancing the wearer's physical appearance. Id., at 38, 48; Reply Brief 2, 16. Because the uniforms would not be equally useful without the designs, petitioner contends that the designs are inseparable from the "utilitarian aspects" of the uniform. Brief for Petitioner 50.
The Government raises a similar argument, although it reaches a different result. It suggests that the appropriate test is whether the useful article with the artistic feature removed would "remai[n] similarly useful." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29 (emphasis added). In the view of the United States, however, a plain white cheerleading uniform is "similarly useful" to uniforms with respondents' designs. Id., at 27-28.
The debate over the relative utility of a plain white cheerleading uniform is unnecessary. The focus of the separability inquiry is on the extracted feature and not on any aspects of the useful article that remain after the imaginary extraction. The statute does not require the decisionmaker to imagine a fully functioning useful article without the artistic feature. Instead, it requires that the separated feature qualify as a nonuseful pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work on its own.
Of course, because the removed feature may not be a useful article-as it would then not qualify as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work-there necessarily would be some aspects of the original useful article "left behind" if the feature were conceptually removed. But the statute does not require the imagined remainder to be a fully functioning useful article at all, much less an equally useful one. Indeed, such a requirement would deprive the Mazer statuette of protection had it been created first as a lamp base rather than as a statuette. Without the base, the "lamp" would be just a shade, bulb, and wires. The statute does not require that we imagine a nonartistic replacement for the removed feature to determine whether that feature is capable of an independent existence.
Petitioner's argument follows from its flawed view that the statute protects only "solely artistic" features that have no effect whatsoever on a useful article's utilitarian function. This view is inconsistent with the statutory text. The statute expressly protects two- and three-dimensional "applied art." § 101. "Applied art" is art "employed in the decoration, design, or execution of useful objects," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 105 (1976) (emphasis added), or "those arts or crafts that have a primarily utilitarian function, or... the designs and decorations used in these arts," Random House Dictionary 73 (1966) (emphasis added); see also 1 OED 576 (2d ed. 1989) (defining "applied" as "[p]ut to practical use"). An artistic feature that would be eligible for copyright protection on its own cannot lose that protection simply because it was first created as a feature of the design of a useful article, even if it makes that article more useful.
Indeed, this has been the rule since Mazer. In holding that the statuette was protected, the Court emphasized that the 1909 Act abandoned any "distinctions between purely aesthetic articles and useful works of art." 347 U.S., at 211, 74 S.Ct. 460. Congress did not enact such a distinction in the 1976 Act. Were we to accept petitioner's argument that the only protectable features are those that play absolutely no role in an article's function, we would effectively abrogate the rule of Mazer and read "applied art" out of the statute.
Because we reject the view that a useful article must remain after the artistic feature has been imaginatively separated from the article, we necessarily abandon the distinction between "physical" and "conceptual" separability, which some courts and commentators have adopted based on the Copyright Act's legislative history. See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 55 (1976). According to this view, a feature is physically separable from the underlying useful article if it can "be physically separated from the article by ordinary means while leaving the utilitarian aspects of the article completely intact." Compendium § 924.2(A); see also Chosun Int'l, Inc. v. Chrisha Creations, Ltd., 413 F.3d 324, 329 (C.A.2 2005). Conceptual separability applies if the feature physically could not be removed from the useful article by ordinary means. See Compendium § 924.2(B); but see 1 P. Goldstein, Copyright § 2.5.3, p. 2:77 (3d ed. 2016) (explaining that the lower courts have been unable to agree on a single conceptual separability test); 2 Patry §§ 3:140-3:144.40 (surveying the various approaches in the lower courts).
The statutory text indicates that separability is a conceptual undertaking. Because separability does not require the underlying useful article to remain, the physical-conceptual distinction is unnecessary.
2
Petitioner next argues that we should incorporate two "objective" components, Reply Brief 9, into our test to provide guidance to the lower courts: (1) "whether the design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influence," Brief for Petitioner 34 (emphasis deleted and internal quotation marks omitted), and (2) whether "there is [a] substantial likelihood that the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature would still be marketable to some significant segment of the community without its utilitarian function," id., at 35 (emphasis deleted and internal quotation marks omitted).
We reject this argument because neither consideration is grounded in the text of the statute. The first would require the decisionmaker to consider evidence of the creator's design methods, purposes, and reasons. Id., at 48. The statute's text makes clear, however, that our inquiry is limited to how the article and feature are perceived, not how or why they were designed. See Brandir Int'l, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., 834 F.2d 1142, 1152 (C.A.2 1987) (Winter, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (The statute "expressly states that the legal test is how the final article is perceived, not how it was developed through various stages").
The same is true of marketability. Nothing in the statute suggests that copyrightability depends on market surveys. Moreover, asking whether some segment of the market would be interested in a given work threatens to prize popular art over other forms, or to substitute judicial aesthetic preferences for the policy choices embodied in the Copyright Act. See Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251, 23 S.Ct. 298, 47 L.Ed. 460 (1903) ("It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits").
3
Finally, petitioner argues that allowing the surface decorations to qualify as a "work of authorship" is inconsistent with Congress' intent to entirely exclude industrial design from copyright. Petitioner notes that Congress refused to pass a provision that would have provided limited copyright protection for industrial designs, including clothing, when it enacted the 1976 Act, see id., at 9-11 (citing S. 22, Tit. II, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 122 Cong. Rec. 3856-3859 (1976)), and that it has enacted laws protecting designs for specific useful articles-semiconductor chips and boat hulls, see 17 U.S.C. §§ 901 - 914, 1301 - 1332 -while declining to enact other industrial design statutes, Brief for Petitioner 29, 43. From this history of failed legislation petitioner reasons that Congress intends to channel intellectual property claims for industrial design into design patents. It therefore urges us to approach this question with a presumption against copyrightability. Id., at 27.
We do not share petitioner's concern. As an initial matter, "[c]ongressional inaction lacks persuasive significance" in most circumstances. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 650, 110 S.Ct. 2668, 110 L.Ed.2d 579 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, we have long held that design patent and copyright are not mutually exclusive. See Mazer, 347 U.S., at 217, 74 S.Ct. 460. Congress has provided for limited copyright protection for certain features of industrial design, and approaching the statute with presumptive hostility toward protection for industrial design would undermine Congress' choice.
In any event, as explained above, our test does not render the shape, cut, and physical dimensions of the cheerleading uniforms eligible for copyright protection.
III
We hold that an artistic feature of the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article. Because the designs on the surface of respondents' cheerleading uniforms in this case satisfy these requirements, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
Justice GINSBURG, concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the Court's judgment but not in its opinion. Unlike the majority, I would not take up in this case the separability test appropriate under 17 U.S.C. § 101. Consideration of that test is unwarranted because the designs at issue are not designs of useful articles. Instead, the designs are themselves copyrightable pictorial or graphic works reproduced on useful articles.
A pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work (PGS work) is copyrightable. § 102(a)(5). PGS works include "two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art." § 101. Key to this case, a copyright in a standalone PGS work "includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise." § 113(a). Because the owner of a copyright in a pre-existing PGS work may exclude a would-be infringer from reproducing that work on a useful article, there is no need to engage in any separability inquiry to resolve the instant petition.
The designs here in controversy are standalone pictorial and graphic works that respondents Varsity Brands, Inc., et al. (Varsity) reproduce on cheerleading uniforms. Varsity's designs first appeared as pictorial and graphic works that Varsity's design team sketched on paper. App. 281. Varsity then sought copyright protection for those two-dimensional designs, not for cheerleading costumes; its registration statements claimed "2-Dimensional artwork" and "fabric design (artwork)." Appendix, infra, at 1020 - 1023, 1025 - 1026, 1028 - 1030. Varsity next reproduced its two-dimensional graphic designs on cheerleading uniforms, also on other garments, including T-shirts and jackets. See, e.g., App. 274, 276.
In short, Varsity's designs are not themselves useful articles meet for separability determination under § 101 ; they are standalone PGS works that may gain copyright protection as such, including the exclusive right to reproduce the designs on useful articles.
Appendix to opinion of GINSBURG, J.
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT 15
Certificate of Registration Additional certificate (17 U.S.C. 706)
[Seal of the United States Copyright Office 1870]
This Certificate issued under the seal of the Copyright Office in accordance with title 17,United States Code, attests that registration has been made for the work identified below. The information on this certificate has been made a part of the Copyright Office records.
Form VA
For a Work of the Visual Arts
UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE
RE VA 1-417-427
EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGISTRATION
5 21 07
Month Day Year
Maria A. Pallante
Acting Register of Copyrights, United States of America
DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE. IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE, USE A SEPARATE CONTINUATION SHEET
1 Title of This Work NATURE OF THIS Design Number 078 WORK See instructions 2-dimensional artwork Preious or Alternative Titles __________________________________________________
Publication as a Contribution If this work was published as a contribution to a periodical, serial, or collection, give information about the collective work in which the contribution appeared.Title of Collective Work
________________________________________________ If published in a periodical or serial give: Volume Number Issue Date On Pages ______________________________________________
2 NOTE Under the law the "author" of a "work made for hire " is generally the employer, not the employee (see instructions). For any part of this work that was "made for hire" check "Yes" in the space provided, give the employer (or other person for whom the work was prepared) as "Author" of that
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We noted probable jurisdiction in this case to consider whether a State may constitutionally limit the appointment of members of its police force to citizens of the United States. 430 U. S. 944 (1977).
The appellant, Edmund Foley, is an alien eligible in due course to become a naturalized citizen, who is lawfully in this country as a permanent resident. He applied for appointment as a New York State trooper, a position which is filled on the basis of competitive examinations. Pursuant to a New York statute, N. Y. Exec. Law § 215 (3) (McKinney 1972), state authorities refused to allow Foley to take the examination. The statute provides:
“No person shall be appointed to the New York state police force unless he shall be a citizen of the United States.”
Appellant then brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a declaratory judgment that the State’s exclusion of aliens from its police force violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After Foley was certified as representative of a class of those similarly situated, a three-judge District Court was convened to consider the merits of the claim. The District Court held the statute to be constitutional. 419 F. Supp. 889 (1976). We affirm.
I
The essential facts in this case are uncontroverted. New York Exec. Law § 215 ,(3) (McKinney 1972) prohibits appellant and his class from becoming state troopers. It is not disputed that the State has uniformly complied with this restriction since the statute was enacted in 1927. Under it, an alien who desires to compete for a position as a New York State trooper must relinquish his foreign citizenship and become an American citizen. Some members of the class, including appellant, are not currently eligible for American citizenship due to waiting periods imposed by congressional enactment.
A trooper in New York is a member of the state police force, a law enforcement body which exercises broad police authority throughout the State. The powers of troopers are generally described in the relevant statutes as including those functions traditionally associated with a peace officer. Like most peace officers, they are charged with the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of suspected criminals, investigation of suspect conduct, execution of warrants and have powers of search, seizure and arrest without a formal warrant under limited circumstances. In the course of carrying out these responsibilities an officer is empowered by New York law to resort to lawful force, which may include the use of any weapon that he is required to carry while on duty. All troopers are on call 24 hours a day and are required to take appropriate action whenever criminal activity is observed.
Perhaps the best shorthand description of the role of the New York State trooper was that advanced by the District Court: “State police are charged with the enforcement of the law, not in a private profession and for the benefit of themselves and their clients, but for the benefit of the people at large of the State of New York.” 419 F. Supp., at 896.
II
Appellant claims that the relevant New York statute violates his rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
The decisions of this Court with regard to the rights of aliens living in our society have reflected fine, and often difficult, questions of values. As a Nation we exhibit extraordinary hospitality to those who come to our country, which is not surprising for we have often been described as “a nation of immigrants.” Indeed, aliens lawfully residing in this society have many rights which are accorded to noncitizens by few other countries. Our cases generally reflect a close scrutiny of restraints imposed by States on aliens. But we have never suggested that such legislation is inherently invalid, nor have we held that all limitations on aliens are suspect. See Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634, 648 (1973). Rather, beginning with a case which involved the denial of welfare assistance essential to life itself, the Court has treated certain restrictions on aliens with “heightened judicial solicitude,” Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 372 (1971), a treatment deemed necessary since aliens — pending their eligibility for citizenship — have no direct voice in the political processes. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152-153, n. 4 (1938).
Following Graham, a series of decisions has resulted requiring state action to meet close scrutiny to exclude aliens as a class from educational benefits, Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U. S. 1 (1977); eligibility for a broad range of public employment, Sugarman v. Dougall, supra; or the practice of licensed professions, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572 (1976); In re Griffiths, 413 U. S. 717 (1973). These exclusions struck at the noncitizens’ ability to exist in the community, a position seemingly inconsistent with the congressional determination to admit the alien to permanent residence. See Graham, supra, at 377-378; Barrett, Judicial Supervision of Legislative Classifications — A More Modest Role For Equal Protection?, 1976 B. Y. U. L. Rev. 89, 101.
It would be inappropriate, however, to require every statutory exclusion of aliens to clear the high hurdle of "strict scrutiny,” because to do so would “obliterate all the distinctions between citizens and aliens, and thus depreciate the historic values of citizenship.” Mauclet, supra, at 14 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). The act of becoming a citizen is more than a ritual with no content beyond the fanfare of ceremony. A new citizen has become a member of a Nation, part of a people distinct from others. Cf. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 559 (1832). The individual, at that point, belongs to the polity and is entitled to participate in the processes of democratic decisionmaking. Accordingly, we have recognized “a State’s historical power to exclude aliens from participation in its democratic political institutions,” Dougall, supra, at 648, as part of the sovereign’s obligation “ 'to preserve the basic conception of a political community.’ ” 413 U. S., at 647.
The practical consequence of this theory is that ''our scrutiny will not be so demanding where we deal with matters firmly within a State’s constitutional prerogatives.” Dougall, supra, at 648. The State need only justify its classification by a showing of some rational relationship between the interest sought to be protected and the limiting classification. This is not intended to denigrate the valuable contribution of aliens who benefit from our traditional hospitality. It is no more than recognition of the fact that a democratic society is ruled by its people. Thus, it is clear that a State may deny aliens the right to vote, or to run for elective office, for these lie at the heart of our political institutions. See 413 U. S., at 647-649. Similar considerations support a legislative determination to exclude aliens from jury service. See Perkins v. Smith, 370 F. Supp. 134 (Md. 1974), aff’d, 426 U. S. 913 (1976). Likewise, we have recognized that citizenship may be a relevant qualification for fulfilling those ''important nonelective executive, legislative, and judicial positions,” held by “officers who participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy.” Dougall, supra, at 647. This is not because our society seeks to reserve the better jobs to its members. Rather, it is because this country entrusts many of its most important policy responsibilities to these officers, the discretionary exercise of which can often more immediately affect the lives of citizens than even the ballot of a voter or the choice of a legislator. In sum, then, it represents the choice, and right, of the people to be governed by their citizen peers. To effectuate this result, we must necessarily examine each position in question to determine whether it involves discretionary decisionmaking, or execution of policy, which substantially affects members of the political community.
The essence of our holdings to date is that although we extend to aliens the right to education and public welfare, along with the ability to earn a livelihood and engage in licensed professions, the right to govern is reserved to citizens.
Ill
A discussion of the police function is essentially a description of one of the basic functions of government, especially in a complex modern society where police presence is pervasive. The police function fulfills a most fundamental obligation of government to its constituency. Police officers in the ranks do not formulate policy, per se, but they are clothed with authority to exercise an almost infinite variety of discretionary powers. The execution of the broad powers vested in them affects members of the public significantly and often in the most sensitive areas of daily life. Our Constitution, of course, provides safeguards to persons, homes and possessions, as well as guidance to police officers. And few countries, if any, provide more protection to individuals by limitations on the power and discretion of the police. Nonetheless, police may, in the exercise of their discretion, invade the privacy of an individual in public places, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). They may under some conditions break down a door to enter a dwelling or other building in the execution of a warrant, e. g., Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 (1958), or without a formal warrant in very limited circumstances; they may stop vehicles traveling on public highways, e. g., Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977).
An arrest, the function most commonly associated with the police, is a serious matter for any person even when no prosecution follows or when an acquittal is obtained. Most arrests are without prior judicial authority, as when an officer observes a criminal act in progress or suspects that felonious activity is afoot. Even the routine traffic arrests made by the state trooper — for speeding, weaving, reckless driving, improper license plates, absence of inspection stickers, or dangerous physical condition of a vehicle, to describe only a few of the more obvious common violations — can intrude on the privacy of the individual. In stopping cars, they may, within limits, require a driver or passengers to disembark and even search them for weapons, depending on time, place and circumstances. That this prophylactic authority is essential is attested by the number of police officers wounded or killed in the process of making inquiry in borderline, seemingly minor violation situations — for example, where the initial stop is made for a traffic offense but, unknown to the officer at the time, the vehicle occupants are armed and engaged in or embarked on serious criminal conduct.
Clearly the exercise of police authority calls for a very high degree of judgment and discretion, the abuse or misuse of which can have serious impact on individuals. The office of a policeman is in no sense one of “the common occupations of the community” that the then Mr. Justice Hughes referred to in Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 41 (1915). A policeman vested with the plenary discretionary powers we have described is not to be equated with a private person engaged in routine public employment or other “common occupations of the community” who exercises no broad power over people generally. Indeed, the rationale for the qualified immunity historically granted to the police rests on the difficult and delicate judgments these officers must often make. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 555-557 (1967); cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 245-246 (1974).
In short, it would be as anomalous to conclude that citizens may be subjected to the broad discretionary powers of non-citizen police officers as it would be to say that judicial officers and jurors with power to judge citizens can be aliens. It is not surprising, therefore, that most States expressly confine the employment of police officers to citizens, whom the State may reasonably presume to be more familiar with and sympathetic to American traditions. Police officers very clearly fall within the category of “important nonelective . . . officers who participate directly in the . . . execution ... of broad public policy.” Dougall, 413 U. S., at 647 (emphasis added). In the enforcement and execution of the laws the police function is one where citizenship bears a rational relationship to the special demands of the particular position. A State may, therefore, consonant with the Constitution, confine the performance of this important public responsibility to citizens of the United States.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
We recognize that New York’s statute may effectively prevent some class members from .ever becoming troopers since state law limits eligibility for these positions to those between the age of 21 and 29 years. N. Y. Exec. Law §215 (3) (McKinney 1972).
One indication of this attitude is Congress’ determination to malee it relatively easy for immigrants to become naturalized citizens. See 8 U. S. C. § 1427 (1976 ed.).
The alien’s status is, at least for a time, beyond his control since Congress has imposed durational residency requirements for the attainment of citizenship. Federal law generally requires an alien to lawfully reside in this country for five years as a prerequisite to applying for naturalization. 8 U. S. C. § 1427 (a) (1976 ed.).
In Mauclet, for example, New York State policy reflected a legislative judgment that higher education was “ ‘no longer ... a luxury; it is a necessity for strength, fulfillment and survival.’ ” 432 U. S., at 8 n. 9.
This is not to say, of course, that a State may accomplish this end with a citizenship restriction that "sweeps indiscriminately,” Dougall, 413 U. S., at 643, without regard to the differences in the positions involved.
See ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Urban Police Function 119 (App. Draft 1973); National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Police 22-23 (1973); President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 10 (1967).
After the event, some abuses of power may be subject to remedies by one showing injury. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). And conclusive evidence of criminal conduct may be kept from the knowledge of a jury because of police error or misconduct.
Twenty-four States besides New York specifically require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for becoming a member of a statewide law enforcement agency: see Ark. Stat. Ann. § 42-406 (1964); Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 1031 (West Supp. 1978); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 943.13 (2) (West Supp. 1976); Ga. Code § 92A-214 (Supp. 1977); 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 121, §307.9 (1975); Ind. Rules & Regs., Tit. 10, Art. 1, ch. 1, §4-7 (1976); Iowa Code § 80.15 (1977); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74r-2113 (c) (Supp. 1976); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 16.040 (2)(c) (1971); Mich. Comp. Laws §28.4 (1967); Miss. Code Ann. § 45-3-9 (Supp. 1977); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 43.060 (1969); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 31-105 (3) (a) (v) (Supp. 1977); Nev. Rev. Stat. §281.060 (1) (1975); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 106-R:20 (Supp. 1975); N. J. Stat. Ann. §53:1-9 (West Supp. 1977); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-6 (1972); N. D. Cent. Code § 39-03-04 (4) (Supp. 1977); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 181.260 (1) (a) (1977); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 71, § 1193 (Purdon 1962); R. I. Gen. Laws § 42-28-10 (1970); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. §3-7-9 and §3-1-4 (1974); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Am., Art. 4413 (9) (2) (Vernon 1976); Utah Code Ann. §27-11-11 (1976). Oklahoma requires its officers to be citizens of the State. See Okla. Stat., Tit. 47, § 2-105 (a) (Supp. 1976). Nine other States require American citizenship as part of a general requirement applicable to all types of state officers or employees: see Ala. Code, Tit. 36, § 2-1 (a) (1) (1977); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-201 (1974); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 78-1 (1976); Idaho Code § 59-101 (1976) and Idaho Const., Art. 6, § 2; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 5, § 556 (Supp. 1977); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 31, § 12 (West Supp. 1977); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 124.22 (1978); Tenn. Code Ann. §8-1801 (Supp. 1977); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 3, § 262 (1972); W. Va. Const., Art. 4, § 4.
Police powers in many countries are exercised in ways that we would find intolerable and indeed violative of constitutional rights. To taire only one example, a large number of nations do not share our belief in the freedom of movement and travel, requiring persons to carry identification cards at all times. This, inter alia, affords a rational basis for States to require that those entrusted with the execution of the laws be individuals who, even if not native Americans, have indicated acceptance and allegiance, to our Constitution by becoming citizens.
Cf. McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Comm’n, 424 U. S. 645 (1976); Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Detroit, 385 Mich. 519, 190 N. W. 2d 97 (1971), dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 405 U. S. 950 (1972).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 case was commenced by petitioners challenging the voluntary adoption by the Board of Education of the city of Chicago of racial quotas on enrollment at two high schools. Petitioners alleged that the quotas, purportedly designed to arrest “white flight,” were unlawful because they resulted in the denial of admission to those schools of some black applicants but no white applicants. The District Court upheld the plan, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 604 F. 2d 504 (CA7 1979). We granted certiorari, 448 U. S. 910 (1980), but then vacated the judgment and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of the subsequent development described in the suggestion of mootness filed by respondents.” 449 U. S. 915 (1980). That development was the entry of a consent decree in a related case, United States v. Board of Education of Chicago, No. 80-C-5124 (ND Ill.), in which the Board of Education agreed to develop a systemwide integration plan, and the Board’s announcement that it had abandoned use of the racial quotas at the two high schools. The Court of Appeals remanded to the District Court to consider the suggestion of mootness. 645 F. 2d 75 (1981). That court, finding that the Board had readopted the quotas, concluded without taking further evidence that the challenge was not moot. The Court of Appeals, agreeing that the case was not moot and relying upon the doctrine of the law of the case, affirmed without reconsidering the constitutional challenge to the racial quotas in light of the subsequent development that the Board argued eliminated or reduced any discriminatory effects of the quotas. 664 F. 2d 1069 (1981). Petitioners have now renewed their request for review.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the case is not moot and that the subsequent development does not undermine that court’s original decision upholding the racial quotas. However, since if we were to grant certiorari we would consider the constitutional challenge as an original matter, the subsequent development might well be relevant to that consideration. It was for that reason that we vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment for further consideration in light of the subsequent development. No additional evidence was taken and therefore neither the record nor the District Court or Court of Appeals opinions reflect the subsequent development. We therefore grant certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case with the direction that the matter be consolidated with the ongoing proceeding in the District Court in United States v. Board of Education of Chicago, No. 80-C-5124, so that court may decide petitioners’ challenge on the basis of a complete factual record. Because we have vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgments in this case, the doctrine of the law of the case does not constrain either the District Court or, should an appeal subsequently be taken, the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Justice Brennan would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for oral argument.
Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Silvia Safille Ibanez, a member of the Florida Bar since 1983, practices law in Winter Haven, Florida. She is also a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), licensed by respondent Florida Board of Accountancy (Board) to “practice public accounting.” In addition, she is authorized by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, a private organization, to use the trademarked designation “Certified Financial Planner” (CFP).
Ibanez referred to these credentials in her advertising and other communication with the public. She placed CPA and CFP next to her name in her yellow pages listing (under “Attorneys”) and on her business card. She also used those designations at the left side of her “Law .Offices” stationery. Notwithstanding the apparently truthful nature of her communication — it is undisputed that neither her CPA license nor her CFP certification has been revoked — the Board reprimanded her for engaging in “false, deceptive, and misleading” advertising. Final Order of the Board of Accountancy (May 12,1992) (hereinafter Final Order), App. 178, 194.
The record reveals that the Board has not shouldered the burden it must carry in matters of this order. It has not demonstrated with sufficient specificity that any member of the public could have been misled by Ibanez’ constitutionally protected speech or that any harm could have resulted from allowing that speech to reach the public’s eyes. We therefore hold that the Board’s decision censuring Ibanez is incompatible with First Amendment restraints on official action.
I
Under Florida’s Public Accountancy Act, only licensed CPA’s may “[a]ttest as an expert in accountancy to the reliability or fairness of presentation of financial information,” Fla. Stat. § 473.322(l)(c) (1991), or use the title “CPA” or other title “tending to indicate that such person holds an active license” under Florida law. § 473.322(l)(b). Furthermore, only licensed CPA’s may “[practice public accounting.” §473.322(l)(a). “Practicing public accounting” is defined as an “offe[r] to perform . . . one or more types of services involving the use of accounting skills, or... management advisory or consulting services,” Fla. Stat. §473.302(5) (Supp. 1992), made by one who either is, §473.302(5)(a), or “hold[s] himself... out as,” § 473.302(5)(b) (emphasis added), a certified public accountant.
The Board learned of Ibanez’ use of the designations CPA and CFP when a copy of Ibanez’ yellow pages listing was mailed, anonymously, to the Board’s offices; it thereupon commenced an investigation and, subsequently, issued a complaint against her. The Board charged Ibanez with (1) “practicing public accounting” in an unlicensed firm, in violation of §473.3101 of the Public Accountancy Act; (2) using a “specialty designation” — CFP—that had not been approved by the Board, in violation of Board Rule 24.001(l)(g), Fla. Admin. Code §61Hl-24.001(l)(g) (1994); and (3) appending the CPA designation after her name, thereby “implying] that she abides by the provisions of [the Public Accountancy Act],” in violation of Rule 24.001(l)’s ban on “fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading” advertising. Amended Administrative Complaint (filed June 30,1991), 1 Record 32-35.
At the ensuing disciplinary hearing, Ibanez argued that she was practicing law, not “public accounting,” and was therefore not subject to the Board’s regulatory jurisdiction. Response to Amended Administrative Complaint (filed Aug. 26, 1991), ¶ 25, id., at 108. Her use of the CPA and CFP designations, she argued further, constituted “nonmisleading, truthful, commercial speech” for which she could not be sanctioned. ¶ 24, ibid. Prior to the close of proceedings before the hearing officer, the Board dropped the charge that Ibanez was practicing public accounting in an unlicensed firm. Order on Reconsideration (filed Aug. 22,1991), ¶ 2, id., at 103-104. The hearing officer subsequently found in Ibanez’ favor on all counts, and recommended to the Board that, for want of the requisite proof, all charges against Ibanez be dismissed. Recommended Order (filed Jan. 15, 1992), App. 147.
The Board rejected the hearing officer’s recommendation, and declared Ibanez guilty of “false, deceptive and misleading” advertising. Final Order, id., at 194. The Board reasoned, first, that Ibanez was “practicing public accounting” by virtue of her use of the CPA designation and was thus subject to the Board’s disciplinary jurisdiction. Id., at 183. Because Ibanez had insisted that her law practice was outside the Board’s regulatory jurisdiction, she had, in the Board’s judgment, rendered her use of the CPA designation misleading:
“[Ibanez] advertises the fact that she is a CPA, while performing the same ‘accounting’ activities she performed when she worked for licensed CPA firms, but she does not concede that she is engaged in the practice of public accounting so as to bring herself within the jurisdiction of the Board of Accountancy for any negligence or errors [of which] she may be guilty when delivering her services to her clients.
“[Ibanez] is unwilling to acquiesce in the requirements of [the Public Accountancy Act] and [the Board’s rules] by complying with those requirements. She does not license her firm as a CPA firm; forego certain forms of remuneration denied to individuals who are practicing public accountancy; or limit the ownership of her firm to other CPAs.... [She] has, in effect, told the public that she is subject to the provisions of [the Public Accountancy Act] and the jurisdiction of the Board of Accountancy when she believes and acts as though she is not.” Id., at 184-185.
Next, the Board addressed Ibanez’ use of the CFP designation. On that matter, the Board stated that any designation using the term “certified” to refer to a certifying organization other than the Board itself (or an organization approved by the Board) “inherently mislead[s] the public into believing that state approval and recognition exists.” Id., at 193-194. Ibanez appealed to the District Court of Appeal, First District, which affirmed the Board’s final order per curiam without opinion. Id., at 196, judgt. order reported at 621 So. 2d 435 (1993). As a result, Ibanez had no right of review in the Florida Supreme Court. We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1067 (1994), and now reverse.
II
A
The Board correctly acknowledged that Ibanez’ use of the CPA and CFP designations was “commercial speech.” Final Order, App. 186. Because “disclosure of truthful, relevant information is more likely to make a positive contribution to decisionmaking than is concealment of such information,” Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm’n of Ill., 496 U. S. 91, 108 (1990), only false, deceptive, or misleading commercial speech may be banned. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 638 (1985), citing Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U. S. 1 (1979); see also In re R. M. J., 455 U. S. 191, 203 (1982) (“Truthful advertising related to lawful activities is entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. . . . Misleading advertising may be prohibited entirely.”).
Commercial speech that is not false, deceptive, or misleading can be restricted, but only if the State shows that the restriction directly and materially advances a substantial state interest in a manner no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 566 (1980); see also id., at 564 (regulation will not be sustained if it “provides only ineffective or remote support for the government’s purpose”); Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 767 (1993) (regulation must advance substantial state interest in a “direct and material way” and be in “reasonable proportion to the interests served”); In re R. M. J, 455 U. S., at 203 (State can regulate commercial speech if it shows that it has “a substantial interest” and that the interference with speech is “in proportion to the interest served”).
The State’s burden is not slight; the “free flow of commercial information is valuable enough to justify imposing on would-be regulators the costs of distinguishing the truthful from the false, the helpful from the misleading, and the harmless from the harmful.” Zauderer, 471 U. S., at 646. “[M]ere speculation or conjecture” will not suffice; rather the State “must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 770, 771; see also Zauderer, 471 U. S., at 648-649 (State’s “unsupported assertions” insufficient to justify prohibition on attorney advertising; “broad prophylactic rules may not be so lightly justified if the protections afforded commercial speech are to retain their force”). Measured against these standards, the order reprimanding Ibanez cannot stand.
B
We turn first to Ibanez’ use of the CPA designation in her commercial communications. On that matter, the Board’s position is entirely insubstantial. To reiterate, Ibanez holds a currently active CPA license which the Board has never sought to revoke. The Board asserts that her truthful communication is nonetheless misleading because it “[tells] the public that she is subject to the provisions of [the Accountancy Act] and the jurisdiction of the Board of Accountancy when she believes and acts as though she is not.” Final Order, App. 185; see also Brief for Respondent 20 (“[T]he use of the CPA designation . . . where the licensee is unwilling to comply with the provisions of the [statute] under which the license was granted, is inherently misleading and may be prohibited.”).
Ibanez no longer contests the Board’s assertion of jurisdiction, see Brief for Petitioner 28 (Ibanez “is, in fact, a licensee subject to the rules of the Board”), and in any event, what she “believes” regarding the reach of the Board’s authority is not sanctionable. See Baird v. State Bar of Ariz., 401 U. S. 1, 6 (1971) (First Amendment “prohibits a State from excluding a person from a profession or punishing him solely because ... he holds certain beliefs”). Nor can the Board rest on a bare assertion that Ibanez is “unwilling to comply” with its regulation. To survive constitutional review, the Board must build its case on specific evidence of noncompliance. Ibanez has neither been charged with, nor found guilty of, any professional activity or practice out of compliance with the governing statutory or regulatory standards. And as long as Ibanez holds an active CPA license from the Board we cannot imagine how consumers can be misled by her truthful representation to that effect.
C
The Board’s justifications for disciplining Ibanez for using the CFP designation are scarcely more persuasive. The Board concluded that the words used in the designation— particularly, the word “certified” — so closely resemble “the terms protected by state licensure itself, that their use, when not approved by the Board, inherently mislead[s] the public into believing that state approval and recognition exists.” Final Order, App. 193-194. This conclusion is difficult to maintain in light of Peel. We held in Peel that an attorney’s use of the designation “Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy” was neither actually nor inherently misleading. See 496 U. S., at 106 (rejecting contention that use of National Board of Trial Advocacy certification on attorney’s letterhead was “actually misleading”); id., at 110 (“State may not . . . completely ban statements that are not actually or inherently misleading, such as certification as a specialist by bona fide organizations such as NBTA”); id., at 111 (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (agreeing that attorney’s letterhead was “neither actually nor inherently misleading”). The Board offers nothing to support a different conclusion with respect to the CFP designation. Given “the complete absence of any evidence of deception,” id., at 106, the Board’s “concern about the possibility of deception in hypothetical cases is not sufficient to rebut the constitutional presumption favoring disclosure over concealment,” id., at 111.
The Board alternatively contends that Ibanez' use of the CFP designation is “potentially misleading,” entitling the Board to “enact measures short of a total ban to prevent deception or confusion.” Brief for Respondent 33, citing Peel, 496 U. S., at 116 (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). If the “protections afforded commercial speech are to retain their force,” Zauderer, 471 U. S., at 648-649, we cannot allow rote invocation of the words “potentially misleading” to supplant the Board’s burden to “demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 771.
The Board points to Rule 24.001(l)(j), Fla. Admin. Code § 61Hl-24.001(l)(j) (1994), which prohibits use of any “specialist” designation unless accompanied by a disclaimer, made “in the immediate proximity of the statement that implies formal recognition as a specialist”; the disclaimer must “stat[e] that the recognizing agency is not affiliated with or sanctioned by the state or federal government,” and it must set out the recognizing agency’s “requirements for recognition, including, but not limited to, educatio[n], experience^ and testing.” See Brief for Respondent 33-35. Given the state of this record — the failure of the Board to point to any harm that is potentially real, not purely hypothetical — we are satisfied that the Board’s action is unjustified. We express no opinion whether, in other situations or on a different record, the Board’s insistence on a disclaimer might serve as an appropriately tailored check against deception or confusion, rather than one imposing “unduly burdensome disclosure requirements [that] offend the First Amendment.” Zauderer, 471 U. S., at 651. This much is plain, however: The detail required in the disclaimer currently described by the Board effectively rules out notation ,of the “specialist” designation on a business card or letterhead, or in a yellow pages listing.
The concurring Justices, on whom the Board relies, did indeed find the “[NBTA] Certified Civil Trial Specialist” statement on a lawyer’s letterhead “potentially misleading,” but they stated no categorical rule applicable to all specialty designations. Thus, they recognized that “[t]he potential for misunderstanding might be less if the NBTA were a commonly recognized organization and the public had a general understanding of its requirements.” Peel, 496 U. S., at 115. In this regard, we stress again the failure of the Board to back up its alleged concern that the designation CFP would mislead rather than inform.
The Board never adverted to the prospect that the public potentially in need of a civil trial specialist, see Peel, supra, is wider, and perhaps less sophisticated, than the public with financial resources warranting the services of a planner. Noteworthy in this connection, “Certified Financial Planner” and “CFP” are well-established, protected federal trademarks that have been described as “the most recognized designation^] in the planning field.” Financial Planners: Report of Staff of United States Securities and Exchange Commission to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance 53 (1988), reprinted in Financial Planners and Investment Advisors, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., 78 (1988). Approximately 27,000 persons have qualified for the designation nationwide. Brief for Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 3. Over 50 accredited universities and colleges have established courses of study in financial planning approved by the CFP Board of Standards, and standards for licensure include satisfaction of certain core educational requirements, a passing score on a certification examination “similar in concept to the Bar or CPA examinations,” completion of a planning-related work experience requirement, agreement to abide by the CFP Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and an annual continuing education requirement. Id., at 10-15.
Ibanez, it bears emphasis, is engaged in the practice of law and so represents her offices to the public. Indeed, she performs work reserved for lawyers but nothing that only CPA’s may do. See supra, at 139, n. 3. It is therefore significant that her use of the designation CFP is considered in all respects appropriate by the Florida Bar. See Brief for Florida Bar as Amicus Curiae 9-10 (noting that Florida Bar, Rules of Professional Conduct, and particularly Rule 4-7.3, “specifically allo[w] Ibanez to disclose her CPA and CFP credentials [and] contemplate that Ibanez must provide this information to prospective clients (if relevant)”).
Beyond question, this case does not fall within the caveat noted in Peel covering certifications issued by organizations that “had made no inquiry into petitioner’s fitness,” or had “issued certificates indiscriminately for a price”; statements made in such certifications, “even if true, could be misleading.” 496 U. S., at 102. We have never sustained restrictions on constitutionally protected speech based on a record so bare as the one on which the Board relies here. See Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 771 (striking down Florida ban on CPA solicitation where Board “presents no studies that suggest personal solicitation . . . creates the dangers ... the Board claims to fear” nor even “anecdotal evidence .. . that validates the Board’s suppositions”); Zauderer, 471 U. S., at 648-649 (striking down restrictions on attorney advertising where “State’s arguments amount to little more than unsupported assertions” without “evidence or authority of any kind”). To approve the Board’s reprimand of Ibanez would be to risk toleration of commercial speech restraints “in the service of . . . objectives that could not themselves justify a burden on commercial expression.” Edenfield, 507 U. S., at 171.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Florida District Court of Appeal is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Board of Accountancy, created by the Florida Legislature, Fla. Stat. §473.303 (1991), is authorized to “adopt all rules necessary to administer” the Public Accountancy Act (chapter 473 of the Florida' Statutes). Fla. Stat. §473.304 (Supp. 1992). The Board is responsible for licensing CPA’s, see Fla. Stat. §473.308 (1991), and every licensee is subject to the governance of the Act and the rules adopted by the Board. Fla. Stat. §473.304 (Supp. 1992).
This “attest” function is more commonly referred to as “auditing.”
Florida’s Public Accountancy Act is known as a “Title Act” because, with the exception of the “attest” function, activities performed by CPA’s can lawfully be performed by non-CPA’s. See Brief for Respondent 11-12. The Act contains additional restrictions on the conduct of licensed CPA’s. For example, a partnership or corporation cannot “practice public accounting” unless all partners or shareholders are CPA’s, Fla. Stat. §473.309 (1991), nor may licensees “engaged in the practice of public accounting” pay or accept referral fees, §473.3205, or accept contingency fees, §473.319.
Florida Stat. §473.3101 (Supp. 1994) requires that “[e]ach partnership, corporation, or limited liability company seeking to engage in the practice of public accounting” apply for a license from the Board, and § 473.309 requires that each such partnership or corporation hold a current license.
Rule 24.001(1) states, in pertinent part, that “[n]o licensee shall disseminate ... any ... advertising which is in any way fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading, if it ... (g) [s]tates or implies that the licensee has received formal recognition as a specialist in any aspect of the practice of public accountancy unless ... [the] recognizing agency is approved by the Board.” Fla. Admin. Code §61H1-24.001(1) (1994). The CFP Board of Standards, the “recognizing agency” in regard to Ibanez’ CFP designation, has not been approved by the Board.
Ibanez pointed out that she does not perform the “attest” function in her law practice, and that no service she performs requires a CPA license. See supra, at 139, n. 3.
“It is well established that ‘[t]he party seeking to uphold a restriction on commercial speech carries the burden of justifying it.’ ” Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 770 (1993), quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 71, n. 20 (1983).
Notably, the Board itself withdrew the only charge against Ibanez of this kind, viz., the allegation that she practiced public accounting in an unlicensed firm. See supra, at 140.
Justice O’Connor writes that “[t]he average consumer has no way to verify the accuracy or value of [Ibanez’] use of the CFP designation” because her advertising, “[u]nlike the advertisement in Peel, ... did not identify the organization that had conferred the certification.” Post, at 150. We do not agree that the consumer of financial planning services is thus disarmed.
To verify Ibanez’ CFP credential, a consumer could call the CFP Board of Standards. The Board that reprimanded Ibanez never suggested that such a call would be significantly more difficult to make than one to the certifying organization in Peel, the National Board of Trial Advocacy. We note in this regard that the attorney’s letterhead in Peel supplied no address or telephone number for the certifying agency. Most instructive on this matter, we think, is the requirement of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Florida Bar, to which attorney Ibanez is subject, that she provide “written information setting forth the factual details of [her] experience, expertise, background, and training” to anyone who so inquires. See Florida Bar, Rule of Professional Conduct 4-7.3(a)(2).
The Board called only three witnesses at the proceeding against Ibanez, all of whom were employees or former employees of the Department of Professional Regulation. Neither the witnesses, nor the Board in its submissions to this Court, offered evidence that any member of the public has been misled by the use of the CFP designation. See Peel, 496 U. S., at 100-101 (noting that there was “no contention that any potential client or person was actually misled or deceived,” nor “any factual finding of actual deception or misunderstanding”).
Under the Board’s regulations, moreover, it appears that even a disclaimer of the kind described would not have saved Ibanez from censure. Rule 24.001(i) flatly bans “[s]tat[ing] a form of recognition by any entity other than the Board that uses the ter[m] ‘certified.’ ” Separate and distinct from that absolute prohibition, the regulations further proscribe “[s]tat[ing] or implfying] that the licensee has received formal recognition as a specialist in any aspect of the practice of public accounting, unless the statement contains” a copiously detailed disclaimer. Rule 24.001(j).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | F | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is similar to the question presented in Smith v. United States, ante, p. 147, on the corroboration of respondent’s extrajudicial statements concerning his “opening net worth.” The admissibility of these statements is not questioned.
Respondent, an operator of a legitimate coin-machine business, was tried and convicted on four counts charging him with willful attempts to evade and defeat his own and his wife’s income taxes for the years 1946 through 1949. The Government’s case rested primarily on a net worth, computation, which showed net worth increases and nondeductible expenditures of $62,993.47 for the prosecution period; during these same four years respondent declared only $16,775.14 income. It was stipulated that the computation was correct except as to the items "cash on hand” and “cash in bank.” Respondent’s bank balances were proved by introducing the bank records, and, with some minor adjustments, the Government’s net worth computation was amply verified in this respect. As to “cash on hand,” particularly the amount credited to the taxpayer as of the beginning of the prosecution period, respondent contends that the only evidence tending to substantiate the Government’s figures is the uncorroborated admissions of the accused. He argues that lacking independent evidence of the corpus delicti, the conviction cannot stand. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the judgment of conviction, observing that, absent a starting item such as cash on hand, “the remainder of the statement proves nothing.” 207 F. 2d 377. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. 347 Ü. S. 1008.
The Government credited the respondent with $500 cash on hand at the starting point. One of the Government agents testified that the $500 figure was an approximation based on respondent’s oral answer to a request that he estimate his year-end balances of cash on hand. According to the agent’s notes, respondent replied that he had “approximately $500.00 cash in his pocket. He believes that because it is his habit to carry about that much money in his pocket at all times.” It was admitted that the taxpayer might have had more than this amount on hand at certain times, since he had frequently made deposits in his bank accounts in sums of $1,000 and $2,000. It appears that the agent did not inquire into how much money respondent had in his safe or his business, as opposed to the funds in his pocket, maintaining that he was justified in treating the taxpayer’s statement regarding the $500 as covering his total cash on hand. Respondent contended that this figure failed to embrace a substantial sum in currency in his safe at the starting date. Both the Government and the respondent adduced a number of circumstances in support of their respective positions, and in interpreting the meaning of respondent’s statement the jury could readily have found the Government’s circumstantial proof more persuasive. In our view, it could have concluded from the evidence that respondent’s statement as to the $500 referred to his total cash on hand at the starting point.
Respondent also signed a written statement admitting to the same opening cash on hand. This document contained the over-all net worth computation relied on by the Government at the trial. The Government’s evidence tended to show that it had been signed by the respondent after the usual warning and after he and the agents had worked over the statement, item by item, for some eight hours. Though admitting that both he and his accountant had read the statement, the respondent sought to prove that he had not understood the net worth computation as a whole or the individual item of “cash on hand”; that before signing the statement he had asked his accountant whether it was correct, intending to rely on the latter’s judgment; and that the accountant, in giving defendant the go-ahead, had merely approved the method employed in compiling the statement without passing on the accuracy of the particular figures. Again it was for the jury to consider all these circumstances in determining the weight to be given the signed statement; we cannot say that the document should have been rejected as a matter of law.
But all these factors are relevant in determining whether the independent evidence provided adequate corroboration. As in Smith v. United States, the circumstances surrounding defendant's admissions cast some doubt on their reliability. The statements were made by a taxpayer anxious to cooperate with the Government in the hope of limiting civil liability and avoiding criminal prosecution. The oral statement, with its “in the pocket” terminology, is certainly not clear. And the Government’s own witness, the respondent’s accountant, testified that he had not verified the particular figures in the written statement when it was referred to him by respondent. Under these circumstances, the trial judge and reviewing courts should exercise great care in determining whether the statements of the accused were corroborated. The reviewing courts, however, can seek corroborative evidence in the proof of both parties where, as in this case, the defendant introduces evidence in his own behalf after his motion for acquittal has been overruled. Cf. Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U. S. 17.
Unlike Smith, there is not sufficient evidence here of the taxpayer’s financial history to substantiate directly the opening net worth. Proof that the taxpayer was impoverished by the depression, that he was working for his meals and $8 a week in 1935, is too remote, absent proof of the taxpayer’s financial circumstances in the intervening years. The respondent entered the coin-machine business in a modest way in 1935; he discon-turned his low-paying job in 1939; and, except for a short period during the war, he devoted his entire efforts to his coin-machine business until 1945, when he began to operate a café as well. The only evidence of defendant’s fortunes between 1935 and 1946, the first prosecution year, consists of his tax returns for 1944 and 1945 and some meager evidence with regard to his tax returns for 1941, 1942 and 1943. The latter apparently was obtained from the respondent, and, standing uncorroborated, cannot serve to corroborate respondent’s other admissions. The 1944 and 1945 returns show net taxable income of $4,162 and $7,328 respectively, with gross receipts from the coin machines of $9,266 and $10,302. This sketchy background can hardly give rise to an inference that defendant had no more cash at the starting date than the Government gave him credit for.
Accordingly, we must search for independent evidence which will tend to establish the crime directly, without resort to the net worth method. There are several evidentiary strands which merit inspection, the first of which is very similar to one employed in Smith. We held there that an inference of tax evasion could be based on the fact that the taxpayer’s visible assets greatly increased at a time when he was receiving unrecorded amounts of taxable income. In Smith v. United States, the taxpayer kept no records. Here the records were shown to be incomplete. Receipts from the coin machines were tabulated from a number of receipt books covering various locations. The receipt books were not numbered; the taxpayer was unsure of how many machines he had in operation; and there was considerable concern about receipt books being lost or misplaced. The loss of one receipt book would make a difference of from $1,000 to $1,500 in income. Eventually, on the advice of his accountant, respondent began to number the books. But, even after this safeguard was employed, unnumbered books continued to appear — and then disappear; two were lost, and subsequently recovered, in a period of three or four months. A system of recording receipts which rests on so unfirm a foundation hardly places the respondent in a very different class — for this purpose — than the taxpayer who keeps no books at all. Both are receiving unrecorded amounts of income.
The increase in respondent’s visible assets is considerably less than the increase presented in the Smith case. There the increment over a four-year period amounted to more than $196,000; the taxpayer’s declared income was less than $17,000; and his average personal living expenses were $3,500 a year. In this case, also over a four-year span, the figures are: increase in visible assets (excluding the cash item), $47,594; declared income, $16,775; living expenses, $3,000 yearly (plus some $1,900 in other nondeductible expenditures). The increase, though less than in Smith, is far from insubstantial. While reporting income only $4,775 in excess of his living expenses, the taxpayer increased his bank balances by over $16,000; added $1,000 to his holdings of United States Savings Bonds; increased his investments in land and buildings by over $9,000; and poured some $22,000 net additional capital into his business. These increments, when considered in the light of respondent’s receipt of unrecorded amounts of taxable income, are sufficiently at variance with his reported income to support an inference of tax evasion. The inference is buttressed in this case by the peculiar relation between the reported gains from respondent’s coin-machine búsiness and his investments in new equipment. In three of the four prosecution years the respondent reported a net loss on his coin-machine operation, and in the fourth a net gain of only $1,330. During the same period he made gross investments in new equipment totaling $37,555. The jury could readily find defendant’s investment policy inconsistent with his claimed losses. Furthermore, although respondent contends that the war years marked the peak of his business activity and that his apparent postwar increases came from profits accumulated during that period, it was not until 1947, the middle of the prosecution period, that his business became sufficiently large to require the full time of his accountant. We hold that the financial history of respondent and his business during the prosecution years provides sufficient independent evidence of the crime of tax evasion to corroborate his statements concerning cash on hand.
Even more conclusive corroboration, however, is respondent’s testimony at the trial that he had $16,000 or $17,000 cash on hand at the starting point. This conflicted with the statements being corroborated ($500) and respondent’s testimony at a prior trial ($2,000 to $9,000), but for the purpose of independently establishing the crime charged the jury could accept this testimony. Respondent further testified that he had $3,000 or $4,000 in cash at the end of the prosecution period. Taken together with the remainder of the net worth statement, which was stipulated or independently established, this testimony establishes a deficiency in reported income of more than $30,000. There could hardly be more conclusive independent evidence of the crime.
But one problem remains. The $17,000 hoard of cash could have absorbed the computed income deficiency for one or more of the prosecution years, and respondent was convicted on all four counts. It might be argued that independent evidence showing a $30,000 deficiency is not enough — that there must be evidence that this sum resulted in a deficiency for each of the years here in issue. There is no merit in this contention. In the first place, this evidence is merely corroborating respondent’s cash-on-hand admissions and need not comply with the niceties of the annual accounting concept. While the evidence as a whole must show a deficiency for each of the prosecution years, the corroborative evidence suffices if it shows a substantial deficiency for the over-all prosecution period. Independent evidence that respondent understated his income by $30,000 in the same four-year period for which respondent’s extrajudicial admissions tended to show a $46,000 deficiency is adequate corroboration. It provides substantial evidence that the crime or crimes of tax evasion have been committed'; the corroboration rule requires no more. Second, there is evidence in this case which tends to negate the possibility that the alleged $17,000 hoard could have absorbed the deficiency for any of the prosecution years. This money supposedly went toward the purchase of equipment in 1946 and early 1947. Almost $16,000 in equipment was purchased in 1946; this accounts for nearly all of the cash hoard and still leaves a deficiency in 1946 of over $5,000 in unreported income. The funds which remain are insufficient to absorb the income deficiencies of any subsequent prosecution years.
As we said, the circumstances surrounding respondent’s admissions create considerable doubt as to their reliability. We have therefore examined the independent evidence with great care to insure that the accused will not be convicted on the basis of a false admission alone. Although the evidence was insufficient to corroborate the opening net worth directly, we find the independent proof of tax evasion entirely adequate. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals setting aside the conviction is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
By introducing evidence, the defendant waives his objections to the denial of his motion to acquit. Lii v. United States, 198 F. 2d 109; Leeby v. United States, 192 F. 2d 331; Gaunt v. United States, 184 F. 2d 284; Mosca v. United States, 174 F. 2d 448; Hall v. United States, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 166, 168 F. 2d 161. His proof may lay the foundation for otherwise inadmissible evidence in the Government’s initial presentation,. Ladrey v. United States, 81 U. S. App. D. C. 127, 155 F. 2d 417, or provide corroboration for essential elements of the Government’s case, United States v. Goldstein, 168 F. 2d 666; Ercoli v. United States, 76 U. S. App. D. C. 360, 131 F. 2d 354.
It is not clear from the record whether this numbering began during or after the prosecution period. Compare R. 130-131 with R.177-178.
The Government’s net worth computation, based on $500 cash on hand at the outset and $1,971.50 on hand at the conclusion of the prosecution period, yields a four-year net worth increase (with expenditures) of $62,993 — $46,218 in excess of declared income. Eliminating the cash items from the net worth statement, the deficiency is reduced by $1,471 — to $44,747. If the defendant’s testimony is accepted, of $17,000 cash on hand at the beginning and $3,000 at the end, the deficiency must be reduced by another $14,000, leaving $30,747.
The computed deficiency for 1947 was $7,393, and for 1948, $3,284.
The computed deficiency for 1946 was $21,019.
See notes 3 and 4. The computed deficiency for 1949 was $14,523.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we consider whether § 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to avoid the fixing of a lien on a homestead, where the lien is granted to the debtor’s former spouse under a divorce decree that extinguishes all previous interests the parties had in the property, and in no event secures more than the value of the nondebtor spouse’s former interest. We hold that it does not.
i-H
Petitioner Jeanne Farrey and respondent Gerald Sander-foot were married on August 12, 1966. The couple eventually built a home on 27 acres of land in Hortonville, Wisconsin, where they raised their three children. On September 12, 1986, the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Outagamie County entered a bench decision granting a judgment of divorce and property division that resolved all contested issues and terminated the marriage. See Wis. Stat. §767.37(3) (1989-1990). A written decree followed on February 5, 1987.
The decision awarded each party one-half of their net $60,600.68 marital estate. This division reflected Wisconsin’s statutory presumption that the marital estate “be divided equally between the parties.” § 767.255. The decree granted Sanderfoot sole title to all the real estate and the family house, which was subject to a mortgage and which was valued at $104,000, and most of the personal property. For her share, Farrey received the remaining items' of personal property and the proceeds from a court-ordered auction of the furniture from the home. The judgment also allocated the couple’s liabilities. Under this preliminary calculation of assets and debts, Sanderfoot stood to receive a net award of $59,508.79, while Farrey’s award- would otherwise have been $1,091.90. To ensure that the division of the estate was equal, the court ordered Sanderfoot to pay Farrey $29,208.44, half the difference in the value of their net assets. Sanderfoot was to pay this amount in two installments: half by January 10, 1987, and the remaining half by April 10,' 1987. To secure this award, the decree provided that Farrey “shall have a lien against the real estate property of [Sanderfoot] for the total amount of money due her pursuant to this Ordér of the Court, i. e. $29,208.44, and the lien shall remain attached to the real estate property . . . until the total amount of money is paid in full.”. App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a.
Sanderfoot never made the required payments nor complied with any other order of the state court. Instead, on May 4j 1987, he voluntarily filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Sanderfoot listed' the marital home and real estate on the schedule, of assets with his bankruptcy petition and listed it as exempt homestead property. Exercising his option to invoke the state-rather than the federal homestead exemption, 11 U: S. C. § 522(b)(2)(A), Sanderfoot claimed the property as exempt “to the amount of $40,000” under Wis. Stat. §815.20 (1989-1990). He also filed a motion to avoid Farrey’s lien under the provision in dispute, 11 U. S. C. § 522(f)(1), claiming that Farrey possessed a judicial lien that impaired his homestead exemption. Farrey objected to the motion, claiming that § 522(f)(1) could not divest her of her interest in the marital home. The Bankruptcy Court denied Sanderfoot’s motion, holding that the lien could not be avoided because it protected Farrey’s pre-existing interest in the marital property. In re Sanderfoot, 83 B. R. 564 (ED Wis. 1988). The District Court reversed, concluding that the lien was avoidable because it “is fixed on an interest of the debtor in the property.” In re Sanderfoot, 92 B. R. 802 (ED Wis. 1988).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. In re Sanderfoot, 899 F. 2d 598 (CA7 1990). The court reasoned that the divorce proceeding dissolved any pre-existing interest Farrey had in the homestead and that her new interest, “created in the dissolution order and evidenced by her lien, attached to Mr. Sanderfoot’s interest in the property.” Id., at 602. Noting that the issue had caused a split among the Courts of Appeals, the court expressly relied on those decisions that it termed more “faithful to the plain language of section 522(f).” Ibid, (citing In re Pederson, 875 F. 2d 781 (CA9 1989); Maus v. Maus, 837 F. 2d 935 (CA10 1988); Boyd v. Robinson, 741 F. 2d 1112, 1115 (CA8 1984) (Ross, J., dissenting)).
Judge Posner, in dissent, argued that to avoid a lien under § 522(f), a debtor must have an interest in the property at the time the court places the lien on that interest. Judge Posner concluded that because the same decree that gave the entire property to Sanderfoot simultaneously created the lien in favor of Farrey, the lien did not attach to a pre-existing interest of the husband. The dissent’s conclusion followed the result, though not the rationale, of Boyd, supra, In re Borman, 886 F. 2d 273 (CA10 1989), and In re Donahtte, 862 F. 2d 259 (CA10 1988).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict of authority. 498 U. S. 980 (1990). We now reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand.
II
Section 522(f)(1) provides in relevant part:
“Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions, the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is—
“(1) a judicial lien . . . .”
The provision establishes several conditions for a lien to be avoided, only one of which is at issue. See In re Hart, 50 B. R. 956, 960 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Nev. 1985). Farrey does not challenge the Court of Appeals’ determination that her lien was a judicial lien, 899 F. 2d, at 603-605, nor do we address that question here. The Court of Appeals also determined that Farrey had waived any challenge as to whether Sander-foot was otherwise entitled to a homestead exemption under state law, id., at 603, and we agree. See Owen v. Owen, post, p. 305. The sole question presented in this case is whether § 522(f)(1) permits Sanderfoot to avoid the fixing of Farrey’s lien on the property interest that he obtained in the divorce decree.
The key portion of § 522(f) states that “the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest ... in property.” Sanderfoot, following several Courts of Appeals, suggests that this phrase means that a lien may be avoided so long as it is currently fixed on a debtor’s interest. Farrey, following Judge Posner’s lead, reads the text as permitting the avoidance of a lien only where the lien attached to the debtor’s interest at some point after the debtor obtained the interest.
We agree with Farrey. No one asserts that the two verbs underlying the provision possess anything other than their standard legal meaning: “avoid” meaning “annul” or “undo,” see Black’s Law Dictionary 136 (6th ed. 1990); H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, pp. 126-127 (1977), and “fix” meaning to “fasten a liability upon,” see Black’s Law Dictionary, supra, at 637. The statute does not say that the debtor may undo a lien on an interest in property. Rather, the statute expressly states that the debtor may avoid “the fixing” of a lien on the debtor’s interest in property. The gerund “fixing” refers to a temporal event. That event — the fastening of a liability— presupposes an object onto which the liability can fasten. The statute defines this pre-existing object as “an interest of the debtor in property.” Therefore, unless the debtor had the property interest to which the lien attached at some point before the lien attached to that interest, he or she cannot avoid the fixing of the lien under the terms of § 522(f)(1).
This reading fully comports with the provision’s purpose and history. See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 242 (1989). Congress enacted §522(f) with the broad purpose of protecting the debtor’s exempt property. See S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 77 (1978); H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 126-127. Ordinarily, liens and other secured interests survive bankruptcy. In particular, it was well settled when § 522(f) was enacted that valid liens obtained before bankruptcy could be enforced on exempt property, see Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U. S. 555, 582-583 (1935), including otherwise exempt homestead property, Long v. Bullard, 117 U. S. 617, 620-621 (1886). Congress generally preserved this principle when it comprehensively revised bankruptcy law with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2587, 11 U. S. C. § 522(c)(2)(A)(i). But Congress also revised the law to permit the debtor to avoid the fixing of some liens. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. §545 (statutory liens).
Section 522(f)(1), by its terms, extends this protection to cases involving the fixing of judicial liens onto exempt property. What specific legislative history exists suggests that a principal reason Congress singled out judicial liens was because they are a device commonly used by creditors to defeat the protection bankruptcy law accords exempt property against debts. As the House Report stated:
“The first right [§ 522(f)(1)] allows the debtor to undo the actions of creditors that bring legal action against the debtor shortly before bankruptcy. Bankruptcy exists to provide relief for an overburdened debtor. If a creditor beats the debtor into court, the debtor is nevertheless entitled to his exemptions.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 126-127.
One factor supporting the view that Congress intended § 522 (f)(1) to thwart a rush to the courthouse is Congress’ contemporaneous elimination of § 67a of the 1898 Bankruptcy Act, 30 Stat. 564. Prior to its repeal, § 67a invalidated any lien obtained on an exempt interest of an insolvent debtor within four months of the bankruptcy filing. The Bankruptcy Reform Act eliminated the insolvency and timing requirements. It is possible that Congress simply decided to leave exemptions exposed despite its longstanding policy against doing so. But given the legislative history’s express concern over protecting exemptions, it follows instead that § 522(f)(1) was intended as a new device to handle the old provision’s job by “giv[ing] the debtor certain rights not available under current law with respect to exempt property.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 126-127.
Conversely, the text, history, and purpose of § 522(f)(1) also indicate what the provision is not concerned with. It cannot be concerned with liens that fixed on an interest before the debtor acquired that interest. Neither party contends otherwise. Section 522(f)(1) does not state that any fixing of a lien may be avoided; instead, it permits avoidance of the “fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor.” If the fixing took place before the debtor acquired that interest, the “fixing” by definition was not on the debtor’s interest. Nor could the statute apply given its purpose of preventing a creditor from beating the debtor to the courthouse, since the debtor at no point possessed the interest without the judicial lien. There would be no fixing to avoid since the lien was already there. To permit lien avoidance in these circumstances, in fact, would be to allow judicial lienholders to be defrauded through the conveyance of an encumbered interest to a prospective debtor. See In re McCormick, 18 B. R. 911, 913-914 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Pa. 1982). For these reasons, it is settled that a debtor cannot use § 522(f)(1) to avoid a lien on an interest acquired after the lien attached. See, e. g., In re McCormick, supra; In re Stephens, 15 B. R. 485 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD NC.1981); In re Scott, 12 B. R. 613 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Okla. 1981). As before, the critical inquiry remains whether the debtor ever possessed the interest to which the lien fixed, before it fixed. If he or she did not, § 522(f)(1) does not permit the debtor to avoid the fixing of the lien on that interest.
III
We turn to the application of § 522(f)(1) to this case.
Whether Sanderfoot ever possessed an interest to which the lien fixed, before it fixed, is a question of state law. Farrey contends that prior to the divorce judgment, she and her husband held title to the real estate in joint tenancy, each possessing an undivided one-half interest. She further asserts that the divorce decree extinguished these previous interests. At the same time and in the same transaction, she concludes, the decree created new interests in place of the old: for Sanderfoot, ownership in fee simple of the house and real estate; for Farrey, various assets and a debt of $29,208.44 secured by a lien on the Sanderfoot’s new fee simple interest. Both in his briefs and at oral argument, Sanderfoot agreed on each point. Brief for Respondent 7-8; Tr. of Oral Arg. 39.
On the assumption that the parties characterize Wisconsin law correctly, Sanderfoot must lose. Under their view, the lien could not have fixed on Sanderfoot’s pre-existing undivided half interest because the divorce decree extinguished it. Instead, the only interest that the lien encumbers is debtor’s wholly new fee simple interest. The same decree that awarded Sanderfoot his fee simple interest simultaneously granted the lien to Farrey. As the judgment stated, he acquired the property “free and clear” of any claim “except as expressly provided in this [decree].” App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a. Sanderfoot took the interest and the lien together, as if he had purchased an already encumbered estate from a third party. Since Sanderfoot never possessed his new fee simple interest before the lien “fixed,” § 522(f)(1) is not available to void the lien.
The same result follows even if the divorce decree did not extinguish the couple’s pre-existing interests but instead merely reordered them. The parties’ current position notwithstanding, it may be that under Wisconsin law the divorce decree augmented Sanderfoot’s previous interest by adding to it Farrey’s prior interest. If the court in exchange sought to protect Farrey’s previous interest with a lien, § 522(f)(1) could be used to undo the encumbrance to the extent the lien fastened to any portion of Sanderfoot’s previous surviving interest. This follows because Sanderfoot would have possessed the interest to which that part of the lien fixed, before it fixed. But in this case, the divorce court did not purport to encumber any part of Sanderfoot’s previous interest even on the assumption that state law would deem that interest to have survived. The decree instead transferred Farrey’s previous interest to Sanderfoot and, again simultaneously, granted a lien equal to that interest minus the small amount of personal property she retained. Sanderfoot thus would still be unable to avoid the lien in this case since it fastened only to what had been Farrey’s pre-existing interest, and this interest Sanderfoot would never have possessed without the lien already having fixed.
The result, on either theory, accords with the provision’s main purpose. As noted, the legislative history suggests that Congress primarily intended § 522(f)(1) as a device to thwart creditors who, sensing an impending bankruptcy, rush to court to obtain a judgment to defeat the debtor’s exemptions. That is not what occurs in a divorce proceeding such as this. Farrey obtained the lien not to defeat Sanderfoot’s pre-existing interest in the homestead but to protect her own pre-existing interest in the homestead that was fully equal to that of her spouse. The divorce court awarded the lien to secure an obligation the court imposed on the husband in exchange for the court’s simultaneous award of the wife’s homestead interest to the husband. We agree with Judge Posner that to permit a debtor in these circumstances to use the Code to deprive a spouse of this protection would neither follow the language of the statute nor serve the main goal it was designed to address.
>
We hold that § 522(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code requires a debtor to have possessed an interest to which a lien attached, before it attached, to avoid the fixing of the lien on that interest. 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.
Section 815.20 provides in relevant part:
“Homestead exemption definition.
“(1) An exempt homestead as defined in s. 990.01(14) selected by a resident owner and occupied by him or her shall be exempt from execution, from the lien of every judgment and from liability for the debts of the owner to the amount of $40,000, except mortgages, laborers’, mechanics’ and purchase money liens and taxes and except as otherwise provided.. . . The exemption extends to the interest therein of the tenants in common, having a homestead thereon with the consent of the cotenants, and to any estate less than a fee.”
Farrey also objected to her former husband’s valuation of the home at $82,750 in his bankruptcy filings. Neither the Bankruptcy Court, the District Court, nor the Court of Appeals resolved this dispute on the merits.
Other provisions of the Code likewise indicate that Congress used the term “fixing” to refer to the timing of an event. Section 545(1), for example, provides:
“The trustee may avoid the fixing of a statutory lien on property of the debtor to the extent that such lien—
“(1) first becomes effective against the debtor—
“(A) when a case under this title concerning the debtor is commenced;
“(B) when an insolvency proceeding other than under this title concerning the debtor is commenced;
“(C) when a custodian is appointed or authorized to take or takes possession;
“(D) when the debtor become insolvent;
“(E) when the debtor’s financial condition fails to meet a specified standard; or
“(F) at the time of an execution against property of the debtor levied at the instance of an entity other than the holder of such statutory lien." 11 U. S. C. § 545(1) (emphasis added).
Justice Scalia does not join in this paragraph.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In its 19.48 revision of the Judicial Code, Congress provided that prisoners in custody under sentence of a fe'deral court may move the sentencing court ot “Vacate, set aside or correct any sentence subject to collateral attack. 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2255.
Respondent, confined, at the McNeil Island penitentiary in the Western District of Washington, invoked this new procedure by filing a motion to vacate his sentence and grant a new trial in the District Court for the Southern District of California. That court had imposed a sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment in 1947 for forging Government checks and related violations of federal law.
In his motion, respondent alleged that he did not enjoy the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed defendants in federal courts by the Sixth Amendment. Specifically,' he alleged that one Juanita Jackson, a principal witness against respondent at his trial and a defendant in a related case, was represented by the same lawyer as respondent. Respondent claims that he was not told of the dual representation and that Jhe had no way of discovering the conflict until after the trial was over. It appeared from court records that Juanita Jackson testified against respondent after entering a plea of guilty but before sentence. Since a conflict in the interests of his attorney might have prejudiced respondent under these circumstances, the sentencing court and the court below, one judge dissenting, found that the allegations of respondent’s motion warranted a hearing. Respondent’s motion requested the issuance of an order to secure his presence at such a hearing.
Eor three.days, the District Court received testimony in connection with the issues of fact raised by the motion. This proceeding was conducted without notice to respondent and without ordering the presence of respondent. On the basis of this ex parte investigation, the District Court found as a fact that respondent’s counsel had also-represented Juanita Jackson but that he “did so only with the knowledge and consent, and at the instance and request of [respondent]Pursuant to this finding, the District Court entered an order denying respondent’s motion to vacate his sentence and to grant a new trial.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the majority, acting sua sponte, raised questions as to the adequacy and constitutionality of Section 2255. The court addressed itself to the provision that an application for a writ, of habeas corpus “shall not be entertained” where the sentencing court has denied relief “unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Considering that the proceedings in the District Court were proper under the terms of Section 2255, the court below held, one judge dissenting, that the Section 2255 procedure could not be adequate or effective in this case and, in the alternative, that the Section, in precluding resort to,habeas corpus, amounted to an unconstitutional “suspension” of the writ of habeas corpus as to respondent.
On rehearing below, and again in this Court, the Government conceded that respondent’s motion raised factual issues which required respondent’s presence at a hearing. The Court of Appeals, however, refused^ either to affirm the denial of respondent’s motion or to accept the Government’s concession and remand the case for a hearing •with respondent present. Instead, it treated Section 2255 as a nullity and ordered respondent’s motion dismissed so that respondent might proceed by habeas corpus in the district of- his-confinement. 187 F. 2d 456.
We granted certiorari in this case, 341 IT. S. 930 (1951), to review the decision that Section 2255 must be considered a nullity, a holding that stands in conflict with cases decided in other circuits. We do not reconsider the concurrent findings of both courts below that respondent’s motion states grounds to support a collateral attack on his sentence and raises substantial issues of fact calling for an inquiry into their verity.
First. The need for Section 2255 is best revealed by a review of the practical problems that had arisen in the administration of the federal courts’ habeas corpus jurisdiction.
Power, to issue the writ of habeas corpus, “the most celebrated writ in the English law,” was granted to the federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 81-82. Since Congress had not defined the term “habeas corpus,” resort to the common law was necessary. Although the objective of the Great Writ long has been the liberation of those unlawfully imprisoned, at common law a judgment of conviction rendered by a court of general criminal jurisdiction was conclusive proof that confinement was legal. Such a judgment prevented issuance of the writ without more.
In 1867, Congress changed the common-law rule by extending the writ of habeas corpus to ‘Ml cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States,” and providing for inquiry into the facts of detention. 14 Stat. 385. In commenting on the 1867' Act this Court has said:
“The effect is to substitute for the bare legal review that seems to have been the limit of judicial authority under the common-law practice, and under the act of 31 Car. II, c. 2, a more searching investigation,. in. which the applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of the matter respecting the causes of his detention, and the court, upon determining. the actual facts, is to ‘dispose of the party as law and justice require.’
“... a prisoner in custody pursuant to the final judgment of a... court óf criminal jurisdiction may have a judicial inquiry in a court of the United. States into the very truth and substance of the causes of his detention, although it may become necessary to look behind and beyond the record of his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the jurisdiction of the... court to proceed to judgment against him...,”
Under the 1867 Act, United States District Courts have jurisdiction to determine whether a prisoner has been deprived of liberty in violation of constitutional rights, although the proceedings resulting in incarceration may be unassailable on the face of the record. Under that Act, a variety of allegations have been held to permit challenge of convictions on facts dehors the record.
One aftermath of these developments in the law has been a great increase in the number of applications for habeas corpus filed in the federal courts by state and federal prisoners. The annual volume- of applications had nearly tripled in the years preceding enactment of Section 2255. In addition to the problems raised by a large volume of applications for habeas corpus that are repetitious and patently frivolous, serious administrative problems developed in the consideration of applications which appear meritorious on their face. Often, such applications are found to be wholly lacking in merit when compared with the records of the sentencing court. But, since a hábeas corpus action must be brought in the district of confinement, those records are not readily available to the habeas corpus court.
Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275 (1941), illustrates a further practical problem presented when an application for habeas corpus alleges a meritorious claim not controverted by the records of the trial court. In the Northern District of California, Walker alleged that he had' been denied counsel and coerced into pleading guilty by the United States Attorney, his assistant and a deputy marshal in the Northern District of Texas. The District Court for the Northern District of California refused to grant the writ aftér receiving ex parte affidavits from the federal officers denying the allegations. This Court reversed, finding that Walker’s application raised material issues of fact and holding that the District Court must determine such issues by the taking of evidence, not by ex parte affidavits. Granting the need for such a hearing to resolve the factual issues, the required hearing had" to be.held in the habeas corpus court in California although the federal officers involved were stationed in Texas and the facts occurred in Texas.
These practical problems have been greatly aggravated by the fact that the few District Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction major federal penal institutions are located were required to handle an inordinate number of habeas corpus actions far from the scene of the facts, the homes of the witnesses and the records of the sentencing court solely because, of the fortuitous concentration of federal prisoners within the district.
Second. The Judicial Conference of the United States, addressing itself to the problems raised by the increased habeas corpus business in 1942, created a committee of federal judges “to study the entire subject of procedure on applications for habeas corpus in the federal courts.” At the next session of the Conference, the Committee on Habeas Corpus Procedure submitted its report. After extensive consideration, the Judicial Conference recommended adoption of two proposed bills, a “procedural bill” containing provisions designed to prevent abuse of the habeas corpus writ and a “jurisdictional bill,” Section 2 of which established a procedure whereby a federal prisoner might collaterally attack his conviction in the sentencing court. The Judicial Conference repeatedly reaffirmed its approval of this forerunner of Section 2255.
In 1944, the two bills approved by the Judicial Conference were submitted to the Congress on behalf of the Conference. In the letter of transmittal and accompanying memorandum, Section 2 of the “jurisdictional bill” was described as requiring prisoners convicted in federal courts to apply by motion in the sentencing court “instead of making application for habeas corpus in the district in which they are confined.” At the reqúest of the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, a “Statement” describing the necessity and purposes of the bills was submitted to Congress on behalf of the Judicial Conference Committee on Habeas Corpus Procedure. In this Statement, Congress was furnished statistics showing in detail the increased volume of applications for habeas corpus. The Statement, stressing the practical difficulties encountered in hearings held in the district of confinement rather than the district of sentence, described.Section 2 of the “jurisdictional bill” as follows:
“This section applies only to Federal sentences. It creates a statutory remedy consisting of a motion before the court where the movant has been convicted. The remedy.is in the nature of, but much broader than, coram nobis. The motion remedy broadly covers all situations where the sentence is ‘open to collateral attack.’ As a remedy, it is intended to be as broad as habeas corpus.”
While the bills proposed by the Judicial Conference were pending, the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives had drafted a bill revising the entire Judicial Code. Portions of this bill dealing with habeas corpus were drafted to conform with the bills approved by the Judicial Conference, including Section 2255, modeled after Section 2 of the “jurisdictional bill” approved by the Judicial Conference. According to the Reviser’s Note on Section 2255:
“This section restates, clarifies and simplifies the • procedure in the nature of the ancient writ of error coram nobis. It provides an expeditious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences without resort to habeas corpus. It has the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Its principal provisions are incorporated in H. R. 4233, Seventy-ninth Congress [the so-called, jurisdictional bill].”
After the House of Representatives had passed the bill revising the Judicial Code, the Judicial Conference reconsidered the two bills drafted by its Committee on Habeas Corpus Procedure. The Conference noted the importance of securing legislation along the lines.of its proposals, approved the habeas corpus chapter of the Judicial Code revision bill with two amendments not affecting Section 2255 and directed that Congress be informed of the interest of the Conference in the enactment of the habeas corpus provisions of the revised Judicial Code.
This review of the history of Section 2255 shows that it was passed at the instance of the Judicial Conference to meet practical difficulties that had arisen in administering the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the federal courts. Nowhere in the history of Section 2255 do we find any purpose to impinge upon prisoners’ rights of collateral attack upon their convictions. On the contrary, the sole purpose was to minimize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hearings by affording the same rights in another and more convenient forum.
Third. The crucial issue of fact presented by respondent’s motion under Section 2255 was whether his attorney appeared as counsel for Juanita Jackson “with' the knowledge and consent” of respondent. The Court of Appeals found, and the Government now agrees, that respondent’s presence at a hearing on this issue is required if the Section 2255 procedure is to be adequate and effective in this case. In holding that Section 2255 should be treated as a nullity in this case, the court below found that the Section contemplated and permitted the ex parte investigation conducted by the District Court without notice to respondent and without respondent’s presence.
We do not find in Section 2255 the disturbing inadequacies found by the court below. The issues raised by respondent’s motion were not determined by the “files and records” in the trial court. In such circumstances, Section 2255 requires that the trial court act on the motion as follows: “... cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.” (Emphasis' supplied.) -In requiring a “hearing,” the Section “has obvious reference to the tradition of judicial proceedings.” Respondent, denied an opportunity to be heard, “has lost something indispensable, however convincing the ex parte showing.” We conclude that the District Court did not proceed in conformity with Section 2255 when it made findings on controverted issues of fact relating to respondent’s own knowledge without notice to respondent and without his being present.
The court below also held that the sentencing court could not hold the required hearing because it was without power to order the presence of a prisoner confined in another district. This want of power was thought to follow from our decision in Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188 (1948), where we held that the phrase “within their respective jurisdictions” in the habeas corpus statute required the presence of the prisoner within-the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court as a prerequisite to his filing an application for habeas corpus. This is not a habeas corpus proceeding. The sentencing court in the Southern District of California would not be issuing an original writ of habeas corpus to secure respondent’s presence from another district. Issuance of an order to produce the prisoner is auxiliary to the jurisdiction of the trial court over respondent granted in Section 2255 itself and invoked by.respondent’s filing of amotion under that Section.
The very purpose of Section 2255 is to hold any required hearing in the sentencing court because of the inconvenience of transporting court officials and other necessary witnesses to. the district of confinement. The District Court is not impotent to accomplish this purpose, at least so long as it may invoke the statutory authority of federal courts to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” An order to. secure respondent’s présence in the sentencing court to testify or otherwise prosecute his motion is “necessary or appropriate” to the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 2255 and finds 'ample precedent in the common law. The express language of Section 2255 that a “court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner, at the hearing” negatives any purpose to leave the sentencing court powerless to require production of the prisoner in an appropriate case. Other federal courts conducting Section 2255 proceedings have not encountered difficulties in securing the presence of prisoners confined outside the district.
The existence of power to produce the prisoner does not, of course, mean that he should be automatically produced in every Section 2255 proceeding. This is in accord with procedure in habeas corpus actions. Unlike the. criminal trial where the guilt of the defendant is in issue and his presence is required by the Sixth Amendment, a proceeding under Section 2255 is an independent and collateral inquiry into the validity of the conviction. Whether the prisoner should be produced depends upon the issues raised by the particular case.. Where, as here, there are substantial issues of fact as to events in which the prisoner participated, the trial court should require his production for a hearing.
Fourth. Nothing has been shown to warrant our holding at this stage of the proceeding that the Section 2255 procedure will be “inadequate or ineffective” if respondent is present for a hearing in the District Court on remand of this case. In a case where the Section 2255 procedure is shown to be “inadequate or ineffective,” the Section provides that the habeas corpus remedy shall remain open to afford the necessary hearing. Under such circumstances, we do not reach constitutional questions; This Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress where the question is properly presented unless such adjudication is unavoidable, much less anticipate constitutional questions.
We conclude that the District Court erred in determining the factual issues raised by respondent’s motion under Section 2255 without notice to respondent and without his presence. We hold that the required hearing can be afforded respondent under the procedure established in Section 2255. The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the order of the District Court but should have remanded the case for a hearing under Section 2255 instead of ordering that respondent’s motion be dismissed. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas concur in the result.
Mr. Justice Minton topk no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established - by Act ofJCongress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to. impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
“A motion for such relief may be made at any time.
“Unless the motion and the files and records of the casé conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall catlse notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or re-sentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
“A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.
“The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisbner.
“An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the order entered on the motion as from a 'final judgment on application for a writ of habeas corpus.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears.that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
Respondent is now confined at Alcatraz in the Northern District of California.
The judgment of. conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 163 F. 2d 1018 (1947)
The appeal was timely. Appeals from orders denying motions under Section 2255 are governed by the civil rules applicable to appeals from final judgments in habeas corpus actions. See Mercado v. United States, 183 F. 2d 486 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1950).
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not -be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2.
Martin v. Hiatt, 174 F. 2d 350 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1949), and Barrett v. Hunter, 180 F. 2d 510 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1950), have held expressly that Section 2255 is constitutional. Habeas corpus was also denied on the basis of Section 2255 in the following cases in other circuits without any'suggestion that the Section was invalid: Smith v. Reid, 89 U. S. App. D. C. —, 191 F. 2d 491 (C. A. D. C. Cir. 1951); Meyers v. Welch, 179 F. 2d 707 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1950); Weber v. Steele, 185 F. 2d 799 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1950). And in the following cases, other, circuits remanded Section 2255 proceedings for hearing without suggesting that the Section was unconstitutional or inadequate: United States v. Paglia, 190 F. 2d 445 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1951); Howard v. United States, 186 F. 2d 778 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1951); United States v. Von Willer, 181 F. 2d 774 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1950).
3 Blackstone’s Commentaries 129. The ancient qrigins of habeas corpus am traced in 9 Holdsworth, History of English Law (1926), 108-125; Jenks, The Story of Habeas Corpus, 18 L. Q. Rev. 64 (1902); Longsdorf, Habeas Corpus: A Protean Writ and Remedy, 8 F. R. D. 179 (1948).
Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 93-94 (1807).
Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193 (1830).
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 466 (1938) (federal prisoner); Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 330-331 (1915) (state prisoner).
Now incorporated in 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2241 et seq.
Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1923) (mob domination of trial); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103 (1935) (knowing use of perjured testimony by prosecution); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938) (no intelligent waiver of counsel in federal court); Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101 (1942) (coerced plea of guilty); United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 320 U. S. 220 (1943) (no. intelligent waiver of jury trial in federal court); House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42 (1945) (denial of right to consult with counsel).
During 1936 and 1937, an annual average of 310 applications for habeas corpus were filed in the District Courts and an arfnual average - of 22 prisoners were released. By 1943, 1944 and 1945, however, the annual average of filings reached 845, although an average of only 26 prisoners were released per year. Figures from tables submitted to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. See pp. 215-216, infra.
These figures do not include the District Court for the District of Columbia where a similar increase in the volume of applications for habeas corpus had been reported. See Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U. S. App. D. C. 9, 14, 148 F. 2d 857, 862 (C. A. D. C. Cir. 1945).
In several districts, up to.40%' of all applications for habeas corpus filed during the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 were so-called repeater petitions. Speck, Statistics on Federal Habeas Corpus, 10 Ohio St. L. J. 337, 352 (1949). See also Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266 (1948); Dorsey v. Gill, note 13, supra; Goodman, Use and Abuse of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, 7 F. R. D. 313 (1947).
Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188 (1948).
Nor can the factual issues be heard before; a commissioner. Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U. S. 342 (1941).
It.was to meet this problem that the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure proposed that a motion for new trial on the ground' that a defendant has been deprived of a constitutional right might be made at any time after judgment. Report of the Advisory Committee (1944) Rule 35. This proposal 'was not included in the Rules as finally promulgated. See Dession, The New Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: II, 56 Yale L. J. 197, 233 (1947).
Of all habeas corpus applications filed by federal prisoners, 63% were filed in but five of the eighty-four District Courts. And, although habeas corpus trials average only 3% of all trials in all districts, the proportion of habeas corpus trials in those five districts has run from 20% to as high as 65% of all trials conducted in the district.
The basic data, compiled by Speck, note 14, supra, covers- the six years immediately preceding enactment of -Section 2255 in 1948. Again, tlie figures do not include the District Court for the District of Columbia. The five districts are: Northern California (Alcatraz); Northern Georgia (Atlanta); Kansas (Leavenworth); Western Washington (McNeil Is.); and Western Missouri (Springfield Medical Center).
The Judicial Conference of the United States, established by Congress in 1922, 42 Stat. 838, is a conference of the chief judges of the judicial circuits and The Chief Justice of the United States. It is the function of the Judicial Conference to make a comprehensive survey of the condition of business in the courts of the United States. Its proceedings, together with its recommendations for legislation, are submitted to Congress. 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 331.
Report of the Judicial Conference (1942) 18.
Report of the Judicial Conference (1943) 22-24.
Report of the Judicial Conference (1944) 22; id. (1945) 18.
Letter of transmittal, dated March 2, 1944. The complete description of Section 2 of the jurisdictional bill in the memorandum is as follows:
“Section tw'o of the jurisdictional bill refers to prisoners who have been convicted in a federal court, and requires them, instead of making application for habeas corpus in the district in which they are confined, to apply, by motion.to the trial court to vacate or set aside' the judgment. That court is then required to grant a prompt hearing and render its decision on the motion, from which an appeal lies to the circuit court of appeals. If it appears that it is not practicable for the prisoner to have his motion determined in the trial court because of his inability to be present at the hearing, ‘or for other reasons,’■ then he has the right to make application to the court in the district where he is confined. Such an instance might occur where a dangerous prisoner, who bad been convicted in the Southern District of New York, was confined in Alcatraz Penitentiary. The bill expressly provides that no circuit or district judge of the United States shall entertain an application for a writ in behalf of any prisoner unless it appears that his right to discharge cannot be determined by-motion made in the trial court.”
As submitted to Congress, Section.2 of the jurisdictional bill provided:
“No circuit or district judge of the United States shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of any prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to the provisions of this section, unless it appears that it has not been or will not.be practicable to determine his rights to discharge from custody on such a motion because of his inability to be present at the hearing on such motion, or for other reasons. Where the prisoner has sought relief on such a motion, if the circuit or district judge concludes that it has not been practicable to determine the prisoner’s rights on such motion, the findings, order, or judgment on the motion shall not be asserted as a defense to the prisoner’s application for relief on habeas corpus.”
H. R. 4232 and S. 1452, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. (procedural bill); H. R. 4233 and S. 1451, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. (jurisdictional bill) were introduced in 1945, but no action was taken by Congress.
H. R. 6723, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., introduced as a substitute for the jurisdictional bill, would have placed a time limit within which motion to vacate sentences could be filed by federal prisoners. The substitute bill was considered by the Judicial Conference, and ordered circulated among the federal judges. Report of the Judicial Conference (1946) 21. No action was taken by Congress on this substitute bill.
This statistical data is summarized in note 13, supra.
The Statement, prepared by Circuit Judge Stone and approved by Chief Justice Stone, described the practical considerations as follows:
“Most habeas corpus cases raise fact issues involving the trial occurrences, or the alleged actions of judges, United States attorneys, marshals or other court officials. Obviously, it involves interruption of judicial duties if the trial judge, the United States attorney, the court clerk or the marshal (one or all of them) are required to attend the habeas corpus hearing as witnesses. Such attendance is sometimes necessary to refute particular testimony which the prisoner may give and, obviously, such attendance is the safest course. This is so because experience has demonstrated that often petitioner will testify to anything he may think useful, however false; and, without the witnesses present to refute such, he is encouraged to do so and may make out a case for discharge from merited punishment. Some realization of the possible extent of this burden on Court officials may be gained from the bare statement that, while convictions occur in all of the Districts throughout the country, federal prisoners are confined in a very small number of penal institutions; and habeas corpus must now be brought in the District where the petitioner is confined. Even if the testimony of these officials is taken by deposition, the interference and interruption is merely lessened in degree and the above danger is risked.
“The main disadvantages of the motion remedy are as follows: The risk during or the expense of transporting the prisoner to the District where he was convicted; and the incentive to file baseless motions in order to have a ‘joy ride’ away from the prison at Government expense.
“Balancing these, as well as less important, considerations, the Conference is of opinion that the advantages outweigh and that the motion remedy is preferable. As to the risk (escape or delivery) while transporting the. prisoner to the District of conviction,' the difference is only one of degree — of distance and, therefore, of opportunity. As to the expense, it is highly probable that it would be more expensive for the Government witnesses to go from the District where sentence was imposed' and return than for the prisoner to be brought to such District and returned. As to the incentive to file petitions, the difference is between a longer and a shorter trip to the Court. It is thought that the provision in Section 2 providing for habeas corpus (in the District of confinement) where it is not ‘practicable to determine his rights'... on such a motion’ will furnish a sufficient discretion in the judge or court before whom habeas corpus is filed to evaluate and defeat the' above ‘disadvantages’ to a large degree.” P.8.
H. R. Rep. No. 2646, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946) 7.
H. R. Rep. No. 2646, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946) A172; H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947) A180.
Report of the Judicial Conference (1947) 17-18. See S. Rep. No, 1559, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948) 8-10.
Parker, Limiting the Abuse of Habeas Corpus, 8 F. R. D. 171, 175 (1948). Judge Parker served as Chairman of the Judicial Conference' Committee on Habeas Corpus Procedure.
See Morgan v. United States, 298 U. S. 468; 480 (1936).
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 116 (1934).
28 U. S. C. § 462 (now 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2241).
28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1651 (a).
See Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 272-273 (1942).
In determining what auxiliary writs are. “agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” we look first to the common law. See Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 281 (1948). In addition to “the great and efficacious writ,” habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, other varieties of the writ were known to the common law. Blackstone described the writs of habeas corpus “ad prosequendum, testificandum, deliberandum, etc.; which issue when it is necessary to remove a prisoner, in order to prosecute or bear testimony in any court, or to be tried in the proper jurisdiction wherein the fact was committed.” 3 Blackstone’s Commentaries 129-130. See Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 97-98 (1807).
It is argued that the relererice to the common law writ of error coram nobis in the Reviser’s Note on Section 2255 shows an intention to adopt an ex parte investigation in lieu of a héaringjri the usual sense. Congress did not adopt the coram nobis-, procedure as it existed at common law, the Reviser’s Note ¡merely Stating that the Section 2255 motion was “in the nature of" the-coram nobis- writ in the sense that a Section 2255 proceeding,- like, coram nobis, is an independent action brought in the court that entered judgment; Note 27, supra. Further, it by no means follows that an issue of fact could be determined in a coram nobis proceeding without the presence of the prisoner, the New York Court of Appeals recently holding that his presence was required under the common law. People v. Richetti, 302 N. Y. 290, 297-298, 97 N. E. 2d 908, 911-912 (1951).
Among
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, in which the Court of Appeals refused to enforce a cease-and-desist order of the National Labor Relations Board, grew out of a “jurisdictional dispute” over work assignments between the respondent union, composed of television “technicians,” and another union, composed of “stage employees.” Both of these unions had collective bargaining agreements in force with the Columbia Broadcasting System and the respondent union was the certified bargaining agent for its members, but neither the certification nor the agreements clearly apportioned between the employees represented by the two unions the work of providing electric lighting for television shows. This led to constant disputes, extending over a number of years, as to the proper assignment of this work, disputes that were particularly acrimonious with reference to “remote lighting,” that is, lighting for telecasts away from the home studio. Each union repeatedly urged Columbia to amend its bargaining agreement so as specifically to allocate remote lighting to its members rather than to members of the other union. But, as the Board found, Columbia refused to make such an agreement with either union because “the rival locals had failed to agree on the resolution of this jurisdictional dispute over remote lighting.” Thus feeling itself caught “between the devil and the deep blue/’ Columbia chose to divide the disputed work between the two unions according to criteria improvised apparently for the sole purpose of maintaining peace between the two. But, in trying to satisfy both of the unions, Columbia has apparently not succeeded in satisfying either. During recent years, it has been forced to contend with work stoppages by each of the two unions when a particular assignment was made in favor of the other.
The precise occasion for the present controversy was the decision of Columbia to assign the lighting work for a major telecast from the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City to the stage employees. When the technicians’ protest of this assignment proved unavailing, they refused to operate the cameras for the program and thus forced its cancellation. This caused Columbia to file the unfair labor practice charge which started these proceedings, claiming a violation of § 8 (b) (4) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act. That section clearly makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor union to induce a strike or a concerted refusal to work in order to compel an employer to assign particular work to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by another union, unless the employer’s assignment is in violation of “an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work . ...” Obviously, if § 8 (b) (4) (D) stood alone, what this union did in the absence of a Board order or certification entitling its members to be assigned to these particular jobs would be enough to support a finding of an unfair labor practice in a normal proceeding under § 10 (c) of the Act. But when Congress created this new type of unfair labor practice by enacting § 8 (b) (4) (D) as part of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, it also added § 10 (k) to the Act. Section 10 (k), set out below, quite plainly emphasizes the belief of Congress that it is more important to industrial peace that jurisdictional disputes be settled permanently than it is that unfair labor practice sanctions for jurisdictional strikes be imposed upon unions. Accordingly, § 10 (k) offers strong inducements to quarrelling unions to settle their differences by directing dismissal of unfair labor practice charges upon voluntary adjustment of jurisdictional disputes. And even where no voluntary adj ustment is made, “the Board is empowered and directed,” by § 10 (k), “to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen,” and upon compliance by the disputants with the Board’s decision the unfair labor practice charges must be dismissed.
In this case respondent failed to reach a voluntary agreement with the stage employees union so the Board held the § 10 (k) hearing as required to “determine the dispute.” The result of this hearing was a decision that the respondent union was not entitled to have the work assigned to its members because it had no right to it under either an outstanding Board order or certification, as provided in §8 (b)(4)(D), or a collective bargaining agreement. The Board refused to consider other criteria, such as the employer’s prior practices and the custom of the industry, and also refused to make an affirmative award of the work between the employees represented by the two competing unions. The respondent union refused to comply with this decision, contending that the Board’s conception of its duty to “determine the dispute” was too narrow in that this duty is not at all limited, as the Board would have it, to strictly legal considerations growing out of prior Board orders, certifications or collective bargaining agreements. It urged, instead, that the Board’s duty was to make a final determination, binding on both unions, as to which of the two unions’ members were entitled to do the remote lighting work, basing its determination on factors deemed important in arbitration proceedings, such as the nature of the work, the practices and customs of this and other companies and of these and other unions, and upon other factors deemed relevant by the Board in the light of its experience in the field of labor relations. On the basis of its decision in the § 10 (k) proceeding and the union’s challenge to the validity of that decision, the Board issued an order under § 10 (c) directing the union to cease and desist from striking to compel Columbia to assign remote lighting work to its members. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to enforce the cease-and-desist order, accepting the respondent’s contention that the Board had failed to make the kind of determination that § 10 (k) requires. The Third and Seventh Circuits have construed § 10 (k) the same way, while the Fifth Circuit has agreed with the Board’s narrower conception of its duties. Because of this conflict and the importance of this problem, we granted certiorari.
We agree with the Second, Third and Seventh Circuits that § 10 (k) requires the Board to decide jurisdictional disputes on their merits and conclude that in this case that requirement means that the Board should affirmatively have decided whether the technicians or the stage employees were entitled to the disputed work. The language of § 10 (k), supplementing §8 (b)(4)(D) as it does, sets up a method adopted by Congress to try to get jurisdictional disputes settled. The words “hear and determine the dispute” convey not only the idea of hearing but also the idea of deciding a controversy. And the clause “the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen” can have no other meaning except a jurisdictional dispute under § 8 (b) (4) (D) which is a dispute between two or more groups of employees over which is entitled to do certain work for an employer. To determine or settle the dispute as between them would normally require a decision that one or the other is entitled to do the work in dispute. Any decision short of that would obviously not be conducive to quieting a quarrel between two groups which, here as in most instances, is of so little interest to the employer that he seems perfectly willing to assign work to either if the other will just let him alone. This language also indicates a congressional purpose to have the Board do something more than merely look at prior Board orders and certifications or a collective bargaining contract to determine whether one or the other union has a clearly defined statutory or contractual right to have the employees it represents perform certain work tasks. For, in the vast majority of cases, such a narrow determination would leave the broader problem of work assignments in the hands of the employer, exactly where it was before the enactment of § 10 (k) — with the same old basic jurisdictional dispute likely continuing to vex him, and the rival unions, short of striking, would still be free to adopt other forms of pressure upon the employer. The § 10 (k) hearing would therefore accomplish little but a restoration of the pre-existing situation, a situation already found intolerable by Congress and by all parties concerned. If this newly granted Board power to hear and determine jurisdictional disputes had meant no more than that, Congress certainly would have achieved very little to solve the knotty problem of wasteful work stoppages due to such disputes.
This conclusion reached on the basis of the language of § 10 (k) and § 8 (b) (4) (D) is reinforced by reference to the history of those provisions. Prior to the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act, labor, business and the public in general had for a long time joined in hopeful efforts to escape the disruptive consequences of jurisdictional disputes and resulting work stoppages. To this end unions had established union tribunals, employers had established employer tribunals, and both had set up joint tribunals to arbitrate such disputes. Each of these efforts had .helped some but none had achieved complete success. The result was a continuing and widely expressed dissatisfaction with jurisdictional strikes. As one of the forerunners to these very provisions of the Act, President Truman told the Congress in 1947 that disputes “involving the question of which labor union is entitled to perform a particular task” should be settled, and that if the “rival unions are unable to settle such disputes themselves, provision must be made for peaceful and binding determination of the issues.” And the House Committee report on one of the proposals out of which these sections came recognized the necessity of enacting legislation to protect employers from being “the helpless victims of quarrels that do not concern them at all.”
The Taft-Hartley Act as originally offered contained only a section making jurisdictional strikes an unfair labor practice. Section 10 (k) came into the measure as the result of an amendment offered by Senator Morse which, in its original form, proposed to supplement this blanket proscription by empowering and directing the Board either “to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen or to appoint an arbitrator to hear and determine such dispute . . . .” That the purpose of this amendment was to set up machinery by which the underlying jurisdictional dispute would be settled is clear and, indeed, even the Board concedes this much. The authority to appoint an arbitrator passed the Senate but was eliminated in conference, leaving it to the Board alone “to hear and determine” the underlying jurisdictional dispute. The Board’s position is that this change can be interpreted as an indication that Congress decided against providing for the compulsory determination of jurisdictional disputes. We find this argument unpersuasive, to say the very least. The obvious effect of this change was simply to place the responsibility for compulsory determination of the dispute entirely on the Board, not to eliminate the requirement that there be such a compulsory determination. The Board’s view of its powers thus has no more support in the history of § 10 (k) than it has in the language of that section. Both show that the section was designed to provide precisely what the Board has disclaimed the power to provide^ — an effective compulsory method of getting rid of what were deemed to be the bad consequences of jurisdictional disputes.
The Board contends, however, that this interpretation of § 10 (k) should be rejected, despite the language and history of that section. In support of this contention, it first points out that § 10 (k) sets forth no standards to guide it in determining jurisdictional disputes on their merits. From this fact, the Board argues that §. 8(b)(4)(D) makes the employer’s assignment decisive unless he is at the time acting in violation of a Board order or certification and that the proper interpretation of § 10 (k) must take account of this right of the employer. It is true, of course, that employers normally select and assign their own individual employees according to their best judgment. But here, as in most situations where jurisdictional strikes occur, the employer has contracted with two unions, both of which represent employees capable of doing the particular tasks involved. The result is that the employer has been placed in a situation where he finds it impossible to secure the benefits of stability from either of these contracts, not because he refuses to satisfy the unions, but because the situation is such .that he cannot satisfy them. Thus, it is the employer here, probably more than anyone else, who has been and will be damaged by a failure of the Board to make the binding decision that the employer has not been able to make. We therefore are not impressed by the Board’s solicitude for the employer’s right to do that which he has not been, and most likely will not be, able to do. It is true that this forces the Board to exercise under § 10 (k) powers which are broad and lacking in rigid standards to govern their application. But administrative agencies are frequently given rather loosely defined powers to cope with problems as difficult as those posed by jurisdictional disputes and strikes. It might have been better, as some persuasively argued in Congress, to intrust this matter to arbitrators. But Congress, after discussion and consideration, decided to intrust this decision to the Board. It has had long experience in hearing and disposing of similar labor problems. With this experience and a knowledge of the standards generally used by arbitrators, unions, employers, joint boards and others in wrestling with this problem, we are confident that the Board need not disclaim the power given it for laek of standards. Experience and common sense will supply the grounds for the performance of this job which Congress has assigned the Board.
The Board also contends that respondent’s interpretation of § 10 (k) should be avoided because that interpretation completely vitiates the purpose of Congress to encourage the private settlement of jurisdictional disputes. This contention proceeds on the assumption that the parties to a dispute will have no incentive to reach a private settlement if they are permitted to adhere to their respective views until the matter is brought before the Board and then given the same opportunity to prevail which they would have had in a private settlement. Respondent disagrees with this contention and attacks the Board’s assumption. We find it unnecessary to resolve this controversy for it turns upon the sort of policy determination that must be regarded as implicitly settled by Congress when it chose to enact § 10 (k). Even if Congress has chosen the wrong way to accomplish its aim, that choice is binding both upon the Board and upon this Court.
The Board’s next contention is that respondent’s interpretation of § 10 (k) should be rejected because it is inconsistent with other provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act. The first such inconsistency urged is with §§ 8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act on the ground that the determination of jurisdictional disputes on their merits by the Board might somehow enable unions to compel employers to discriminate in regard to employment in order to encourage union membership. The argument here, which is based upon the fact that § 10 (k), like § 8 (b)(4)(D), extends to jurisdictional disputes between unions and unorganized groups as well as to disputes between two or more unions, appears to be that groups represented by unions would almost always prevail over nonunion groups in such a determination because their claim to the work would probably have more basis in custom and tradition than that of unorganized groups. No such danger is present here, however, for both groups of employees are represented by unions. Moreover, we feel entirely confident that the Board, with its many years of experience in guarding against and redressing violations of §§ 8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2), will devise means of discharging its duties under § 10 (k) in a manner entirely harmonious with those sections. A second inconsistency is urged with § 303 (a) (4) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which authorizes suits for damages suffered because of jurisdictional strikes. The argument here is that since §303.(a) (4) does not permit a union to establish, as a defense to an action for damages under that section, that it is entitled to the work struck for on the basis of such factors as practice or custom, a similar result is required here in order to preserve “the substantive symmetry” between §303 (a)(4) on the one hand and §§8 (b)(4)(D) and 10 (k) on the other. This argument ignores the fact that this Court has recognized the separate and distinct nature of these two approaches to the problem of handling jurisdictional strikes. Since we do not require a “substantive symmetry” between the two, we need not and do not decide what effect a decision of the Board under § 10 (k) might have on actions under § 303 (a) (4).
The Board’s final contention is that since its construction of § 10 (k) was adopted shortly after the section was added to the Act and has been consistently adhered to since, that construction has itself become a part of the statute by reason of congressional acquiescence. In support of this contention, the Board points out that Congress has long been aware of its construction and yet has not seen fit to adopt proposed amendments which would have changed it. In the ordinary case, this argument might have some weight. But an administrative construction adhered to in the face of consistent rejection by Courts of Appeals is not such an ordinary case. Moreover, the Board had a regulation on this subject from 1947 to 1958 which the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit thought, with some reason, was wholly inconsistent with the Board’s present interpretation. With all this uncertainty surrounding the eventual authoritative interpretation of the existing law, the failure of Congress to enact a new law simply will not support the inference which the Board asks us to make.
We conclude therefore that the Board’s interpretation of its duty under.§ 10 (k) is wrong and that under that section it is the Board’s responsibility and duty to decide which of two or more employee groups claiming' the right to perform certain work tasks is right and then specifically to award such tasks in accordance with its decision. Having failed to meet that responsibility in this case, the Board could not properly proceed under § 10 (c) to adjudicate the unfair labor practice charge. The Court of Appeals was therefore correct in refusing to enforce the order which resulted from that proceeding.
Affirmed.
Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO.
Theatrical Protective Union No. 1, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.
The other major television broadcasting companies have also been forced to contend with this same problem. The record shows that there has been joint bargaining on this point between Columbia, National and American Broadcasting Systems on the one hand and the unions on the other. All the companies refused to allocate the work to either union because the unions did not agree among themselves. Columbia’s vice president in charge of labor relations explained the situation in these terms: “All three companies negotiating jointly here took the position that they could not do this. They could not give exclusive jurisdiction because each of them had a conflicting claim from another union.” See also National Association of Broadcast Engineers, 105 N. L. R. B. 355.
This phrase was used by the Hearing Examiner to describe the position of Columbia as explained by its vice president in charge of labor relations.
See Theatrical Protective Union No. 1, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, 124 N. L. R. B. 249, for a report of a recent jurisdictional strike against Columbia by the same stage employees’ union involved here which resulted from an assignment of remote lighting work favorable to the technicians.
Respondent, for the purposes of this proceeding only, concedes the correctness of a Board finding to this effect.
29 U. S. C. § 158 (b) (4) (D).
Section 8 (b). “It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents—
“ (4) . . . to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal ... to perform any services, where an object thereof is: . . . (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work: . . .”
29 U. S. C. § 160 (c).
29 U. S. C. § 160 (k).
“Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless . . . the parties to such dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of, the dispute. Upon compliance by the parties to the dispute with the decision of the Board or upon such voluntary adjustment of the dispute, such charge shall be dismissed.”
This latter consideration was made necessary because the Board has adopted the position that jurisdictional strikes in support of contract rights do not constitute violations of §8(b)(4)(D) despite the fact that the language of that section contains no provision for special treatment of such strikes. See Local 26, International Fur Workers, 90 N. L. R. B. 1379. The Board has explained this position as resting upon the principle that “to fail to hold as controlling . . . the contractual preemption of the work in dispute would be to encourage disregard for observance of binding obligations under collective-bargaining agreements and invite the very jurisdictional disputes Section 8 (b) (4) (D) is intended to prevent.” National Association of Broadcast Engineers, supra, n. 3, at 364.
272 F. 2d 713.
N. L. R. B. v. United Association of Journeymen, 242 F. 2d 722.
N. L. R. B. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 261 F. 2d 166.
N. L. R. B. v. Local 4-50, International Union of Operating Engineers, 275 F. 2d 413.
363 U. S. 802.
For a review and criticism of some of these efforts, see Dunlop, Jurisdictional Disputes, N. Y. U. 2d Ann. Conference on Labor 477, at 494^504.
93 Cong. Rec. 136.
H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 23, I Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, at 314 (hereinafter cited as Leg. Hist.).
The amendment was contained in a bill (S. 858) offered by Senator Morse, which also contained a number of other proposals. 93 Cong. Rec. 1913, II Leg. Hist. 987.
1 Leg. Hist. 241, 258-259. See also the Senate Committee Report on the bill, S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 8, I Leg. Hist. 414.
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 57, I Leg. Hist. 561.
29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (a) (3) and 158 (b) (2).
29 U. S. C. §187 (a)(4).
International Longshoremen’s Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U. S. 237.
See N. L. R. B. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, supra, at 170-172. The Rules and Regulations adopted in 1947 by the Board provided that in § 10 (k) proceedings the Board was “to certify the labor organization or the particular trade, craft, or class of employees, as the case may be, which shall perform the particular work tasks in issue, or to make other disposition of the matter.” (Emphasis supplied.) 29 CFR, 1957 Supp., § 102.73. This rule remained in effect until 1958.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PeR Curiam.
Appellees commenced this action in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging on equal protection and statutory grounds § 131-a of the New York Social Services Law which provides for payments to welfare recipients in Nassau, Suffolk, and certain other New York State counties in lesser amounts than provided for residents of New York City should the Welfare Administrator determine that adequate cause exists for the differential. A three-judge court was convened and it found that appellees’ likelihood of success on their constitutional claim warranted the issuance of a preliminary injunction against what it found to be the payment of welfare in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found it unnecessary to consider appellees’ statutory claims. We noted probable jurisdiction. 397 U. S. 903.
Subsequent to the decision of the District Court this Court rendered its decision in Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, wherein we held that a federal court called upon to pass upon the constitutional validity of a State’s welfare program should, before reaching the constitutional issues, consider first any pendent statutory claims that are presented, notwithstanding the pendency of negotiations between the State and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for an opportunity to pass on the propriety of granting interim relief in accordance with conventional equitable principles on the basis of appellees’ statutory claims, or, if the question is reached, continuing the present injunction in light of this Court’s decision in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the 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.
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Jessie McDonald requests that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2241(a). He also requests that he be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 46. We deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He is allowed until March 14, 1989, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions from petitioner for extraordinary writs pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1651(a), 2241, and 2254(a), unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33. We explain below our reasons for taking this step.
Petitioner is no stranger to us. Since 1971, he has made 73 separate filings with the Court, not including this petition, which is his eighth so far this Term. These include 4 appeals, 33 petitions for certiorari, 19 petitions for extraordinary writs, 7 applications for stays and other injunctive relief, and 10 petitions for rehearing. Without recorded dissent, the Court has denied all of his appeals and denied all of his various petitions and motions. We have never previously denied him leave to proceed informa pauperis.
The instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus arises from petitioner’s 1974 state conviction for obtaining title to a 1972 Ford LTD automobile under false pretenses, for which he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Petitioner appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, which reversed his conviction on the ground that there was no evidence that the alleged victim relied on petitioner’s false statements. In January 1976, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated his conviction. State v. McDonald, 534 S. W. 2d 650. We denied certiorari, 425 U. S. 955, and rehearing, 425 U. S. 1000 (1976).
In the 13 years since his conviction became final, petitioner has filed numerous petitions and motions for relief in this Court and in the Tennessee courts, all of which have been rejected. In the instant petition, for example, he requests that the Court “set aside” his conviction and direct the State to “expunge” the conviction “from all public records.” He is not presently incarcerated. He contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the State’s failure to prove that the property to which he obtained title under false pretenses was valued at over $100, as required by the statute under which he was convicted. Petitioner has put forward this same argument — unsuccessfully—in at least four prior filings with the Court, including a petition for mandamus, which was filed 13 days before the instant petition and was not disposed of by the Court until more than a month after this petition was filed.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1915 provides that “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor.” (Emphasis added.) As permitted under this statute, we have adopted Rule 46.1, which provides that “[a] party desiring to proceed in this Court in forma pauperis shall file a motion for leave to so proceed, together with his affidavit in the form prescribed in Fed. Rules App. Proc., Form 4 . . . setting forth with particularity facts showing that he comes within the statutory requirements.” Each year, we permit the vast majority of persons who wish to proceed informa pauperis to do so; last Term, we afforded the privilege of proceeding informa pauperis to about 2,300 persons. Paupers have been an important — and valued-part of the Court’s docket, see, e. g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), and remain so.
But paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial considerations — filing fees and attorney’s fees — that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions. Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice. The continual processing of petitioner’s frivolous requests for extraordinary writs does not promote that end. Although we have not done so previously, lower courts have issued orders intended to curb serious abuses by persons proceeding informa pauperis Our order here prevents petitioner from proceeding in forma pauperis when seeking extraordinary writs from the Court. It is perhaps worth noting that we have not granted the sort of extraordinary writ relentlessly sought by petitioner to any litigant — paid or in forma pauperis — for at least a decade. We have emphasized that extraordinary writs are, not surprisingly, “drastic and extraordinary remedies,” to be “reserved for really extraordinary causes,” in which “appeal is clearly an inadequate remedy.” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 259, 260 (1947).
Petitioner remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under this Court’s Rule 46 and does not similarly abuse that privilege.
It is so ordered.
See McDonald v. Alabama, 479 U. S. 1061 (1987); In re McDonald, 466 U. S. 957 (1984); McDonald v. Tennessee, 432 U. S. 901 (1977); McDonald v. Purity Dairies Employees Federal Credit Union, 431 U. S. 961 (1977).
See McDonald v. Tobey, 488 U. S. 971 (1988); McDonald v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 481 U. S. 1053 (1987); McDonald v. Tennessee, 475 U. S. 1088 (1986); McDonald v. Tennessee, 474 U. S. 951 (1985); McDonald v. Leech, 467 U. S. 1208 (1984); McDonald v. Humphries, 461 U. S. 946 (1983); McDonald v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 461 U. S. 934 (1983); McDonald v. Draper, 459 U. S. 1112 (1983); McDonald v. Thompson, 456 U. S. 981 (1982); McDonald v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 455 U. S. 957 (1982); McDonald v. Tennessee, 454 U. S. 1088 (1981); McDonald v. Draper, 452 U. S. 965 (1981); McDonald v. Tennessee, 450 U. S. 983 (1981); McDonald v. Draper, 450 U. S. 983 (1981); McDonald v. Metropolitan Airport Authority, 450 U. S. 1002 (1981); McDonald v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 450 U. S. 933 (1981); McDonald v. United States District Court, 444 U. S. 900 (1979); McDonald v. Birch, 444 U. S. 875 (1979); McDonald v. United States District Court and McDonald v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 444 U. S. 875 (1979); McDonald v. Thompson, 436 U. S. 911 (1978); McDonald v. Tennessee, 434 U. S. 866 (1977); McDonald v. Davidson County Election Comm’n, 431 U. S. 958 (1977); McDonald v. Tennessee, 431 U. S. 933 (1977); McDonald v. Tennessee, 429 U. S. 1064 (1977); McDonald v. Tennessee, 425 U. S. 955 (1976); McDonald v. Tennessee, 423 U. S. 991 (1975); McDonald v. Tennessee, 416 U. S. 975 (1974); McDonald v. Tennessee, 415 U. S. 961 (1974); McDonald v. Wellons, 414 U. S. 1074 (1973); McDonald v. Metro Traffic and Parking Comm’n, 409 U. S. 1117 (1973); McDonald v. Wellons, 405 U. S. 928 (1972); McDonald v. Metropolitan Traffic and Parking Comm’n, 404 U. S. 843 (1971).
In re McDonald, 488 U. S. 940 (1988) (mandamus and/or prohibition); In re McDonald, 488 U. S. 940 (1988) (mandamus and/or prohibition); In re McDonald, 488 U. S. 940 (1988) (mandamus and/or prohibition); In re McDonald, 488 U. S. 813 (1988) (common law certiorari); In re McDonald, 488 U. S. 813 (1988) (common law certiorari); In re McDonald, 488 U. S. 813 (1988) (common law certiorari); In re McDonald, 485 U. S. 986 (1988) (mandamus); In re McDonald, 484 U. S. 812 (1987) (common law certio-rari); In re McDonald, 484 U. S. 812 (1987) (habeas corpus); In re McDonald, 484 U. S. 812 (1987) (common law certiorari and habeas corpus); In re McDonald, 479 U. S. 809 (1986) (habeas corpus); In re McDonald, 470 U. S. 1082 (1985) (habeas corpus); In re McDonald, 464 U. S. 811 (1983) (mandamus and/or prohibition); McDonald v. Leathers, 439 U. S. 815 (1978) (leave to file petition for writ of mandamus); McDonald v. Thompson, 434 U. S. 812 (1977) (leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus); McDonald v. Tennessee, 430 U. S. 963 (1977) (motion to consolidate and for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus); McDonald v. Thompson, 429 U. S. 1088 (1977) (leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus and other relief); McDonald v. United States Court of Appeals, 420 U. S. 922 (1975) (leave to file petition for writ of mandamus); McDonald v. Mott, 410 U. S. 907 (1973) (leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and other relief).
See McDonald v. Metropolitan Government, 487 U. S. 1230 (1988) (stay); McDonald v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 481 U. S. 1010 (1987) (stay); McDonald v. Alexander, 458 U. S. 1124 (1982) (injunction); McDonald v. Draper, 451 U. S. 978 (1981) (stay); McDonald v. Thompson, 432 U. S. 903 (1977) (application for supersedeas bond); McDonald v. Tennessee, 429 U. S. 1012 (1976) (stay and other relief); McDonald v. Tennessee, 415 U. S. 971 (1974) (stay).
See McDonald v. Alabama, 480 U. S. 912 (1987); In re McDonald, 479 U. S. 956 (1986); McDonald v. Tennessee, 475 U. S. 1151 (1986); In re McDonald, 471 U. S. 1062 (1985); McDonald v. Leech, 467 U. S. 1257 (1984); McDonald v. Draper, 459 U. S. 1229 (1983); McDonald v. Thompson, 457 U. S. 1126 (1982); McDonald v. Draper, 451 U. S. 933 (1981); McDonald v. Tennessee, 425 U. S. 1000 (1976); McDonald v. Tennessee, 417 U. S. 927 (1974).
In the affidavit in support of his present motion to. proceed informa pauperis, petitioner states that he earns approximately $300 per month, is self-employed, and has less than $25 in his checking or savings account. He states that he has no dependents.
See In re McDonald, 488 U. S. 940 (1988) (petition for mandamus and/or prohibition); In re McDonald, 484 U. S. 812 (1987) (petition for common law certiorari or habeas corpus); McDonald v. Tennessee, 475 U. S. 1088, rehearing denied, 475 U. S. 1151 (1986) (petition for certiorari); In re McDonald, 479 U. S. 809 (1986) (petition for habeas corpus).
See, e. g., Procup v. Strickland, 792 F. 2d 1069 (CA11 1986); Peck v. Hoff, 660 F. 2d 371 (CA8 1981); Green v. Carlson, 649 F. 2d 285 (CA5 1981); cf. In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F. 2d 1254, 1261 (CA2 1984) (“Federal courts have both the inherent power and constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions”).
Petitioner has repeatedly ignored the letter and spirit of this Court’s Rule 26, which provides in part that, “[t]o justify the granting of [an extraordinary writ], it must be shown that the writ will be in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that there are present exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be had in any other form or from any other 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: | 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.
Three named plaintiffs brought class action claims against Google for alleged violations of the Stored Communications Act. The parties negotiated a settlement agreement that would require Google to include certain disclosures on some of its webpages and would distribute more than $ 5 million to cy pres recipients, more than $ 2 million to class counsel, and no money to absent class members. We granted certiorari to review whether such cy pres settlements satisfy the requirement that class settlements be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e)(2). Because there remain substantial questions about whether any of the named plaintiffs has standing to sue in light of our decision in Spokeo , Inc. v. Robins , 578 U. S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016), we vacate the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand for further proceedings.
Google operates an Internet search engine. The search engine allows users to search for a word or phrase by typing a query into the Google website. Google returns a list of webpages that are relevant to the indicated term or phrase. The complaints alleged that when an Internet user conducted a Google search and clicked on a hyperlink to open one of the webpages listed on the search results page, Google transmitted information including the terms of the search to the server that hosted the selected webpage. This so-called referrer header told the server that the user arrived at the webpage by searching for particular terms on Google's website.
Paloma Gaos challenged Google's use of referrer headers. She filed a complaint in Federal District Court on behalf of herself and a putative class of people who conducted a Google search and clicked on any of the resulting links within a certain time period. Gaos alleged that Google's transmission of users' search terms in referrer headers violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. The SCA prohibits "a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public" from "knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service." § 2702(a)(1). The Act also creates a private right of action that entitles any "person aggrieved by any violation" to "recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate." § 2707(a). Gaos also asserted several state law claims.
Google moved to dismiss for lack of standing three times. Its first attempt was successful. The District Court reasoned that although "a plaintiff may establish standing through allegations of violation of a statutory right," Gaos had "failed to plead facts sufficient to support a claim for violation of her statutory rights." Gaos v. Google, Inc. , 2011 WL 7295480, *3 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 7, 2011). In particular, the court faulted Gaos for failing to plead "that she clicked on a link from the Google search page." Ibid.
After Gaos filed an amended complaint, Google again moved to dismiss. That second attempt was partially successful. The District Court dismissed Gaos' state law claims, but denied the motion as to her SCA claims. The court reasoned that because the SCA created a right to be free from the unlawful disclosure of certain communications, and because Gaos alleged a violation of the SCA that was specific to her (i.e. , based on a search she conducted), Gaos alleged a concrete and particularized injury. Gaos v. Google Inc. , 2012 WL 1094646, *4 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 29, 2012). The court rested that conclusion on Edwards v. First American Corp. , 610 F.3d 514 (2010) -a Ninth Circuit decision reasoning that an Article III injury exists whenever a statute gives an individual a statutory cause of action and the plaintiff claims that the defendant violated the statute. 2012 WL 1094646, *3.
After the District Court ruled on Google's second motion to dismiss, we granted certiorari in Edwards to address whether an alleged statutory violation alone can support standing. First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards , 564 U.S. 1018, 131 S.Ct. 3022, 180 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011). In the meantime, Gaos and an additional named plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Google. Google once again moved to dismiss. Google argued that the named plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their SCA claims because they had failed to allege facts establishing a cognizable injury. Google recognized that the District Court had previously relied on Edwards to find standing based on the alleged violation of a statutory right. But because this Court had agreed to review Edwards , Google explained that it would continue to challenge the District Court's conclusion. We eventually dismissed Edwards as improvidently granted, 567 U.S. 756, 132 S.Ct. 2536, 183 L.Ed.2d 611 (2012) (per curiam ), and Google then withdrew its argument that Gaos lacked standing for the SCA claims.
Gaos' putative class action was consolidated with a similar complaint, and the parties negotiated a classwide settlement. The terms of their agreement required Google to include certain disclosures about referrer headers on three of its webpages. Google could, however, continue its practice of transmitting users' search terms in referrer headers. Google also agreed to pay $ 8.5 million. None of those funds would be distributed to absent class members. Instead, most of the money would be distributed to six cy pres recipients. In the class action context, cy pres refers to the practice of distributing settlement funds not amenable to individual claims or meaningful pro rata distribution to nonprofit organizations whose work is determined to indirectly benefit class members. Black's Law Dictionary 470 (10th ed. 2014). In this case, the cy pres recipients were selected by class counsel and Google to "promote public awareness and education, and/or to support research, development, and initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the Internet." App. to Pet. for Cert. 84. The rest of the funds would be used for administrative costs and fees, given to the named plaintiffs in the form of incentive payments, and awarded to class counsel as attorney's fees.
The District Court granted preliminary certification of the class and preliminary approval of the settlement. Five class members, including petitioners Theodore Frank and Melissa Holyoak, objected to the settlement on several grounds. They complained that settlements providing only cy pres relief do not comply with the requirements of Rule 23(e), that cy pres relief was not justified in this case, and that conflicts of interest infected the selection of the cy pres recipients. After a hearing, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement.
Frank and Holyoak appealed. After briefing before the Ninth Circuit was complete, but prior to decision by that court, we issued our opinion in Spokeo , Inc. v. Robins , 578 U. S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). In Spokeo , we held that "Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation." Id. , at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1549. We rejected the premise, relied on in the decision then under review and in Edwards , that "a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right." 578 U. S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1549 ; see also id. , at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1546-1547. Google notified the Ninth Circuit of our opinion.
A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, without addressing Spokeo . In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation , 869 F.3d 737 (2017). We granted certiorari, 584 U. S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1697, 200 L.Ed.2d 948 (2018), to decide whether a class action settlement that provides a cy pres award but no direct relief to class members satisfies the requirement that a settlement binding class members be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e)(2).
In briefing on the merits before this Court, the Solicitor General filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting neither party. He urged us to vacate and remand the case for the lower courts to address standing. The Government argued that there is a substantial open question about whether any named plaintiff in the class action actually had standing in the District Court. Because Google withdrew its standing challenge after we dismissed Edwards as improvidently granted, neither the District Court nor the Ninth Circuit ever opined on whether any named plaintiff sufficiently alleged standing in the operative complaint.
"We have an obligation to assure ourselves of litigants' standing under Article III." DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 U.S. 332, 340, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. , 528 U.S. 167, 180, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) ; internal quotation marks omitted). That obligation extends to court approval of proposed class action settlements. In ordinary non-class litigation, parties are free to settle their disputes on their own terms, and plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss their claims without a court order. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A). By contrast, in a class action, the "claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class-or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement-may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e). A court is powerless to approve a proposed class settlement if it lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, and federal courts lack jurisdiction if no named plaintiff has standing. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization , 426 U.S. 26, 40, n. 20, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976).
When the District Court ruled on Google's second motion to dismiss, it relied on Edwards to hold that Gaos had standing to assert a claim under the SCA. Our decision in Spokeo abrogated the ruling in Edwards that the violation of a statutory right automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute authorizes a person to sue to vindicate that right. 578 U. S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1549 ; see Edwards , 610 F.3d at 517-518. Since that time, no court in this case has analyzed whether any named plaintiff has alleged SCA violations that are sufficiently concrete and particularized to support standing. After oral argument, we ordered supplemental briefing from the parties and Solicitor General to address that question.
After reviewing the supplemental briefs, we conclude that the case should be remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs' standing in light of Spokeo . The supplemental briefs filed in response to our order raise a wide variety of legal and factual issues not addressed in the merits briefing before us or at oral argument. We "are a court of review, not of first view." Cutter v. Wilkinson , 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005). Resolution of the standing question should take place in the District Court or the Ninth Circuit in the first instance. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings. Nothing in our opinion should be interpreted as expressing a view on any particular resolution of the standing question.
* * *
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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: | 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 question presented in this case is whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act precludes terminally ill cancer patients from obtaining Laetrile, a drug not recognized as “safe and effective” within the meaning of §201 (p) (1) of the Act, 52 Stat. 1041, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 321 (p) (1).
I
Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1052, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 355, prohibits interstate distribution of any “new drug” unless the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare approves an application supported by substantial evidence of the drug’s safety and effectiveness. As defined in § 201 (p) (1) of the Act, 21 TJ. S. C. § 321 (p) (1), the term “new drug” includes
“[a]ny drug . . . not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling . . .
Exemptions from premarketing approval procedures are available for drugs intended solely for investigative use and drugs qualifying under either of the Act’s two grandfather provisions.
In 1975, terminally ill cancer patients and their spouses brought this action to enjoin the Government from interfering with the interstate shipment and sale of Laetrile, a drug not approved for distribution under the Act. Finding that Laetrile, in proper dosages, was nontoxic and effective, the District Court ordered the Government to permit limited purchases of the drug by one of the named plaintiffs. 399 F. Supp. 1208, 1215 (WD Okla. 1975). On appeal by the Government, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit did not disturb the injunction. However, it instructed the District Court to remand the case to the Food and Drug Administration for determination whether Laetrile was a “new drug” under §201 (p) (1), and, if so, whether it was exempt from premarketing approval under either of the Act’s grandfather clauses. 542 F. 2d 1137 (1976).
After completion of administrative hearings, the Commissioner issued his opinion on July 29, 1977. 42 Fed. Reg. 39768 (1977). He determined first that no uniform definition of Laetrile exists; rather, the term has been used generically for chemical compounds similar to, or consisting at least in part of, amygdalin, a glucoside present in the kernels or seeds of most fruits. Id., at 39770-39772. The Commissioner further found that Laetrile in its various forms constituted a “new drug” as defined in § 201 (p)(l) of the Act because it was not generally recognized among experts as safe and effective for its prescribed use. See 42 Fed. Reg. 39775-39787 (1977). In so ruling, the Commissioner applied the statutory criteria delineated in Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U. S. 609, 629-630 (1973), and concluded that there were no adequate well-controlled scientific studies of Laetrile’s safety or effectiveness. 42 Fed. Reg. 39775-39787 (1977).
Having determined that Laetrile was a new drug, the Commissioner proceeded to consider whether it was exempt from premarketing approval under the 1938 or 1962 grandfather provisions. On the facts presented, the Commissioner found that Laetrile qualified under neither clause. See id., at 39787-39795. First, there was no showing that the drug currently known as Laetrile was identical in composition or labeling to any drug distributed before 1938. See 21 U. S. C. § 321 (p) (1); n. 3, supra. Nor could the Commissioner conclude from the evidence submitted that, as of October 9, 1962, Laetrile in its present chemical composition was commercially used or sold in the United States, was generally recognized by experts as safe, and was labeled for the same recommended uses as the currently marketed drug. See § 107 (c)(4), 76 Stat. 789; n. 3, supra.
On review of the Commissioner’s decision, the District Court sustained his determination that Laetrile, because not generally regarded as safe or effective, constituted a new drug under §201(p)(l). 438 F. Supp. 1287, 1293-1294 (WD Okla. 1977). The court also approved the Commissioner’s denial of an exemption under the 1938 grandfather clause. However, concluding that the record did not support the Commissioner’s findings as to the 1962 grandfather provision, the District Court ruled that Laetrile was entitled to an exemption from premarketing approval requirements. Id., at 1294-1298. Alternatively, the court held that, by denying cancer patients the right to use a nontoxic substance in connection with their personal health, the Commissioner had infringed constitutionally protected privacy interests. Id., at 1298-1300.
The Court of Appeals addressed neither the statutory nor the constitutional rulings of the District Court. Rather, the Tenth Circuit held that “the 'safety’ and ‘effectiveness’ terms used in the statute have no reasonable application to terminally ill cancer patients.” 582 F. 2d 1234, 1236 (1978). Since those patients, by definition, would “die of cancer regardless of what may be done,” the court concluded that there were no realistic standards against which to measure the safety and effectiveness of a drug for that class of individuals. Id., at 1237. The Court of Appeals therefore approved the District Court’s injunction permitting use of Laetrile by cancer patients certified as terminally ill. However, presumably because the Commissioner had found some evidence that Laetrile was toxic when orally administered, see 42 Fed. Reg. 39786-39787 (1977), the Court of Appeals limited relief to intravenous injections for patients under a doctor’s supervision. 582 F. 2d, at 1237. In addition, the court directed the FDA to promulgate regulations “as if” the drug had been found “ ‘safe’ and ‘effective’ ” for terminally ill cancer patients. Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 439 U. S. 1127 (1979), and now reverse.
II
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act makes no special provision for drugs used to treat terminally ill patients. By its terms, § 505 of the Act requires premarketing approval for “any new drug” unless it is intended solely for investigative use or is exempt under one of the Act’s grandfather provisions. See nn. 2, 3, supra. And § 201 (p)(l) defines “new drug” to encompass “[a]ny drug .. . not generally recognized ... as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling.” See supra, at 546-547.
When construing a statute so explicit in scope, a court must act within certain well-defined constraints. If a legislative purpose is expressed in “plain and unambiguous language, . . . the . . . duty of the courts is to give it effect according to its terms.” United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co., 232 U. S. 399, 409 (1914). See Andrus v. Sierra Club, ante, p. 347. Exceptions to clearly delineated statutes will be implied only where essential to prevent “absurd results” or consequences obviously at variance with the policy of the enactment as a whole. Helvering v. Hammell, 311 U. S. 504, 510-511 (1941). See TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 187-188 (1978); United States v. Key, 397 U. S. 322, 324-325 (1970); United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940). In the instant case, we are persuaded by the legislative history and consistent administrative interpretation of the Act that no implicit exemption for drugs used by the terminally ill is necessary to attain congressional objectives or to avert an unreasonable reading of the terms “safe” and “effective” in § 201 (P)(l).
A
Nothing in the history of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which first established procedures for review of drug safety, or of the 1962 Amendments, which added the current safety and effectiveness standards in §201 (p)(l), suggests that Congress intended protection only for persons suffering from curable diseases. To the contrary, in deliberations preceding the 1938 Act, Congress expressed concern that individuals with fatal illnesses, such as cancer, should be shielded from fraudulent cures. See, e. g., 79 Cong. Rec. 5023 (1935) (remarks of Sen. Copeland, sponsor of the Act); 83 Cong. Rec. 7786-7787, 7789 (1938) (remarks of Reps. Phillips and Lea). Similarly, proponents of the 1962 Amendments to the Act, including Senator Kefauver, one of the bill’s sponsors, indicated an understanding that experimental drugs used to treat cancer “in its last stages” were within the ambit of the statute. See, e. g., 108 Cong. Rec. 17399 (1962) (remarks of Sen. Kefauver); id., at 17401 (comments of Sen. Eastland). That same understanding is reflected in the Committee Reports on the 1962 Amendments. Both Reports note with approval the FDA’s policy of considering effectiveness when passing on the safety of drugs prescribed for “life-threatening disease.”
In implementing the statutory scheme, the FDA has never made exception for drugs used by the terminally ill. As this Court has often recognized, the construction of a statute by those charged with its administration is entitled to substantial deference. Board of Governors of FRS v. First Lincoln- wood Corp., 439 U. S. 234, 248 (1978); Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB, 429 U. S. 298, 304 (1977); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965). Such deference is particularly appropriate where, as here, an agency’s interpretation involves issues of considerable public controversy, and Congress has not acted to correct any misperception of its statutory objectives. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 381 (1969); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1965). Unless and until Congress does so, we are reluctant to disturb a longstanding administrative policy that comports with the plain language, history, and prophylactic purpose of the Act.
B
In the Court of Appeals’ view, an implied exemption from the Act was justified because the safety and effectiveness standards set forth in § 201 (p) (1) could have “no reasonable application” to terminally ill patients. 582 F. 2d, at 1236. We disagree. Under our constitutional framework, federal courts do not sit as councils of revision, empowered to rewrite legislation in accord with their own conceptions of prudent public policy. See Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U. S. 20, 27 (1933). Only when a literal construction of a statute yields results so manifestly unreasonable that they could not fairly be attributed to congressional design will an exception to statutory language be judicially implied. See TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S., at 187-188. Here, however, we have no license to depart from the plain language of the Act, for Congress could reasonably have intended to shield terminal patients from ineffectual or unsafe drugs.
A drug is effective within the meaning of §201 (p) (1) if there is general recognition among experts, founded on substantial evidence, that the drug in fact produces the results claimed for it under prescribed conditions. See Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U. S., at 629-634; n. 7, supra. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ apparent assumption, see 582 F. 2d, at 1236, effectiveness does not necessarily denote capacity to cure. In the treatment of any illness, terminal or otherwise, a drug is effective if it fulfills, by objective indices, its sponsor’s claims of prolonged life, improved physical condition, or reduced pain. See 42 Fed. Reg. 39776-39786 (1977).
So too, the concept of safety under §201(p)(l) is not without meaning for terminal patients. New if any drugs are completely safe in the sense that they may be taken by all persons in all circumstances without risk. Thus, the Commissioner generally considers a drug safe when the expected therapeutic gain justifies the risk entailed by its use. For the terminally ill, as for anyone else, a drug is unsafe if its potential for inflicting death or physical injury is not offset by the possibility of therapeutic benefit. Indeed, the Court of Appeals implicitly acknowledged that safety considerations have relevance for terminal cancer patients by restricting authorized use of Laetrile to intravenous injections for persons under a doctor’s supervision. See 582 F. 2d, at 1237; supra, at 551.
Moreover, there is a special sense in which the relationship between drug effectiveness and safety has meaning in the context of incurable illnesses. An otherwise harmless drug can be dangerous to any patient if it does not produce its purported therapeutic effect. See 107 Cong. Rec. 5640 (1961) (comments of Sen. Kefauver). But if an individual suffering from a potentially fatal disease rejects conventional therapy in favor of a drug with no demonstrable curative properties, the consequences can be irreversible. For this reason, even before the 1962 Amendments incorporated an efficacy standard into new drug application procedures, the FDA considered effectiveness when reviewing the safety of drugs used to treat terminal illness. See nn. 8, 9, supra. The FDA’s practice also reflects the recognition, amply supported by expert medical testimony in this case, that with diseases such as cancer it is often impossible to identify a patient as terminally ill except in retrospect. Cancers vary considerably in behavior and in responsiveness to different forms of therapy. See 42 Fed. Reg. 39777 (1977). Even critically ill individuals may have unexpected remissions and may respond to conventional treatment. Id., at 39777, 39805. Thus, as the Commissioner concluded, to exempt from the Act drugs with no proved effectiveness in the treatment of cancer “would lead to needless deaths and suffering among ... patients characterized as ‘terminal’ who could actually be helped by legitimate therapy.” Id., at 39805.
It bears emphasis that although the Court of Appeals’ ruling was limited to Laetrile, its reasoning cannot be so readily confined. To accept the proposition that the safety and efficacy standards of the Act have no relevance for terminal patients is to deny the Commissioner’s authority over all drugs, however toxic or ineffectual, for such individuals. If history is any guide, this new market would not be long overlooked. Since the turn of the century, resourceful entrepreneurs have advertised a wide variety of purportedly simple and painless cures for cancer, including liniments of turpentine, mustard, oil, eggs, and ammonia; peat moss; arrangements of colored floodlamps; pastes made from glycerin and limburger cheese; mineral tablets; and “Fountain of Youth” mixtures of spices, oil, and suet. In citing these examples, we do not, of course, intend to deprecate the sincerity of Laetrile’s current proponents, or to imply any opinion on whether that drug may ultimately prove safe and effective for cancer treatment. But this historical experience does suggest why Congress could reasonably have determined to protect the terminally ill, no less than other patients, from the vast range of self-styled panaceas that inventive minds can devise.
We note finally that construing § 201 (p) (1) to encompass treatments for terminal diseases does not foreclose all resort to experimental cancer drugs by patients for whom conventional therapy is unavailing. Section 505 (i) of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 355 (i), exempts from premarketing approval drugs intended solely for investigative use if they satisfy certain preclinical testing and other criteria. An application for clinical testing of Laetrile by the National Cancer Institute is now pending before the Commissioner. Brief for United States 35 n. 23. That the Act makes explicit provision for carefully regulated use of certain drugs not yet demonstrated safe and effective reinforces our conclusion that no exception for terminal patients may be judicially implied. Whether, as a policy matter, an exemption should be created is a question for legislative judgment, not judicial inference.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Section 505, as set forth in 21 U. S. C. §355, provides in part:
“(a) ... No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section is effective with respect to such drug.
“(b) . . . Any person may file with the Secretary an application with respect to any drug subject to the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. Such person shall submit to the Secretary as a part of the application (1) full reports of investigations which have been made to show whether or not such drug is safe for use and whether such drug is effective in use ....
“(d) ... If the Secretary finds . . . that (1) the investigations . . . required to be submitted to the Secretary ... do not include adequate tests by all methods reasonably applicable to show whether or not such drug is safe for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling thereof; (2) the results of such tests show that such drug is unsafe for use under such conditions or do not show that such drug is safe for use under such conditions; ... (4) ... he has insufficient information to determine whether such drug is safe for use under such conditions; or (5) . . . there is a lack of substantial evidence that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling thereof; or (6) based on a fair evaluation of all material facts, such labeling is false or misleading in any particular; he shall issue an order refusing to approve the application. ... As used in this subsection . . . , the term 'substantial evidence’ means evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.
“(i) . . . The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for exempting from the operation of the foregoing subsections of this section drugs intended solely for investigational use by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to investigate the safety and effectiveness of drugs. . . .”
The Secretary has delegated his approval authority to the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. See 21 CFR §5.1 (a)(1) (1978).
The requirements for investigative use are set forth in § 505 (i) of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 355 (i). See n. 1, supra.
In the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1041, Congress exempted from the definition of “new drug” any drug that was subject to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, ch. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, if its labeling retained the same representations concerning conditions of use made prior to 1938. This exemption is currently contained in § 201 (p) (1) of the Act, as codified in 21 U. S. C. §321 (p) (1). The Drag Amendments of 1962 added a second grandfather clause, which provides:
“In the case of any drug which, on the day immediately preceding the enactment date [October 10, 1962], (A) was commercially used or sold in the United States, (B) was not a new drug as defined by section 201 (p) of the basic Act as then in force, and (C) was not covered by an effective [new drug] application under section 505 of that Act, the amendments to section 201 (p) made by this Act shall not apply to such drug when intended solely for use under conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in labeling with respect to such drug on that day.” § 107 (c)(4), 76 Stat. 789.
The suit was originally instituted by a cancer patient, Juanita Stowe, and her husband, Jimmie Stowe. After Ms. Stowe’s death, two other patients, Glen L. Rutherford and Phyllis S. Schneider, and Ms. Schneider’s husband, filed an amended complaint on behalf of a class composed of all cancer patients and spouses responsible for the costs of treatment. By order entered April 8, 1977, the District Court certified a class consisting of terminally ill cancer patients. 429 F. Supp. 506 (WD Okla.). The Government did not seek review of that order.
The District Court subsequently entered similar orders for other individuals who submitted affidavits averring their membership in the certified class of terminally EL cancer patients. See App. 1-6.
The Commissioner initiated proceedings with an announcement in the Federal Register seeking public comment. 42 Fed. Reg. 10066-10069 (1977). Notice was also afforded to certain known proponents of Laetrile. See id., at 39785-39786.
The Act does not define what constitutes general recognition of a drug’s safety and effectiveness under §201 (p)(l). However, based on the structure and purpose of the statutory scheme, this Court in Wein-berger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U. S., at 629-634, interpreted § 201 (p) (1) to require an “expert consensus” on safety and effectiveness founded upon “substantial evidence” as defined in § 505 (d) of the Act, 21 TJ. S. C. § 355 (d). See n. 1, supra.
Under the 1938 Act, a “new drag” was one not generally recognized by qualified experts as safe for its recommended use. §201 (p) (1), 52 Stat. 1041. The Drug Amendments of 1962, Pub. L. 87-781, 76 Stat. 789, redefined the term to include drugs not generally recognized as effective or safe for their intended use. §201 (p) (1), 21 U. S. C. §321 (p)(l). See swpra, at 546-547, 551. In addition, the Amendments provided that no new drug application may be approved absent substantial evidence that the drug is effective as well as safe under prescribed conditions. § 505 (d), 21 U. S. C. § 355 (d). See n. 1, supra.
The Senate Report states:
“The Food and Drug Administration now requires, in determining whether a 'new drug’ is safe, a showing as to the drug’s effectiveness where the drug is offered for use in the treatment of a life-threatening disease, or where it appears that the ‘new drug’ will occasionally produce serious toxic or even lethal effects so that only its usefulness would justify the risks involved in its use. In such cases, the determination of safety is, in the light of the purposes of the new drug provisions, considered by the Food and Drug Administration to be inseparable from consideration of the drug’s effectiveness. The provisions of the bill are in no way intended to affect any existing authority of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to consider and evaluate the effectiveness of a new drug in the context of passing upon its safety.” S. Rep. No. 1744, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, p. 15 (1962).
See also H. R. Rep. No. 2464, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1962).
The FDA’s practice was further amplified by HEW Secretary Ribicoff in testimony on the bill that ultimately became the 1962 Amendments:
“If the drug is offered for treatment of progressive or life-threatening diseases, such as' cancer, ... we now consider its effectiveness. In such cases the determination of safety is, in the light of the purpose of the new drug provisions, inseparable from consideration of the drug’s effectiveness.” Hearings on S. 1552 before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 2588 (1961).
To be sure, it may not always be realistic to infer approval of a judicial or administrative interpretation from congressional silence alone. See, e. g., Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119-121 (1940); Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118, 140-141 (1941). But once an agency’s statutory construction has been “fully brought to the attention of the public and the Congress,” and the latter has not sought to alter that interpretation although it has amended the statute in other respects, then presumably the legislative intent has been correctly discerned. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U. S. 469, 487-489 (1940). See United States v. Bergh, 352 U. S. 40, 46-47 (1956). See, e. g., Pub. L. 94-295, 90 Stat. 575; Pub. L. 94-278, 90 Stat. 411; and Pub. L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1281 (amending § 201 of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 321).
The issue presented in this case plainly has not escaped public or legislative notice. Whether Laetrile should be freely accessible to cancer patients has been a frequent subject of political debate. Seventeen States have legalized the prescription and use of Laetrile for cancer treatment within their borders, and similar statutes have been defeated in 14 other States. See CCH F. D. Cosm. L. Rep. ¶ 42,292 (1978); Comment, Laetrile: Statutory and Constitutional Limitations on the Regulation of Ineffective Drugs, 127 U. Pa. L. Rev. 233, 234 n. 8 (1978). That Congress is aware of the FDA’s policy concerning Laetrile is evident from Senate Subcommittee hearings on the Commissioner’s 1977 ruling. See Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Senate Committee on Human Resources, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).
See L. Goodman & A. Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics 325-339 (5th ed. 1975).
See statement of Dr. Theodore Klumpp, Chief, Drug Division, FDA, June 23, 1941, CCH F. D. Cosm. L. Rep. ¶ 71,053.59 (1977); n. 13, infra.
See, e. g., 42 Fed. Reg. 39768, 39787 (1977) (statement of Dr. Carl Leventhal, Deputy Director of - the Bureau of Drugs, FDA, and Assistant Professor of Neurology and Pathology at Georgetown University) (“The safety of a drug for human use depends, in large measure, on the therapeutic effectiveness of the particular drug. ... In the case of cancer, treatment with an ineffective drug will . . . inexorably lead to the patient’s death”); ibid, (statement of Dr. George J. Hill II, Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Marshall University School of Medicine, W. Ya.) (Ineffectual treatment can lead to delay in accepted modes of therapy and needless deaths; thus, “[i]n the absence of scientific evidence of effectiveness, no drug intended for use in treating cancer can be regarded as safe”).
See, e. g., id., at 39805 (statement of Dr. Peter Wiemik, Chief of the Clinical Oncology Branch of the National Cancer Institute’s Baltimore Research Center) (“[N]o one can prospectively define the term ‘terminal’ with any accuracy. A patient can be said to be terminal only after he dies. Many patients who are critically ill respond to modem day management of cancer”); ibid, (statement of Dr. Joseph Ross, Professor of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine at Los Angeles) (“[T]he distinction of ‘terminal’ patients from ‘non-terminal’ patients may not be reliably determined and an assumption that Laetrile may be given to [‘terminal’] patients with impunity may deprive such patients of therapeutic measures which could help them”).
The Commissioner noted that these unexpected behavior patterns may account for anecdotal claims of Laetrile’s effectiveness. Users of Laetrile who experience spontaneous remissions or delayed responses to conventional therapy after its abandonment may ascribe their improvement to Laetrile without any objective basis for that attribution. See, e. g., id., at 39777 (statement of Dr. Daniel S. Martin, researcher in cancer immunology and chemotherapy); id., at 39800 (statement of Dr. Emil J. Frereich, Chief of the Division of Oncology at University of Texas Medical School at Houston); ibid, (statement of Dr. Melvin Krant, Director of Cancer Project at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center). Particularíy since accepted cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation often have painful side effects, the Commissioner concluded that patients who subjectively perceive improvement after substituting Laetrile for these modes of therapy may erroneously believe that their condition has been arrested or ameliorated. See id., at 39777, 39799-39800.
CCH Fed. F. D. Cosm. L. Admin, Reps., 1907-1949, p. 745 (1951); id., at 1408; id., at 1170-1171, 1298-1299; id., at 224; FDA Ann. Reps., 1950-1974, pp. 309, 464; id., at 45; id., at 412.
See n. 1, supra. At present, some 300 experimental drugs are available to critically ill cancer patients at authorized institutions. See Brief for United States 34 n. 23; National Cancer Institute, Extramural Clinical Trial Programs of the Division of Cancer Treatment, General Overview and Scope of Contract-Supported Activities (1979). During 1977, over 90,000 cancer patients participated in investigative programs under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute or the Veterans’ Administration. Brief for United States 35 n. 23.
Respondents urge that we consider the District Court’s rulings on the constitutional and grandfather clause questions as alternative bases for sustaining the judgment below. However, since the Court of Appeals addressed neither issue, we remand the case for further consideration of respondents’ claims. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 549 (1978); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 271 (1977).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether a willfully false statement of a material fact, made by an attorney under oath during the District Court’s examination, under its local rule, into his fitness to practice before it, constitutes perjury within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. § 1621.
Acting under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1654, 2071, and Rule 83 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizing federal courts to prescribe rules for the conduct of their business, the District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa promulgated local rules governing practice in those courts. Their Rule 3, in pertinent part, provides:
“All attorneys residing outside of the State of Iowa and having civil matters in the court shall associate with them a resident attorney on whom notice may be served and who shall have the authority to act for and on behalf of the client in all matters .... Non-resident attorneys who have so associated with them a resident attorney shall be permitted to participate in a particular case upon satisfactory showing of good moral character.
“Provided further that where the action is one to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in Iowa by one who at the time was a resident of Iowa . . . , the Court may on its own motion, or on motion of a member of the bar of either District, before permitting a nonresident attorney to participate in the case, require a satisfactory showing that the connection of the said attorney [with the case] was not occasioned or brought about in violation of the standards of conduct specified in Rule 8 hereof. The Court as a part of said showing may require the plaintiff and the said attorney to appear and be examined under oath.”
Appellee, an attorney residing and maintaining his office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, had instituted two actions in the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, as counsel for citizens of Iowa, seeking damages for bodily injuries which they had sustained in that State. On October 3, 1955, the court, acting under its Rule 3, entered an order scheduling a hearing to be held by the court on October 12, 1955, for the purpose of affording an opportunity to appellee to show that his connection with the two damage suits was not brought about in violation of the standards of conduct specified in its Rule 8, and directing appellee to appear at that time and to submit to an examination under oath, if he wished further to participate as counsel in those actions. Appellee appeared at the hearing and, after being sworn by the Clerk, was examined by the District Attorney on matters deemed relevant to the hearing. On November 1, 1955, the court entered an order finding that “the applicant [had] not made satisfactory showing of the matters which must be satisfactorily shown under said Local Rule 3,” and it struck his appearance as counsel in the two damage actions from the record.
On March 20, 1956, a four-count indictment was returned against appellee in the same District Court. Each count charged that appellee, while under oath as a witness at the hearing of October 12, 1955, “unlawfully, wil-fully, and knowingly, and contrary to [his] oath, [stated] material matters which he did not believe to be true” (in particulars set forth in each count), “in violation of Section 1621, Title 18, United States Code.” Appellee moved to dismiss the indictment for failure of any of the counts to state an offense against the United States. The court, after full hearing upon the motion, concluded “that Rule 3, under which the defendant took his oath, is not such a law of the United States as was intended by Congress to support an indictment for perjury,” and, on that ground, dismissed the indictment. 147 F. Supp. 594. The Government brought the case here by direct appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731. We postponed further consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits, 353 U. S. 980.
At the threshold we are met with appellee’s contention that we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal. We think the contention is unsound. 18 U. S. C. § 3731, in pertinent part, provides that: “An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district courts direct to the Supreme Court of the United States . . . [f]rom a decision or judgment . . . dismissing any indictment . . . where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment ... is founded.” This indictment was founded on the federal perjury statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1621. The District Court dismissed the indictment not because of any deficiency in pleading or procedure but solely because it held that Rule 3 “is not such a law of the United States as was intended by Congress to support an indictment for perjury.” It thus dismissed the indictment upon its construction of the federal perjury statute. In these circumstances, the question of our jurisdiction is settled by United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 193:
“When the District Court holds that the indictment, not merely because of some deficiency in pleading but with respect to the substance of the charge, does not allege a violation of the statute upon which the indictment is founded, that is necessarily a construction of that statute.”
Such is the case here, and the result is that we have jurisdiction of this appeal.
This brings us to the merits. The scope of this appeal is very limited. No question concerning the validity of the District Court’s Rule 3 is properly before us. Nor are we at liberty to consider any question other than the single one decided by the District Court, for when, as here, “the District Court has rested its decision upon the construction of the underlying statute this Court is not at liberty to go beyond the question of the correctness of that construction and consider other objections to the indictment. The Government’s appeal does not open the whole case.” United States v. Borden Co., supra, at 193.
“The essential elements of the crime of perjury as defined in 18 U. S. C. § 1621 are (1) an oath authorized by a law of the United States, (2) taken before a competent tribunal, officer or person, and (3) a false statement wilfully made as to facts material to the hearing.” United States v. Debrow, 346 U. S. 374, 376. Only the first element of perjury is involved here because the District Court’s dismissal of the indictment was upon the sole ground that “Rule 3 ... is not such a law of the United States as was intended by Congress to support an indictment for perjury.” Therefore, the only question open here is whether the admission hearing, held under the District Court’s Rule 3, and at which appellee testified under oath, was a "case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered,” within the meaning of that clause as used in the perjury statute. We think it was.
The phrase “a law of the United States,” as used in the perjury statute, is not limited to statutes, but includes as well Rules and Regulations which have been lawfully authorized and have a clear legislative base (United States v. Smull, 236 U. S. 405; Caha v. United States, 152 U. S. 211; Viereck v. United States, 318 U. S. 236; Lilly v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 317 U. S. 481), and also decisional law. Glickstein v. United States, 222 U. S. 139. And see Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), §§ 1815, 1816, 1824.
28 U. S. C. § 2071 provides: “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.” And 28 U. S. C. A. § 1654 provides: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” (Emphasis supplied.) Consistently, Rule 83 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in pertinent part, provides: “Each district court by action of a majority of the judges thereof may from time to time make and amend rules governing its practice not inconsistent with these rules. . . .” These statutes and Rule 83 leave no room to doubt that the District Court was lawfully authorized to prescribe its local rules and that they have a clear legislative base. Whether or not its Rule 3 is invalid for any reason— which, as stated, is a question not before us — it was prescribed pursuant to statutory authority, and expressly provides that, under the conditions specified, the court may require the “attorney to appear and be examined under oath.”
Rule 3 had at least as clear a legislative base as did the Regulations involved in Caha v. United States, supra, and United States v. Smull, supra. In the Caha case defendant was indicted under the federal perjury statute — then in precisely the same terms as it is now — and charged with perjury through the making of a false affidavit to officials of the Land Office of the Department of the Interior in respect of a contest, then pending in the Land Office, over the validity of a homestead entry. The defendant was convicted and on appeal contended that no statute authorized such a contest and that therefore it could not “be said that the oath was taken in a ‘case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered.’ ” By statute Congress had authorized the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, “to enforce and carry into execution, by appropriate regulations, every part of the [laws relating to public lands].” Pursuant to that authority the Commissioner adopted rules of practice including an express provision “for a contest before the local land officers in respect to homestead as well as preemption entries, and for the taking of testimony before such officers . . . .” This Court, in denying defendant’s contention and in sustaining the conviction, said:
“We have, therefore, a general grant of authority to the Land Department to prescribe appropriate regulations for the disposition of the public land .... Clearly then . . . the local land officers in hearing and deciding upon a contest with respect to a homéstead entry constituted a • competent tribunal, and the contest so pending before them was a case in which the laws of the United States authorized an oath to be administered.” Id., at 218. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Smull case involved very similar facts. The District Court sustained a demurrer to the indictment, “ruling that the affidavit was not within the statute defining perjury.” The Government brought the case here under the Criminal Appeals Act. This Court reversed, saying:
“The charge of crime must have clear legislative basis. . . . This statute [the perjury statute, in precisely the same terms as the present one] takes the place of the similar provision of § 5392 of the Revised Statutes, which in turn was a substitute for a number of statutes in regard to perjury and was phrased so as to embrace all cases of false swearing whether in a court of justice or before administrative officers acting within their powers .... It cannot be doubted that a charge of perjury may be based upon [the perjury statute] where the affidavit is required either expressly by an act of Congress or by an authorized regulation of the General Land Office, and is known by the affiant to be false in a material statement. . . . [W]hen by a valid regulation the Department requires that an affidavit shall be made before an officer otherwise competent, that officer is authorized to administer the oath within the meaning of [the perjury statute]. The false swearing is made a crime, not by the Department, but by Congress; the statute, not the Department, fixes the penalty.” Id., at 408-409.
It follows that the admission hearing, held under the District Court’s Rule 3, and at which appellee testified under oath, was a “case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered,” within the meaning of that clause as used in the perjury statute.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas agrees that the Court has jurisdiction of the appeal; but he dissents on the merits. In his view this judge-made rule is not “a law of the United States” within the meaning of the perjury statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1621.
That section, in pertinent part, provides: “Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, . . . willfully and contrary to such oath states . . . any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury . . . .”
Rule 8 is a substantial adoption of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association.
The court was then being presided over by a district judge from another district, sitting by designation.
The author there shows that the requirement that a witness must take an oath before giving testimony goes back to early civilizations and has a long history at common law (§ 1815), and that for centuries Anglo-American law has remained faithful to the precept that “for all testimonial statements made in court the oath is a requisite.” § 1824.
These cases, as well as United States v. Morehead, 243 U. S. 607, show that the perjury statute covers ex parte proceedings or investigations as well as ordinary adversary suits and proceedings.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises important issues regarding the propriety of the District Court’s pursuing reapportionment of Minnesota’s state legislative and federal congressional districts in the face of Minnesota state-court litigation seeking similar relief, and regarding the District Court’s conclusion that the state court’s legislative plan violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973.
r — l
In January 1991, a group of Minnesota voters filed a state-court action against the Minnesota Secretary of State and other officials responsible for administering elections, claiming that the State’s congressional and legislative districts were malapportioned, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article 4, §2, of the Minnesota Constitution. Cotlow v. Growe, No. C8-91-985. The plaintiffs asserted that the 1990 federal census results revealed a significant change in the distribution of the state population, and requested that the court declare the current districts unlawful and draw new districts if the legislature failed to do so. In February, the parties stipulated that, in light of the new census, the challenged districting plans were unconstitutional. The Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a Special Redistricting Panel (composed of one appellate judge and two district judges) to preside over the case.
In March, a second group of plaintiffs filed an action in federal court against essentially the same defendants, raising similar challenges to the congressional and legislative districts. Emison v. Growe, Civ. No. 4-91-202. The Emison plaintiffs (who include members of various racial minorities) in addition raised objections to the legislative districts under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1973, alleging that those districts needlessly fragmented two Indian reservations and divided the minority population of Minneapolis. The suit sought declaratory relief and continuing federal jurisdiction over any legislative efforts to develop new districts. A three-judge panel was appointed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284(a).
While the federal and state actions were getting underway, the Minnesota Legislature was holding public hearings on, and designing, new legislative districts. In May, it adopted a new legislative districting ¡fian, Chapter 246, Minn. Stat. §§2.403-2.703 (Supp. 1991), and repealed the prior 1983 apportionment. It was soon recognized that Chapter 246 contained many technical errors — mistaken compass directions, incorrect street names, noncontiguous districts, and a few instances of double representation. By August, committees of the legislature had prepared curative legislation, Senate File 1596 and House File 1726 (collectively, Senate File 1596), but the legislature, which had adjourned in late May, was not due to reconvene until January 6, 1992.
Later in August, another group of plaintiffs filed a second action in federal court, again against the Minnesota Secretary of State. Benson v. Growe, No. 4-91-603. The Benson plaintiffs, who include the Republican minority .leaders of the Minnesota Senate and House, raised federal and state constitutional challenges to Chapter 246, but no Voting Rights Act allegations. The Benson action was consolidated with the Emison suit; the Cotlow plaintiffs, as well as the Minnesota House of Representatives and State Senate, intervened.
With the legislature out of session, the committees’ proposed curative measures for Chapter 246 pending, and the state court in Cotlow considering many of the same issues, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to defer further proceedings pending action by the Minnesota Legislature. It denied, however, defendants’ motion to abstain in light of the Cotlow suit, or to allow the state court first to review any legislative action or, if the legislature failed to act, to allow the state court first to issue a court-ordered redistricting plan. The District Court set a January 20, 1992, deadline for the state legislature’s action on both redistricting plans, and appointed special masters to develop contingent plans in the event the legislature failed to correct Chapter 246 or to reapportion Minnesota’s eight congressional districts.
Meanwhile, the Cotlow panel concluded (in October) that Chapter 246, applied as written (i. e., with its drafting errors), violated both the State and Federal Constitutions, and invited the parties to submit alternative legislative plans based on Chapter 246. It also directed the parties to submit by mid-October written arguments on any Chapter 246 violations of the Voting Rights Act. In late November, the state court issued an order containing its preliminary legislative redistricting plan — essentially Chapter 246 with the technical corrections (though not the stylistic corrections) contained in Senate File 1596. (Since no party had responded to its order concerning Voting Rights Act violations, the court concluded that Chapter 246 did not run afoul of that Act.) It proposed putting its plan into effect on January 21, 1992, if the legislature had not acted by then. Two weeks later, after further argument, the Cotlow panel indicated it would release a revised and Anal version of its legislative redistricting plan in a few days.
In early December, before the state court issued its final plan, the District Court stayed all proceedings in the Cotlow case, and enjoined parties to that action from “attempting to enforce or implement any order of the ... Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel which has proposed adoption of a reapportionment plan relating to state redistricting or Congressional redistricting.” App. to Juris. Statement 154. The court explained its action as necessary to prevent the state court from interfering with the legislature’s efforts to redistrict and with the District Court’s jurisdiction. It mentioned the Emison Voting Rights Act allegations as grounds for issuing the injunction, which it found necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, see 28 U. S. C. § 1651. One judge dissented.
Four days later the state court issued an order containing its final legislative plan, subject to the District Court’s injunction and still conditioned on the legislature’s failure to adopt a lawful plan. The same order provided, again subject to the District Court’s injunction, that congressional redistricting plans be submitted by mid-January. The obstacle of the District Court injunction was removed on January 10, 1992, when, upon application of the Cotlow plaintiffs, we vacated the injunction. 502 U. S. 1022.
When the legislature reconvened in January, both Houses approved the corrections to Chapter 246 contained in Senate File 1596 and also adopted a congressional redistricting plan that legislative committees had drafted the previous October. The Governor, however, vetoed the legislation. On January 30, the state court issued a final order adopting its legislative plan and requiring that plan to be used for the 1992 primary and general elections. By February 6, pursuant to an order issued shortly after this Court vacated the injunction, the parties had submitted their proposals for congressional redistricting, and on February 17 the state court held hearings on the competing plans.
Two days later, the District Court issued an order adopting its own legislative and congressional districting plans and permanently enjoining interference, with state implementation of those plans. 782 F. Supp. 427, 448-449 (Minn. 1992). The Emison panel found that the state court’s modified version of Chapter 246 “fails to provide the equitable relief necessary to cure the violation of the Voting Rights Act,” id., at 440, which in its view required at least one “super-majority minority” Senate district, a district in which the minority constitutes a clear majority. The District Court rejected Chapter 246 as a basis for its plan, and instead referred to state policy as expressed in the Minnesota Constitution and in a resolution adopted by both Houses of the legislature. See Minn. Const., Art. 4, §2; H. R. Con. Res. No. 2, 77th Leg., Reg. Sess. (1991). Judge MacLaughlin dissented in part. The District Court was unanimous, however, in its adoption of a congressional redistricting plan, after concluding that the pre-existing 1982 plan violated Art. I, § 2, of the Federal Constitution. Although it had received the same proposed plans submitted to the state court earlier that month, it used instead a congressional plan prepared by its special masters. Finally, the District Court retained jurisdiction to ensure adoption of its reapportionment plans and to enforce the permanent injunction.
In early March, the state court indicated that it was “fully prepared to release a congressional plan” but that the federal injunction prevented it from doing so. In its view, the federal plan reached population equality “without sufficient regard for the preservation of municipal and county boundaries.” App. to Juris. Statement 445-446.
Appellants sought a stay of the District Court’s February order pending this appeal. Justice Blackmun granted the stay with respect to the legislative redistricting plan. No. 91-1420 (Mar. 11, 1992) (in chambers). We noted probable jurisdiction. 503 U. S. 958 (1992).
HH H-i
In their challenge to both of the District Court s redistricting plans, appellants contend that, under the principles of Scott v. Germano, 381 U. S. 407 (1965) (per curiam), the court erred in not deferring to the Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel’s proceedings. We agree.
The parties do not dispute that both courts had jurisdiction to consider the complaints before them. Of course federal courts and state courts often find themselves exercising concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject matter, and when that happens a federal court generally need neither abstain (i. e., dismiss the case before it) nor defer to the state proceedings (i e., withhold action until the state proceedings have concluded). See McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 282 (1910). In rare circumstances, however, principles of federalism and comity dictate otherwise. We have found abstention necessary, for example, when the federal action raises difficult questions of state law bearing on important matters of state policy, or when federal jurisdiction has been invoked to restrain ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 814-817 (1976) (collecting examples). We have required deferral, causing a federal court to “sta[y] its hands,” when a constitutional issue in the federal action will be mooted or presented in a different posture following conclusion of the state-court case. Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 501 (1941).
In the reapportionment context, the Court has required federal judges to defer consideration of disputes involving redistricting where the State, through its legislative or judicial branch, has begun to address that highly political task itself. In Germano, a Federal District Court invalidated Illinois’ Senate districts and entered an order requiring the State to submit to the court any revised Senate districting scheme it might adopt. An action had previously been filed in state court attacking the same districting scheme. In that case the Illinois Supreme Court held (subsequent to the federal court’s order) that the Senate districting scheme was invalid, but expressed confidence that the General Assembly would enact a lawful plan during its then current session, scheduled to end in July 1965. The Illinois Supreme Court retained jurisdiction to ensure that the upcoming 1966 general elections would be conducted pursuant to a constitutionally valid plan.
This Court disapproved the District Court’s action. The District Court “should have stayed its hand,” we said, and in failing to do so overlooked this Court’s teaching that state courts have a significant role in redistricting. 381 U. S., at 409.
“The power of the judiciary of a State to require valid reapportionment or to formulate a valid redistricting plan has not only been recognized by this Court but appropriate action by the States in such cases has been specifically encouraged.
“. . . The case is remanded with directions that the District Court enter an order fixing a reasonable time within which the appropriate agencies of the State of Illinois, including its Supreme Court, may validly redistrict the Illinois State Senate; provided that the same be accomplished within ample time to permit such plan to be utilized in the 1966 election . . . .” Ibid, (citations omitted).
Today we renew our adherence to the principles expressed in Germano, which derive from the recognition that the Constitution leaves with the States primary responsibility for apportionment of their federal congressional and state legislative districts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2. “We say once again what has been said on many occasions: reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or other body, rather than of a federal court.” Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 27 (1975). Absent evidence that these state branches will fail timely to perform that duty, a federal court must neither affirmatively obstruct state reapportionment nor permit federal litigation to be used to impede it.
Judged by these principles, the District Court’s December injunction of state-court proceedings, vacated by this Court in January, was clear error. It seems to have been based upon the mistaken view that federal judges need defer only to the Minnesota Legislature and not at all to the State’s courts. Thus, the January 20 deadline the District Court established was described as a deadline for the legislature, ignoring the possibility and legitimacy of state judicial redistricting. And the injunction itself treated the state court’s provisional legislative redistricting plan as “interfering” in the reapportionment process. But the doctrine of Germano prefers both state branches to federal courts as agents of apportionment. The Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel’s issuance of its plan (conditioned on the legislature’s failure to enact a constitutionally acceptable plan in January), far from being a federally enjoinable “interference,” was precisely the sort of state judicial supervision of redistricting we have encouraged. See Germano, 381 U. S., at 409 (citing cases).
Nor do the reasons offered by the District Court for its actions in December and February support departure from the Germano principles. It is true that the Emison plaintiffs alleged that the 1983 legislative districting scheme violated the Voting Rights Act, while the Cotlow complaint never invoked that statute. Germano, however, does not require that the federal and state-court complaints be identical; it instead focuses on the nature of the relief requested: reapportionment of election districts. Minnesota can have only one set of legislative districts, and the primacy of the State in designing those districts compels a federal court to defer.
The District Court also expressed concern over the lack of time for orderly appeal, prior to the State’s primaries, of any judgment that might issue from the state court, noting that Minnesota allows the losing party 90 days to appeal. See Minn. Rule Civ. App. Proc. 104.01. We fail to see the relevance of the speed of appellate review. Germano requires only that the state agencies adopt a constitutional plan “within ample time ... to be utilized in the [upcoming] election,” 381 U. S., at 409. It does not require appellate review of the plan prior to the election, and such a requirement would ignore the reality that States must often redistrict in the most exigent circumstances — during the brief interval between completion of the decennial federal census and the primary season for the general elections in the next even-numbered year. Our consideration of this appeal, long after the Minnesota primary and final elections have been held, itself reflects the improbability of completing judicial review before the necessary deadline for a new redistricting scheme.
It may be useful to describe what ought to have happened with respect to each redistricting plan. The state court entered its judgment adopting its modified version of Chapter 246 in late January (nearly three weeks before the federal court issued its opinion). That final order, by declaring the legislature’s version of Chapter 246 unconstitutional and adopting a legislative plan to replace it, altered the status quo: The state court’s plan became the law of Minnesota. At the very least, the elementary principles of federalism and comity embodied in the full faith and credit statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1738, obligated the federal court to give that judgment legal effect, rather than treating .it as simply one of several competing legislative redistricting proposals available for the District Court’s choosing. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 286, 296 (1970). In other words, after January 30 the federal court was empowered to entertain the Emison plaintiffs’ claims relating to legislative redistricting only to the extent those claims challenged the state court’s plan. Cf. Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U. S. 535, 540 (1978) (opinion of White, J.).
With respect to the congressional plan, the District Court did not ignore any state-court judgment, but only because it had actively prevented such a judgment from issuing. The wrongfully entered December injunction prevented the Special Redistricting Panel from developing a contingent plan for congressional redistricting, as it had for legislative redistricting prior to the injunction. The state court’s December order to the parties for mid-January submission of congressional plans was rendered a nullity by the injunction, which was not vacated until January 10. The net effect was a delay of at least a few weeks in the submissions to the state court, and in hearings on those submissions. A court may not acknowledge Germano in one breath and impede a state court’s timely development of a plan in the next. It would have been appropriate for the District Court to establish a deadline by which, if the Special Redistricting Panel had not acted, the federal court would proceed. But the January 20 deadline that the District Court established here was explicitly directed solely at the legislature. The state court was never given a time by which it should decide on reapportionment, legislative or congressional, if it wished to .avoid federal intervention.
Of course the District Court would have been justified in adopting its own plan if it had been apparent that the state court, through no fault of the District Court itself, would not develop a redistricting plan in time for the primaries. Germano requires deferral, not abstention. But in this ease, in addition to the fact that the federal court itself had been (through its injunction) a cause of the state court’s delay, it nonetheless appeared that the state court was fully prepared to adopt a congressional plan in as timely a manner as the District Court. The Special Redistricting Panel received the same plans submitted to the federal court, and held hearings on those plans two days before the federal court issued its opinion. The record simply does not support a conclusion that the state court was either unwilling or unable to adopt a congressional plan in time for the elections. What occurred here was not a last-minute federal-court rescue of the Minnesota electoral process, but a race to beat the Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel to the finish line. That would have been wrong, even if the Panel had not been tripped earlier in the course. The District Court erred in not deferring to the state court’s timely consideration of congressional reapportionment.
III
The District Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove minority vote dilution in a portion of the city of Minneapolis, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973. 782 F. Supp., at 439. Choosing not to apply the preconditions for a vote-dilution violation set out by this Court for challenges to multimember districts, see Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986), the court instead proceeded directly to the “totality of circumstances” test in §2(b) and found unlawful dilution. It rejected, as a basis for its redistricting plan, Chapter 246, Chapter 246 as modified by Senate File 1596, and the state court’s version of Chapter 246, and adopted instead its special masters’ legislative plan, which includes a Senate district stretching from south Minneapolis, around the downtown area, and then into the northern part of the city in order to link minority populations. This oddly shaped creation, Senate District 59, is 43 percent black and 60 percent minority, including at least three separately identifiable minority groups. In the District Court’s view, based on “[jjudicial experience, as well as the results of past elections,” a super-majority minority Senate district in Minneapolis was required in order for a districting scheme to comply with the Voting Rights Act. 782 F. Supp., at 440. We must review this analysis because, if it is correct, the District Court was right to deny effect to the state-court legislative redistricting plan.
As an initial matter, it is not clear precisely which legislative districting plan produced the vote dilution that necessitated the super-majority remedy. For almost a decade prior to the 1992 election season, the only legislative districting plan that had been in use in Minnesota was the 1983 plan, which all parties agreed was unconstitutional in light of the 1990 census. More importantly, the state court had declared the 1983 plan to be unconstitutional in its final order of January 30. Once that order issued, the Emison plaintiffs’ claims that the 1983 plan violated the Voting Rights Act became moot, unless those claims also related to the superseding plan. But no party to this litigation has ever alleged that either Chapter 246, or the modified version of Chapter 246 adopted by the state court, resulted in vote dilution. The District Court did not hold a hearing or request written argument from the parties on the § 2 validity of any particular plan; nor does the District Court’s discussion focus on any particular plan.
Although the legislative plan that in the court’s view produced the §2 “dilution” violation is unclear, the District Court did clearly conclude that the state court’s plan could not remedy that unspecified violation because it “fail[ed] to provide the affirmative relief necessary to adequately protect minority voting rights.” Id., at 448. The District Court was of the view, in other words, as the dissenting judge perceived, see id., at 452, and n. 6 (MacLaughlin, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), that any legislative plan lacking a super-majority minority Senate district in Minneapolis violated §2. We turn to the merits of this position.
Our precedent requires that, to establish a vote-dilution claim with respect to a multimember districting plan (and hence to justify a super-majority districting remedy), a plaintiff must prove three threshold conditions: first, “that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; second, “that it is politically cohesive”; and third, “that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” Gin-gles, 478 U. S., at 50-51. We have not previously considered whether these Gingles threshold factors apply to a §2 dilution challenge to a single-member districting scheme, a so-called “vote fragmentation” claim. See id., at 46-47, n. 12. We have, however, stated on many occasions that multimem-ber districting plans, as well as at-large plans, generally pose greater threats to minority-voter participation in the political process than do single-member districts, see, e. g., id., at 47, and n. 13; id., at 87 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 616-617 (1982); see also Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 88 (1966)—which is why we have strongly preferred single-member districts for federal-court-ordered reapportionment, see, e. g., Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 415 (1977). It would be peculiar to conclude that a vote-dilution challenge to the (more dangerous) multimember district requires a higher threshold showing than a vote-fragmentation challenge to a single-member district. Certainly the reasons for the three Gingles prerequisites continue to apply: The “geographically compact majority” and “minority political cohesion” showings are needed to establish that the minority has the potential to elect a representative of its own choice in some single-member district, see Gingles, supra, at 50, n. 17. And the “minority political cohesion” and “majority bloc voting” showings are needed to establish that the challenged districting thwarts a distinctive minority vote by submerging it in a larger white voting population, see Gingles, supra, at 51. Unless these points are established, there neither has been a wrong nor can be a remedy.
In the present case, even if we make the dubious assumption that the minority voters were “geographically compact,” there was quite obviously a higher-than-usual need for the second of the Gingles showings. Assuming (without deciding) that it was permissible for the District Court to combine distinct ethnic and language minority groups for purposes of assessing compliance with § 2, when dilution of the power of such an agglomerated political bloc is the basis for an alleged violation, proof of minority political cohesion is all the more essential. See Badillo v. Stockton, 956 F. 2d 884, 891 (CA9 1992); Concerned Citizens of Hardee County v. Hardee County Bd. of Comm’rs, 906 F. 2d 524 (CA11 1990); Campos v. Baytown, 840 F. 2d 1240, 1244 (CA5 1988), cert. denied, 492 U. S. 905 (1989). Since a court may not presume bloc voting within even a single minority group, see Gingles, supra, at 46, it made no sense for the District Court to (in effect) indulge that presumption as to bloc voting within an agglomeration of distinct minority groups.
We are satisfied that in the present case the Gingles preconditions were not only ignored but were unattainable. As the District Court acknowledged, the record simply “contains no statistical evidence” of minority political cohesion (whether of one or several minority groups) or of majority bloc voting in Minneapolis. 782 F. Supp., at 486, n. 30. And even anecdotal evidence is lacking. Recognizing this void, the court relied on an article identifying bloc voting as a national phenomenon that is “‘all but inevitable.’” Ibid., quoting Howard & Howard, The Dilemma of the Voting Rights Act — Recognizing the Emerging Political Equality Norm, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1615, 1625 (1983). A law review article on national voting patterns is no substitute for proof that bloc voting occurred in Minneapolis. Cf. Gingles, 478 U. S., at 58-61 (summarizing statistical and anecdotal evidence in that case). Section 2 “does not assume the existence of racial bloc voting; plaintiffs must prove it.” Id., at 46.
* * *
The District Court erred in not deferring to the state court’s efforts to redraw Minnesota’s state legislative and federal congressional districts. Its conclusion that the state court’s legislative districting plan (which it treated as merely one available option) violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act was also erroneous. Having found these defects, we need not consider the other points of error raised by appellants.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss.
So ordered.
We have referred to the Pullman doctrine as a form of “abstention,” see 312 U. S., at 501-502. To bring out more clearly, however, the distinction between those circumstances that require dismissal of a suit and those that require postponing consideration of its merits, it would be preferable to speak of Pullman “deferral.” Pullman deferral recognizes that federal courts should not prematurely resolve the constitutionality of a state statute, just as Germano deferral recognizes that federal courts should not prematurely involve themselves in redistricting.
Although under Minnesota law legislative districts must be drawn before precinct boundaries can be established, see Minn. Stat. §204B.14, subd. 3 (Supp. 1991), congressional districts were not needed in advance of the March 3 precinct caucuses. Congressional district conventions did not take place until late April and early May.
That section provides:
“(a) No voting qualification of prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of'this section.
“(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown- that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”
These percentages refer to total population. To establish whether a §2 violation has occurred (which presumably requires application of the same standard that measures whether a §2 violation has been remedied) other courts have looked to, not the district’s total minority population, but the district’s minority population of voting age. See, e. g., Romero v. Pomona, 883 F. 2d 1418, 1425-1426, and n. 13 (CA9 1989) (citing cases). Gingles itself repeatedly refers to the voting population, see, e. g., 478 U. S., at 48, 50. We have no need to pass upon this aspect of the District Court’s opinion.
Gingles expressly declined to resolve whether, when a plaintiff alleges that a voting practice or procedure impairs a minority’s ability to influence, rather than alter, election results, a showing of geographical compactness of a minority group not sufficiently large to constitute a majority will suffice. 478 U. S., at 46-47, n. 12. We do not reach that question in the present case either: Although the Emison plaintiffs alleged both vote dilution and minimization of vote influence (in the 1983 plan), the District Court considered only the former issue in reviewing the state court’s plan.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burgee
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the President, acting through the Secretary of State, has authority to revoke a passport on the ground that the holder’s activities in foreign countries are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.
I
A
Philip Agee, an American citizen, currently resides in West Germany. From 1957 to 1968, he was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. He held key positions in the division of the Agency that is responsible for covert intelligence gathering in foreign countries. In the course of his duties at the Agency, Agee received training in clandestine operations, including the methods used to protect the identities of intelligence employees and sources of the United States overseas. He served in undercover assignments abroad and came to know many Government employees and other persons supplying information to the United States. The relationships of many of these people to our Government are highly confidential; many are still engaged in intelligence gathering.
In 1974, Agee called a press conference in London to announce his “campaign to fight the United States CIA wherever it is operating.” He declared his intent “to expose CIA officers and agents and to take the measures necessary to drive them out of the countries where they are operating.” Since 1974, Agee has, by his own assertion, devoted consistent effort to that program, and he has traveled extensively in other countries in order to carry it out. To identify CIA personnel in a particular country, Agee goes to the target country and consults sources in local diplomatic circles whom he knows from his prior service in the United States Government. He recruits collaborators and trains them in clandestine techniques designed to expose the “cover” of CIA employees and sources. Agee and his collaborators have repeatedly and publicly identified individuals and organizations located in foreign countries as undercover CIA agents, employees, or sources. The record reveals that the identifications divulge classified information, violate Agee’s express contract not to make any public statements about Agency matters without prior clearance by the Agency, have prejudiced the ability of the United States to obtain intelligence, and have been followed by episodes of violence against the persons and organizations identified.
In December 1979, the Secretary of State revoked Agee’s passport and delivered an explanatory notice to Agee in West Germany. The notice states in part:
“The Department’s action is predicated upon a determination made by the Secretary under the provisions of [22 CPR] Section 51.70(b)(4) that your activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States. The reasons for the Secretary’s determination are, in summary, as follows: Since the early 1970’s it has been your stated intention to conduct a continuous campaign to disrupt the intelligence operations of the United States. In carrying out that campaign you have travelled in various countries (including, among others, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Jamaica, Cuba, and Germany), and your activities in those countries have caused serious damage to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Your stated intention to continue such activities threatens additional damage of the same kind.”
The notice also advised Agee of his right to an administrative hearing and offered to hold such a hearing in West Germany on 5 days’ notice.
Agee at once filed suit against the Secretary. He alleged that the regulation invoked by the Secretary, 22 CFR § 51.70 (b)(4) (1980), has not been authorized by Congress and is invalid; that the regulation is impermissibly over-broad; that the revocation prior to a hearing violated his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process; and that the revocation violated a Fifth Amendment liberty interest in a. right to travel and a First Amendment right to criticize Government policies. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and he moved for summary judgment on the question of the authority to promulgate the regulation and on the constitutional claims. For purposes of that motion, Agee conceded the Secretary’s factual averments and his claim that Agee’s activities were causing or were likely to cause serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States. The District Court held that the regulation exceeded the statutory powers of the Secretary under the Passport Act of 1926, 22 U. S. C. § 211a, granted summary judgment for Agee, and ordered the Secretary to restore his passport. Agee v. Vance, 483 F. Supp. 729 (DC 1980).
B
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Agee v. Muskie, 203 U. S. App. D. C. 46, 629 F. 2d 80 (1980). It held that the Secretary was required to show that Congress had authorized the regulation either by an express delegation or by implied approval of a “substantial and consistent” administrative practice, Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 12 (1965). The court found no express statutory authority for the revocation. It perceived only one other case of actual passport revocation under the regulation since it was promulgated and only five other instances prior to that in which passports were actually denied “even arguably for national security or foreign policy reasons.” 203 U. S. App. D. C., at 51-52, 629 F. 2d, at 85-86. The Court of Appeals took note of the Secretary’s reliance on “a series of statutes, regulations, proclamations, orders and advisory opinions dating back to 1856,” but declined to consider those authorities, reasoning that “the criterion for establishing congressional assent by inaction is the actual imposition of sanctions and not the mere assertion of power.” Id., at 52-53, 629 F. 2d, at 86-87. The Court of Appeals held that its was not sufficient that “Agee’s conduct may be considered by some to border on treason,” since “[w]e are bound by the law as we find it.” Id., at 53, 629 F. 2d, at 87. The court also regarded it as material that most of the Secretary’s authorities dealt with powers of the Executive Branch “during time of war or national emergency” or with respect to persons “engaged in criminal conduct.” Id., at 52, 629 F. 2d, at 86.
We granted certiorari sub nom. Muskie v. Agee, 449 U. S. 818 (1980), and stayed the judgment of the Court of Appeals until our disposition of the case on the grant of certiorari.
II
The principal question before us is whether the statute authorizes the action of the Secretary pursuant to the policy announced by the challenged regulation.
A
1
Although the historical background that we develop later is important, we begin with the language of the statute. See, e. g., Universities Research Assn. v. Coutu, 450 U. S. 754, 771 (1981); Zemel, supra, at 7-8. The Passport Act of 1926 provides in pertinent part:
“The Secretary of State may grant and issue passports, and cause passports to be granted, issued, and verified in foreign countries by diplomatic representatives of the United States... under such rules as the President shall designate and prescribe for and on behalf of the United States, and no other person shall grant, issue, or verify such passports.” 22 U. S. C. § 211a (1976 ed., Supp. IV).
This language is unchanged since its original enactment in 1926.
The Passport Act does not in so many words confer upon the Secretary a power to revoke a passport. Nor, for that matter, does it expressly authorize denials of passport applications. Neither, however, does any statute expressly limit those powers. It is beyond dispute that the Secretary has the power to deny a passport for reasons not specified in the statutes. For example, in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116 (1958), the Court recognized congressional acquiescence in Executive policies of refusing passports to applicants “participating in illegal conduct, trying to escape the toils of the law, promoting passport frauds, or otherwise engaging in conduct which would violate the laws of the United States.” Id., at 127. In Zemel, the Court held that “the weightiest considerations of national security” authorized the Secretary to restrict travel to Cuba at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. 381 U. S., at 16. Agee concedes that if the Secretary may deny a passport application for a certain reason, he may revoke a passport on the same ground.
2
Particularly in light of the “broad rule-making authority granted in the [1926] Act,” Zemel, 381 U. S., at 12, a consistent administrative construction of that statute must be followed by the courts “ ‘unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong.’ ” E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Collins, 432 U. S. 46, 55 (1977), quoting Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 381 (1969); see Zemel, supra, at 11. This is especially so in the areas of foreign policy and national security, where congressional silence is not to be equated with congressional disapproval. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304 (1936), the volatile nature of problems confronting the Executive in foreign policy and national defense was underscored:
“In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.... As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, ‘The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.’ ” Id., at 319.
Applying these considerations to statutory construction, the Zemel Court observed:
“[B]ecause of the changeable and explosive nature of contemporary international relations, and the fact that the Executive is immediately privy to information which cannot be swiftly presented to, evaluated by, and acted upon by the legislature, Congress — in giving the Executive authority over matters of foreign affairs — must of necessity paint with a brush broader than that it customarily wields in domestic areas.” 381 U. S., at 17 (emphasis supplied).
Matters intimately related to foreign policy and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580 (1952), the Court observed that matters relating “to the conduct of foreign relations... are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Id., at 589; accord, Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 111 (1948).
B
1
A passport is, in a sense, a letter of introduction in which the issuing sovereign vouches for the bearer and requests other sovereigns to aid the bearer. 3 G. Hackworth, Digest of International Law §268, p. 499 (1942). Very early, the Court observed:
“[A passport] is a document, which, from its nature and object, is addressed to foreign powers; purporting only to be a request, that the bearer of it may pass safely and freely; and is to be considered rather in the character of a political document, by which the bearer is recog-nised, in foreign countries, as an American citizen; and which, by usage and the law of nations, is received as evidence of the fact.” Urtetiqui v. D’Arcy, 9 Pet. 692, 698 (1835).
With the enactment of travel control legislation making a passport generally a requirement for travel abroad, a passport took on certain added characteristics. Most important for present purposes, the only means by which an American can lawfully leave the country or return to it — absent a Presi-dentially granted exception — is with a passport. See 8 U. S. C. § 1185 (b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). As a travel control document, a passport is both proof of identity and proof of allegiance to the United States. Even under a travel control statute, however, a passport remains in a sense a document by which the Government vouches for the bearer and for his copduct.
<^The history of passport controls since the earliest days of the Republic shows congressional recognition of Executive authority to withhold passports on the basis of substantial reasons of national security and foreign policy)> Prior to 1856, when there was no statute on the subject, file common perception was that the issuance of a passport was committed to the sole discretion of the Executive and that the Executive would exercise this power in the interests of the national security and foreign policy of the United States. This derived from the generally accepted view that foreign policy was the province and responsibility of the Executive. From the outset, Congress endorsed not only the underlying premise of Executive authority in the areas of foreign policy and national security, but also its specific application to the subject of passports. Early Congresses enacted statutes expressly recognizing the Executive authority with respect to passports.
The first Passport Act, adopted in 1856, provided that the Secretary of State “shall be authorized to grant and issue passports... under such rules as the President shall designate and prescribe for and on behalf of the United States....” § 23, 11 Stat. 60. This broad and permissive language worked no change in the power of the Executive to issue passports; nor was it intended to do so. The Act was passed to centralize passport authority in the Federal Government and specifically in the Secretary of State. In all other respects, the 1856 Act
“merely confirmed an authority already possessed and exercised by the Secretary of State. This authority was ancillary to his broader authority to protect American citizens in foreign countries and was necessarily incident to his general authority to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States under the Chief Executive.” Senate Committee on Government Operations, Reorganization of the Passport Functions of the Department of State, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 13 (Comm. Print 1960).
The President and the Secretary of State consistently construed the 1856 Act to preserve their authority to- withhold passports on national security and foreign policy grounds. Thus, as an emergency measure in 1861, the Secretary issued orders prohibiting persons from going abroad or entering the country without passports; denying passports to citizens who were subject to military service unless they were bonded; and absolutely denying passports to persons “on errands hostile and injurious to the peace of the country and dangerous to the Union.” 3 J. Moore, A Digest of International Law 920 (1906); U. S. Dept, of State, The American Passport 49-54 (1898). An 1869 opinion of Attorney General Hoar held that the granting of a passport was not “obligatory in any case.” 13 Op. Atty. Gen. 89, 92. This was elaborated in 1901 in an opinion of Attorney General Knox, in which he stated:
“Substantial reasons exist for the use by Congress of the word ‘may’ in connection with authority to issue passports. Circumstances are conceivable which would make it most inexpedient for the public interests for this country to grant a passport to a citizen of the United States.” 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 509, 511.
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt promulgated a rule providing that “[t]he Secretary of State has the right in his discretion to refuse to issue a passport, and will exercise this right towards anyone who, he has reason to believe, desires a passport to further an unlawful or improper purpose.” Subsequent Executive Orders issued between 1907 and 1917 cast no doubt on this position. This policy was enforced in peacetime years to deny passports to citizens whose conduct abroad was “likely to embarrass the United States” or who.were “disturbing, or endeavoring to disturb, the relations of this country with the representatives of foreign countries.”
By enactment of the first travel control statute in 1918, Congress made clear its expectation that the Executive would curtail or prevent international travel by American citizens if it was contrary to the national security. The legislative history reveals that the principal reason for the 1918 statute was fear that “renegade Americans” would travel abroad and engage in “transference of important military information” to persons not entitled to it. The 1918 statute left the power to make exceptions exclusively in the hands of the Executive, without articulating specific standards. Unless the Secretary had power to apply national security criteria in passport decisions, the purpose of the Travel Control Act would plainly have been frustrated.
Against this background, and while the 1918 provisions were still in effect, Congress enacted the Passport Act of 1926. The legislative history of the statute is sparse. However, Congress used language which is identical in pertinent part to that in the 1856 statute {supra, at 294), as amended, and the legislative history clearly shows congressional awareness of the Executive policy. There is no evidence of any intent to repudiate the longstanding administrative construction. Absent such evidence, we conclude that Congress, in 1926, adopted the longstanding administrative construction of the 1856 statute. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580-581 (1978).
The Executive construed the 1926 Act to work no change in prior practice and specifically interpreted it to authorize denial of a passport on grounds of national security or foreign policy. Indeed, by an unbroken line of Executive Orders, regulations, instructions to consular officials, and notices to passport holders, the President and the Department of State left no doubt thatQikelihood of damage to national security or foreign policy of the United States was the single most important criterion in passport decisions^ The regulations are instructive. The 1952 version authorized denial of passports to citizens engaged in activities which would violate laws designed to protect the security of the United States “[i]n order to promote the national interest by assuring that the conduct of foreign relations shall be free from unlawful interference.” 17 Fed. Reg. 8013 (1952). The 1956 amendment to this regulation provided that a passport should be denied to any person whose
“activities abroad would: (a) Violate the laws of the United States; (b) be prejudicial to the orderly conduct of foreign relations; or (c) otherwise be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.” 22 CFR § 51.136 (1958).
This regulation remained in effect continuously until 1966.
This history of administrative construction was repeatedly communicated to Congress, not only by routine promulgation of Executive Orders and regulations, but also by specific presentations, including 1957 and 1966 reports by the Department of State explaining the 1956 regulation and a 1960 Senate Staff Report which concluded that “the authority to issue or withhold passports has, by precedent and law, been vested in the Secretary of State as a part of his responsibility to protect American citizens traveling abroad, and what he considered to be the best interests of the Nation.”
In 1966, the Secretary of State promulgated the regulations at issue in this case. 22 CFR §§ 51.70 (b) (4), 51.71 (a) (1980). Closely paralleling the 1956 regulation, these provisions authorize revocation of a passport where “[t]he Secretary determines that the national’s activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.”
2
Zemel recognized that congressional acquiescence may sometimes be found from nothing more than silence in the face of an administrative policy. 381 U. S., at 11; see Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1, 16-18 (1965); Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 313 (1933); Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U. S. 341, 345 (1932). Here, however, the inference of congressional approval “is supported by more than mere congressional inaction.” Zemel, 381 U. S., at 11-12. Twelve years after the promulgation of the regulations at issue and 22 years after promulgation of the similar 1956 regulation, Congress enacted the statute making it unlawful to travel abroad without a passport even in peacetime. 8 U. S. C. § 1185 (b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). Simultaneously, Congress amended the Passport Act of 1926 to provide that “[ujnless authorized by law,” in the absence of war, armed hostilities, or imminent danger to travelers, a passport may not be geographically restricted. Title 8 U. S. C. § 1185 (b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV) must be read in pari materia with the Passport Act. Zemel, supra, at 11-12; see 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 51.03, p. 299 (4th ed. 1973); cf. Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U. S. 239, 243-244 (1972).
The 1978 amendments are weighty evidence of congressional approval of the Secretary’s interpretation, particularly that in the 1966 regulations. Despite the longstanding and officially promulgated view that the Executive had the power to withhold passports for reasons of national security and foreign policy, Congress in 1978, “though it once again enacted legislation relating to passports, left completely untouched the broad rule-making authority granted in the earlier Act.” Zemel, supra, at 12; accord, NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267, 274-275 (1974).
3
Agee argues that the only way the Executive can establish implicit congressional approval is by proof of longstanding and consistent enforcement of the claimed power: that is, by showing that many passports were revoked on national security and foreign policy grounds. For this proposition, he xelies on Kent, 357 U. S., at 127-128.
A necessary premise for Agee’s contention is that there were frequent occasions for revocation and that the claimed Executive power was exercised in only a few of those cases. However^Cjtf there were no occasions — or few — to call the Secretary’s authority into play, the absence of frequent instances of enforcement is wholly irrelevant^ The exercise of a power emerges only in relation to a factual situation, and the continued validity of the power is not diluted simply because there is no need to use it.
The history is clear that there have been few^situations involving substantial likelihood of serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States as a result of a passport holder’s activities abroad, and that in the cases which have arisen, the Secretary has consistently^ exercised his power to withhold passports. Perhaps the most notable example of enforcement of the administrative policy, which surely could not have escaped the attention of Congress, was the 1948 denial of a passport to a Member of Congress who sought to go abroad to support a movement in Greece to overthrow the existing government. Another example was the 1954 revocation of a passport held by a man who was supplying arms to groups abroad whose interests were contrary to positions taken by the United States. In 1970, the Secretary revoked passports of two persons who sought to travel to the site of an international airplane hijacking. See also Note, 61 Yale L. J. 170, 174-176 (1952).
The Secretary has construed and applied his regulations consistently, and it would be anomalous to fault the Government because there were so few occasions to exercise the announced policy and practice. Although a pattern of actual enforcement is one indicator of Executive policy, it suffices that the Executive has “openly asserted” the power at issue. Zemel, 381 U. S., at 9; see id., at 10.
Kent is not to the contrary. There, it was shown that the claimed governmental policy had not been enforced consistently. The Court stressed that “as respects Communists these are scattered rulings and not consistently of one pattern.” 357 U. S., at 128. In other words, the Executive had allowed passports to some Communists, but sought to deny one to Kent. The Court had serious doubts as to whether there was in reality any definite policy in which Congress could have acquiesced. Here, by contrast, there is no basis for a claim that the Executive has failed to enforce the policy against others engaged in conduct likely to cause serious damage to our national security or foreign policy. It would turn Kent on its head to say that simply because we have had only a few situations involving conduct such as that in this record, the Executive lacks the authority to deal with the problem when it is encountered.
Agee also contends that the statements of Executive policy are entitled to diminished weight because many of them concern the powers of the Executive in wartime. However, the statute provides no support for this argument. History eloquently attests that grave problems of national security and foreign policy are by no means limited to times of formally declared war.
4
Relying on the statement of the Court in Kent that “illegal conduct” and problems of allegiance were, “so far as relevant here,... the only [grounds] which it could fairly be argued were adopted by Congress in light of prior administrative practice,” id., at 127-128, Agee argues that this enumeration was exclusive and is controlling here. This is not correct.
The Kent Court had no occasion to consider whether the Executive had the power,jfco revoke the passport of an individual whoseyQonduct is damaging the national security and foreign policy of the United States':'-.Went involved denials of passports solely on the basis of political beliefs entitled to First Amendment protection. See Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500 (1964). Although finding it unnecessary to reach the merits of that constitutional problem, the Kent Court emphasized the fact that “[w]e deal with beliefs, with associations, with ideological matters.” 357 U. S., at 130 (emphasis supplied). In particular, the Court noted that the applicants were
“being denied their freedom of movement solely because of their refusal to be subjected to inquiry into their beliefs and associations. They do not seek to escape the law nor to violate it. They may or may not be Communists. But assuming they are, the only law which Congress has passed expressly curtailing the movement of Communists across our borders has not yet become effective. It would therefore be strange to infer that pending the effectiveness of that law, the Secretary has been silently granted by Congress the larger, the more pervasive power to curtail in his discretion the free movement of citizens in order to satisfy himself about their beliefs or associations.” Ibid, (footnote omitted).
The protection accorded beliefs standing alone is very different from the protection accorded conduct. Thus, in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, supra, the Court held that a statute which, like the policy at issue in Kent, denied passports to Communists solely on the basis of political beliefs unconstitutionally “establishes an irrebuttable presumption that individuals who are members of the specified organizations will, if given passports, engage in activities inimical to the security of the United States.” 378 U. S., at 511. The Court recognized that the legitimacy of the objective of safeguarding our national security is “obvious and unarguable.” Id., at 509. The Court explained that the statute at issue was not the least restrictive alternative available: “The prohibition against travel is supported only by a tenuous relationship between the bare fact of organizational membership and the activity Congress sought to proscribe.” Id., at 514.
Beliefs and speech are only part of Agee’s “campaign to fight the United States CIA.” In that sense, this case contrasts markedly with the facts in Kent and Aptheker, No presumptions, rebuttable or otherwise, are involved, for Agee’s conduct in foreign countries presents a serious danger to American officials abroad and serious danger to the national security.
We hold that the policy announced in the challenged regulations is “sufficiently substantial and consistent” to compel the conclusion that Congress has approved it. See Zemel, 381 U. S., at 12.
Ill
Agee also attacks the Secretary’s action on three constitutional grounds: first, that the revocation of his passport im-permissibly burdens his freedom to travel; second, that the action was intended to penalize his exercise of free speech and deter his criticism of Government policies and practices; and third, that failure to accord him a prerevocation hearing-violated his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process.
In light of the express language of the passport regulations, which permits their application only in cases involving likelihood of “serious damage” to national security or foreign policy, these claims are without merit.
Revocation of a passport undeniably curtails travel, but the freedom to travel abroad with a “letter of introduction” in the form of a passport issued by the sovereign is subordinate to national security and foreign policy considerations; as such, it is subject to reasonable governmental regulation. The Court has made it plain that the freedom to travel outside the United States must be distinguished from the right to travel within ’the United States. This was underscored in Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U. S. 170, 176 (1978):
“Aznavorian urges that the freedom of international travel is basically equivalent to the constitutional right to interstate travel, recognized by this Court for over 100 years. Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 97; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 274; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 43-44; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (Taney, C. J., dissenting). But this Court has often pointed out the crucial difference between the freedom to travel internationally and the right of interstate travel.
“ 'The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified, United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757-758 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88, 105-106 (1971). By contrast the “right” of international travel has been considered to be no more than an aspect of the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As such this “right,” the Court has held, can be regulated within the bounds of due process.’ (Citations omitted.) Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1, 4 n. 6.”
It is “obvious and unarguable” that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S., at 509; accord Cole v. Young, 351 U. S. 536, 546 (1956); see Zemel, supra, at 13-17. Protection of the foreign policy of the United States is a governmental interest of great importance, since foreign policy and national security considerations cannot neatly be compartmentalized.
Measures to protect the secrecy of our Government’s foreign intelligence operations plainly serve these interests. Thus, in Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 509, n. 3 (1980), we held that “[t]he Government has a compelling interest in protecting both the secrecy of information important to our national security and the appearance of confidentiality so essential to the effective operation of our foreign intelligence service.” See also id., at 511-513. The Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. properly emphasized:
“[The President] has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.” 299 U. S., at 320.
Accord, Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U. S., at 111; The Federalist No. 64, pp. 392-393 (Mentor ed. 1961).
Not only has Agee jeopardized the security of the United States, but he has also endangered the interests of countries other than the United States — thereby creating serious problems for American foreign relations and foreign policy. Restricting Agee’s foreign travel, although perhaps not certain to prevent all of Agee’s harmful activities, is the only avenue open to the Government to limit these activities.
Assuming, arguendo, that First Amendment protections reach beyond our national boundaries, Agee’s First Amendment claim has no foundation. The revocation of Agee’s passport rests in part on the content of his speech: specifically, his repeated disclosures of intelligence operations and names of intelligence personnel. Long ago, however, this Court recognized that “[n]o one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.” Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 716 (1931), citing Z. Chafee, Freedom of Speech 10 (1920). Agee’s disclosures, among other things, have the declared purpose of obstructing intelligence operations and the recruiting of intelligence personnel. They are clearly not protected by the Constitution. The mere fact that Agee is also engaged in criticism of the Government does not render his conduct beyond the reach of the law.
To the extent the revocation of his passport operates to inhibit Agee, “it is an inhibition of action,” rather than of speech. Zemel, 381 U. S., at 16-17 (emphasis supplied). Agee is as free to criticize the United States Government as he was when he held a passport — always subject, of course, to express limits on certain rights by virtue of his contract with the Government. See Snepp v. United States, supra.
On this record, the Government is not required to hold a prerevocation hearing. In Cole v. Young, supra, we held that federal employees who hold “sensitive” positions “where they could bring about any discernible adverse effects on the Nation’s security” may be suspended without a presuspension hearing. 351 U. S., at 546-547. For the same reasons, when there is a substantial likelihood of “serious damage” to national security or foreign policy as a result of a passport holder’s activities in foreign countries, the. Government may take action to ensure that the holder may not exploit the sponsorship of his travels by the United States. “[W]hile the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 160 (1963). The Constitution’s due process guarantees call for no more than what has been accorded here: a statement of reasons and an opportunity for a prompt postrevocation hearing.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Agee has been deported from Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands. Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe 286-300 (P. Agee & L. Wolf eds. 1978).
The 1974 London statement was as follows:
“Today, I announced a new campaign to fight the United States CIA wherever it is operating. This campaign will have two main functions: First, to expose CIA officers and agents and to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves a dispute over the ownership of church property following a schism in a local church affiliated with a hierarchical church organization. The question for decision is whether civil courts, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, may resolve the dispute on the basis of “neutral principles of law,” or whether they must defer to the resolution of an authoritative tribunal of the hierarchical church.
I
The Vineville Presbyterian Church of Macon, Ga., was organized in 1904, and first incorporated in 1915. Its corporate charter lapsed in 1935, but was revived and renewed in 1939, and continues in effect at the present time.
The property at issue and on which the church is located was acquired in three transactions, and is evidenced by conveyances to the “Trustees of [or 'for’] Vineville Presbyterian Church and their successors in office,” App. 251, 253, or simply to the “Vineville Presbyterian Church.” Id., at 249. The funds used to acquire the property were contributed entirely by local church members. Pursuant to resolutions adopted by the congregation, the church repeatedly has borrowed money on the property. This indebtedness is evidenced by security deeds variously issued in the name of the “Trustees of the Vineville Presbyterian Church,” e. g., id., at 278, or, again, simply the “Vineville Presbyterian Church.” Id., at 299.
In the same year it was organized, the Vineville church was established as a member church of the Augusta-Macon Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). The PCUS has a generally hierarchical or connec-tional form of government, as contrasted with a congregational form. Under the polity of the PCUS, the government of the local church is committed to its Session in the first instance, but the actions of this assembly or “court” are subject to the review and control of the higher church courts,, the Presbytery, Synod, and General Assembly, respectively. The powers and duties of each level of the hierarchy are set forth in the constitution of the PCUS, the Book of Church Order, which is part of the record in the present case.
On May 27, 1973, at a congregational meeting of the Vine-ville church attended by a quorum of its duly enrolled members, 164 of them, including the pastor, voted to separate from the PCUS. Ninety-four members opposed the resolution. The majority immediately informed the PCUS of the action, and then united with another denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America. Although the minority remained on the church rolls for three years, they ceased to participate in the affairs of the Vineville church and conducted their religious activities elsewhere.
In response to the schism within the Vineville congregation, the Augusta-Macon Presbytery appointed a commission to investigate the dispute and, if possible, to resolve it. The commission eventually issued a written ruling declaring that the minority faction constituted “the true congregation of Vineville Presbyterian Church,” and withdrawing from the majority faction “all authority to exercise office derived from the [PCUS].” App. 235. The majority took no part in the commission’s inquiry, and did not appeal its ruling to a higher PCUS tribunal.
Representatives of the minority faction sought relief in federal court, but their complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Lucas v. Hope, 515 F. 2d 234 (CA5 1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 967 (1976). They then brought this class action in state court, seeking declaratory and injunctive orders establishing their right to exclusive possession and use of the Vineville church property as a member congregation of the PCUS. The trial court, purporting to apply Georgia’s “neutral principles of law” approach to church property disputes, granted judgment for the majority. The Supreme Court of Georgia, holding that the trial court had correctly stated and applied Georgia law, and rejecting the minority’s challenge based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments, affirmed. 241 Ga. 208, 243 S. E. 2d 860 (1978). We granted certiorari. 439 U. S. 891 (1978).
II
Georgia’s approach to church property litigation has evolved in response to Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U. S. 440 (1969) (Presbyterian Church I), rev’g Presbyterian Church v. Eastern Heights Church, 224 Ga. 61, 159 S. E. 2d 690 (1968). That case was a property dispute between the PCUS and two local Georgia churches that had withdrawn from the PCUS. The Georgia Supreme Court resolved the controversy by applying a theory of implied trust, whereby the property of a local church affiliated with a hierarchical church organization was deemed to be held in trust for the general church, provided the general church had not “substantially abandoned” the tenets of faith and practice as they existed at the time of affiliation. This Court reversed, holding that Georgia would have to find some other way of resolving church property disputes that did not draw the state courts into religious controversies. The Court did not specify what that method should be, although it noted in passing that “there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without 'establishing’ churches to which property is awarded.” 393 U. S., at 449.
On remand, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that, without the departure-from-doctrine element, the implied trust theory would have to be abandoned in its entirety. Presbyterian Church v. Eastern Heights Church, 225 Ga. 259, 167 S. E. 2d 658 (1969) (Presbyterian Church II). In its place, the court adopted what is now known as the “neutral principles of law” method for resolving church property disputes. The court examined the deeds to the properties, the state statutes dealing with implied trusts, Ga. Code §§ 108-106, 108-107 (1978), and the Book of Church Order to determine whether there was any basis for a trust in favor of the general church. Finding nothing that would give rise to a trust in any of these documents, the court awarded the property on the basis of legal title, which was in the local church, or in the names of trustees for the local church. 225 Ga., at 261, 167 S. E. 2d, at 660. Review was again sought in this Court, but was denied. 396 U. S. 1041 (1970).
The neutral-principles analysis was further refined by the Georgia Supreme Court in Carnes v. Smith, 236 Ga. 30, 222 S. E. 2d 322, cert. denied, 429 U. S. 868 (1976). That case concerned a property dispute between The United Methodist Church and a local congregation that had withdrawn from that church. As in Presbyterian Church II, the court found no basis for a trust in favor of the general church in the deeds, the corporate charter, or the state statutes dealing with implied trusts. The court observed, however, that the constitution of The United Methodist Church, its Book of Discipline, contained an express trust provision in favor of the general church. On this basis, the church property was awarded to the denominational church. 236 Ga., at 39, 222 S. E. 2d, at 328.
In the present case, the Georgia courts sought to apply the neutral-principles analysis of Presbyterian Church II and Carnes to the facts presented by the Vineville church controversy. Here, as in those two earlier cases, the deeds conveyed the property to the local church. Here, as in the earlier cases, neither the state statutes dealing with implied trusts, nor the corporate charter of the Vineville church, indicated that the general church had any interest in the property. And here, as in Presbyterian Church II, but in contrast to Carnes, the provisions of the constitution of the general church, the Book of Church Order, concerning the'ownership and control of property failed to reveal any language of trust in favor of the general church. The courts accordingly held that legal title to the property of the Vineville church was vested in the local congregation. Without further analysis or elaboration, they further decreed that the local congregation was represented by the majority faction, respondents herein. App. to Pet. for Cert. 9a.; 241 Ga., at 212, 243 S. E. 2d, at 864.
Ill
The only question presented by this case is which faction of the formerly united Vineville congregation is entitled to possess and enjoy the property located at 2193 Vineville Avenue in Macon, Ga. There can be little doubt about the general authority of civil courts to resolve this question. The State has an obvious and legitimate interest in the peaceful resolution of property disputes, and in providing a civil forum where the ownership of church property can be determined conclusively. Presbyterian Church I, 393 U. S., at 445.
It is also clear, however, that “the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.” Id., at 449. Most importantly, the First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696, 710 (1976); Maryland & Va. Churches v. Sharpsburg Church, 396 U. S. 367, 368 (1970); Presbyterian Church I, 393 U. S., at 449. As a corollary to this commandment, the Amendment requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church organization. Serbian Orthodox Diocese, 426 U. S., at 724-725; cf. Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 733-734 (1872). Subject to these limitations, however, the First Amendment does not dictate that a State must follow a particular method of resolving church property disputes. Indeed, “a State may adopt any one of various approaches for settling church property disputes so long as it involves no consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.” Maryland & Va. Churches, 396 U. S., at 368 (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).
At least in general outline, we think the “neutral principles of law” approach is consistent with the foregoing constitutional principles. The neutral-principles approach was approved in Maryland & Va. Churches, supra, an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland settling a local church property dispute on the basis of the language of the deeds, the terms of the local church charters, the state statutes governing the holding of church property, and the provisions in the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property. Finding that this analysis entailed “no inquiry into religious doctrine,” the Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question. 396 U. S., at 368. “Neutral principles of law” also received approving reference in Presbyterian Church I, 393 U. S., at 449; in MR. Justice Brennan’s concurrence in Maryland & Va. Churches, 396 U. S., at 370; and in Serbian Orthodox Diocese, 426 U. S., at 723 n. 15.
The primary advantages of the neutral-principles approach are that it is completely secular in operation, and yet flexible enough to accommodate all forms of religious organization and polity. The method relies exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges. It thereby promises to free civil courts completely from entanglement in questions of religious doctrine, polity, and practice. Furthermore, the neutral-principles analysis shares the peculiar genius of private-law systems in general — flexibility in ordering private rights and obligations to reflect the intentions of the parties. Through appropriate reversionary clauses and trust provisions, religious societies can specify what is to happen to church property in the event of a particular contingency, or what religious body will determine the ownership in the event of a schism or doctrinal controversy. In this manner, a religious organization can ensure that a dispute over the ownership of church property will be resolved in accord with the desires of the members.
This is not to say that the application of the neutral-principles approach is wholly free of difficulty. The neutral-principles method, at least as it has evolved in Georgia, requires a civil court to examine certain religious documents, such as a church constitution, for language of trust in favor of the general church. In undertaking such an examination' a civil court must take special care to scrutinize the document in purely secular terms, and not to rely on religious precepts in determining whether the document indicates that the parties have intended to create a trust. In addition, there may be cases where the deed, the corporate charter, or the constitution of the general church incorporates religious concepts in the provisions relating to the ownership of property. If in such a case the interpretation of the instruments of ownership would require the civil court to resolve a religious controversy, then the court must defer to the resolution of the doctrinal issue by the authoritative ecclesiastical body. Serbian Orthodox Diocese, 426 U. S., at 709.
On balance, however, the promise of nonentanglement and neutrality inherent in the neutral-principles approach more than compensates for what will be occasional problems in application. These problems, in addition, should be gradually eliminated as recognition is given to the obligation of “States, religious organizations, and individuals [to] structure relationships involving church property so as not to require the civil courts to resolve ecclesiastical questions.” Presbyterian Church I, 393 U. S., at 449. We therefore hold that a State is constitutionally entitled to adopt neutral principles of law as a means of adjudicating a church property dispute.
The dissent would require the States to abandon the neutral-principles method, and instead would insist as a matter of constitutional law that whenever a dispute arises over the ownership of church property, civil courts must defer to the "authoritative resolution of the dispute within the church itself.” Post, at 614. It would require, first, that civil courts review ecclesiastical doctrine and polity to determine where the church has “placed ultimate authority over the use of the church property.” Post, at 619. After answering this question, the courts would be required to “determine whether the dispute has been resolved within that structure of government and, if so, what decision has been made.” Post, at 619 n. 6. They would then be required to enforce that decision. We cannot agree, however, that the First Amendment requires the States to adopt a rule of compulsory deference to religious authority in resolving church property disputes, even where no issue of doctrinal controversy is involved.
The dissent suggests that a rule of compulsory deference would somehow involve less entanglement of civil courts in matters of religious doctrine, practice, and administration. Under its approach, however, civil courts would always be required to examine the polity and administration of a church to determine which unit of government has ultimate control over church property. In some cases, this task would not prove to be difficult. But in others, the locus of control would be ambiguous, and “[a] careful examination of the constitutions of the general and local church, as well as other relevant documents, [would] be necessary to ascertain the form of governance adopted by the members of the religious association.” Post, at 619-620. In such cases, the suggested rule would appear to require “a searching and therefore impermissible inquiry into church polity.” Serbian Orthodox Diocese, 426 U. S., at 723. The neutral-principles approach, in contrast, obviates entirely the need for an analysis or examination of ecclesiastical polity or doctrine in settling church property disputes.
The dissent also argues that a rule of compulsory deference is necessary in order to protect the free exercise rights “of those who have formed the association and submitted themselves to its authority.” Post, at 618. This argument assumes that the neutral-principles method would somehow frustrate the free-exercise rights of the members of a religious association. Nothing could be further from the truth. The neutral-principles approach cannot be said to “inhibit” the free exercise of religion, any more than do other neutral provisions of state law governing the manner in which churches own property, hire employees, or purchase goods. Under the neutral-principles approach, the outcome of a church property dispute is not foreordained. At any time before the dispute erupts, the parties can ensure, if they so desire, that the faction loyal to the hierarchical church will retain the church property. They can modify the deeds or the corporate charter to include a right of reversion or trust in favor of the general church. Alternatively, the constitution of the general church can be made to recite an express trust in favor of the denominational church. The burden involved in taking such steps will be minimal. And the civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form.
IY
It remains to be determined whether the Georgia neutral-principles analysis was constitutionally applied on the facts of this case. Although both the trial court and the Supreme Court of Georgia viewed the case as involving nothing more than an application of the principles developed in Presbyterian Church II and in Carnes, the present case contains a significant complicating factor absent in each of those earlier cases. Presbyterian Church II and Carnes each involved a church property dispute between the general church and the entire local congregation. Here, the local congregation was itself divided between a majority of 164 members who sought to withdraw from the PCUS, and a minority of 94 members who wished to maintain the affiliation. Neither of the state courts alluded to this problem, however; each concluded without discussion or analysis that the title to the property was in the local church and that the local church was represented by the majority rather than the minority.
Petitioners earnestly submit that the question of which faction is the true representative of the Yineville church is an ecclesiastical question that cannot be answered by a civil court. At least, it is said, it cannot be answered by a civil court in a case involving a hierarchical church, like the PCUS, where a duly appointed church commission has determined which of the two factions represents the “true congregation.” Respondents, in opposition, argue in effect that the Georgia courts did no more than apply the ordinary presumption that, absent some indication to the contrary, a voluntary religious association is represented by a majority of its members.
If in fact Georgia has adopted a presumptive rule of majority representation, defeasible upon a showing that the identity of the local church is to be determined by some other means, we think this would be consistent with both the neutral-principles analysis and the First Amendment.' Majority rule is generally employed in the governance of religious societies. See Bouldin v. Alexander, 15 Wall. 131 (1872). Furthermore, the majority faction generally can be identified without resolving any question of religious doctrine or polity. Certainly, there was no dispute in the present case about the identity of the duly enrolled members of the Vineville church when the dispute arose, or about the fact that a quorum was present, or about the final vote. Most importantly, any rule of majority representation can always be overcome, under the neutral-principles approach, either by providing, in the corporate charter or the constitution of the general church, that the identity of the local church is to be established in some other way, or by providing that the church property is held in trust for the general church and those who remain loyal to it. Indeed, the State may adopt any method of overcoming the majoritarian presumption, so long as the use of that method does not impair free-exercise rights or entangle the civil courts in matters of religious controversy.
Neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court of Georgia, however, explicitly stated that it was adopting a presumptive rule of majority representation. Moreover, there are at least some indications that under Georgia law the process of identifying the faction that represents the Yineville church involves considerations of religious doctrine and polity. Georgia law requires that “church property be held according to the terms of the church government,” and provides that a local church affiliated with a hierarchical religious association “is part of the whole body of the general church and is subject to the higher authority of the organization and its laws and regulations.” Carnes v. Smith, 236 Ga., at 33, 38, 222 S. E. 2d, at 325, 328; see Ga. Code §§ 22-5507, 22-5508 (1978). All this may suggest that the identity of the “Yineville Presbyterian Church” named in the deeds must be determined according to terms of the Book of Church Order, which sets out the laws and regulations of churches affiliated with the PCUS. Such a determination, however, would appear to require a civil court to pass on questions of religious doctrine, and to usurp the function of the commission appointed by the Presbytery, which already has determined that petitioners represent the “true congregation” of the Yineville church. Therefore, if Georgia law provides that the identity of the Vineville church is to be determined according to the “laws and regulations” of the PCUS, then the First Amendment requires that the Georgia courts give deference to the presbyterial commission’s determination of that church’s identity.
This Court, of course, does not declare what the law of Georgia is. Since .the grounds for the decision that respondents represent the Vineville church remain unarticulated, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
This is sometimes referred to as the "English approach” to resolving property disputes in hierarchical churches. See Presbyterian Church I, 393 U. S., at 433, and n. 2; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 727-728 (1872).
The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church ¶1537 (1968) requires that
“title to all real property now owned or hereafter acquired by an unincorporated local church . . . shall be held by and/or conveyed and transferred to its duly elected trustees . . . and their successors in office . . . in trust, nevertheless, for the use and benefit of such local church and of The United Methodist Church. Every instrument of conveyance of real estate shall contain the appropriate trust clause as set forth in the Discipline (¶ 1503)” (emphasis added).
Although in Carnes the deeds to the local church did not contain the required trust clause, The Book of Discipline provided that in the absence of a trust clause, a trust in favor of The United Methodist Church was to be implied if (a) the conveyance was to the trustees of a local church or agency of any predecessor to The United Methodist Church, or (b) the local church used the name of any predecessor to The United Methodist Church and was known to the community as a part of the denomination, or (c) the local church accepted the pastorate of ministers appointed by any predecessor to The United Methodist Church. The Book of Discipline ¶ 1503.5. The local church in Carnes satisfied all three of these conditions. 236 Ga., at 39, 222 S. E. 2d, at 328.
Indeed, even in Watson v. Jones, a common-law decision heavily relied upon by the dissent, Mr. Justice Miller, in speaking for the Court, stated that, regardless of the form of church government, it would be the "obvious duty” of a civil tribunal to enforce the “express terms” of a deed, will, or other instrument of church property ownership. 13 Wall., at 722-723.
Given that the Georgia Supreme Court clearly enunciated its intent to follow the neutral-principles analysis in Presbyterian Church II and Carnes, this case does not involve a claim that retroactive application of a neutral-principles approach infringes free-exereise rights.
If the Georgia Supreme Court adopts a rule of presumptive majority representation on remand, then it should also specify how, under Georgia law, that presumption may be overcome. Because these critical issues of state law remain undetermined, we, unlike the dissent, express no view as to the ultimate outcome of the controversy if the Georgia Supreme Court adopts a presumptive rule of majority representation.
The Georgia Code contains the following provision dealing with the identity of a religious corporation:
“The majority of those who adhere to its organization and doctrines represent the church. The withdrawal by one part of a congregation from the original body, or uniting with another church or denomination, is a relinquishment of all rights in the church abandoned.” Ga. Code §22-5504 (1978).
The trial court noted that the defendants (respondents here) did not claim any right of possession of the Vineville church property under this section. App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a. The Georgia Supreme Court did not mention the provision.
Issues of church doctrine and polity pervade the provisions of the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church (1972) dealing with the identity of the local congregation. The local church corporation consists of “all the communing members on the active roll” of the church. Id., § 6-2; App. 35. The “active roll,” in turn, is composed “of those admitted to the Lord’s Table who are active in the church’s life and work.” § 8-7; App. 38. The Session is given the power “to suspend or exclude from the Lord’s Supper those found delinquent, according to the Rules of Discipline.” § 15-6 (2); App. 51. See § 111-2; App. 124. The Session is subject to “the review and control” of the Presbytery, § 14^5; App. 49, as a part of the Presbytery’s general authority to “order whatever pertains to the spiritual welfare of the churches under its care.” § 16-7 (19); App. 56.
There is no suggestion in this case that the decision of the commission was the product of “fraud” or “collusion.” See Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696, 713 (1976). In the absence of such circumstances, “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.” Id., at 709.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to resolve a conflict among state and lower federal courts regarding the proper application of our decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972). 436 U. S. 925. Petitioner Scott was convicted of theft and fined $50 after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. His conviction was affirmed by the state intermediate appellate court and then by the Supreme Court of Illinois, over Scott's contention that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution required that Illinois provide trial counsel to him at its expense.
Petitioner Scott was convicted of shoplifting merchandise valued at less than $150. The applicable Illinois statute set the maximum penalty for such an offense at a $500 fine or one year in jail, or both. The petitioner argues that a line of this Court’s cases culminating in Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, requires state provision of counsel whenever imprisonment is an authorized penalty.
The Supreme Court of Illinois rejected this contention, quoting the following language from Argersinger:
“We hold, therefore, that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.” 407 U. S., at 37.
“Under the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, unless the accused is represented by counsel. He will have a measure of the seriousness and gravity of the offense and therefore know when to name a lawyer to represent the accused before the trial starts.” Id., at 40.
The Supreme Court of Illinois went on to state that it was “not inclined to extend Argersinger” to the case where a defendant is charged with a statutory offense for which imprisonment upon conviction is authorized but not actually imposed upon the defendant. 68 Ill. 2d 260, 272, 360 N. E. 2d 881, 882 (1077). We agree with the Supreme Court of Illinois that the Federal Constitution does not require a state trial court to appoint counsel for a criminal defendant such as petitioner, and we therefore affirm its judgment.
In his petition for certiorari, petitioner referred to the issue in this case as “the question left open in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1072).” Pet. for Cert. 5. Whether this question was indeed “left open” in Argersinger depends upon whether one considers that opinion to be a point in a moving line or a holding that the States are required to go only so far in furnishing counsel to indigent defendants. The Supreme Court of Illinois, in quoting the above language from Argersinger, clearly viewed the latter as Argersinger’s holding. Additional support for this proposition may be derived from the concluding paragraph of the opinion in that case:
“The run of misdemeanors will not be affected by today’s ruling. But in those that end up in the actual deprivation of a person’s liberty, the accused will receive the benefit of ‘the guiding hand of counsel’ so necessary where one’s liberty is in jeopardy.” 407 U. S., at 40.
Petitioner, on the other hand, refers to language in the Court’s opinion, responding to the opinion of Mr. Justice Powell, which states that the Court “need not consider the requirements of the Sixth Amendment as regards the right to counsel where loss of liberty is not involved . . . for here petitioner was in fact sentenced to jail.” Id., at 37.
There is considerable doubt that the Sixth Amendment itself, as originally drafted by the Framers of the Bill of Rights, contemplated any guarantee other than the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution in a federal court to employ a lawyer to assist in his defense. W. Beaney, The Right to Counsel in American Courts 27-30 (1955). In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), the Court held that Alabama was obligated to appoint counsel for the Scottsboro defendants, phrasing the inquiry as “whether the defendants were in substance denied the right of counsel, and if so, whether such denial infringes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 52. It concluded its opinion with the following language:
“The United States by statute and every state in the Union by express provision of law, or by the determination of its courts, make it the duty of the trial judge, where the accused is unable to employ counsel, to appoint counsel for him. In most states the rule applies broadly to all criminal prosecutions, in others it is limited to the more serious crimes, and in a very limited number, to capital cases. A rule adopted with such unanimous accord reflects, if it does not establish, the inherent right to have counsel appointed, at least in cases like the present, and lends convincing support to the conclusion we have reached as to the fundamental nature of that right." Id., at 73.
Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942), held that not every indigent defendant accused in a state criminal prosecution was entitled to appointment of counsel. A determination had to be made in each individual case whether failure to appoint counsel was a denial of fundamental fairness. Betts was in turn overruled in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963). In Gideon, Betts was described as holding “that a refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .” 372 U. S., at 339.
Several Terms later the Court held in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), that the right to jury trial in federal court guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment was applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held, however: “It is doubtless true that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to the States. Crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses . . . .” Id., at 159 (footnote omitted). In Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66, 69 (1970), the controlling opinion of Mr. Justice White concluded that “no offense can be deemed 'petty’ for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.”
In Argersinger the State of Florida urged that a similar dichotomy be employed in the right-to-counsel area: Any offense punishable by less than six months in jail should not require appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant. The Argersinger Court rejected this analogy, however, observing that “the right to trial by jury has a different genealogy and is brigaded with a system of trial to a judge alone.” 407 U. S., at 29.
The number of separate opinions in Gideon, Duncan, Baldwin, and Argersinger, suggests that constitutional line drawing becomes more difficult as the reach of the Constitution is extended further, and as efforts are made to transpose lines from one area of Sixth Amendment jurisprudence to another. The process of incorporation creates special difficulties, for the state and federal contexts are often different and application of the same principle may have ramifications distinct in degree and kind. The range of human conduct regulated by state criminal laws is much broader than that of the federal criminal laws, particularly on the “petty” offense part of the spectrum. As a matter of constitutional adjudication, we are, therefore, less willing to extrapolate an already extended line when, although the general nature of the principle sought to be applied is clear, its precise limits and their ramifications become less so. We have now in our decided cases departed from the literal meaning of the Sixth Amendment. And we cannot fall back on the common law as it existed prior to the enactment of that Amendment, since it perversely gave less in the way of right to counsel to accused felons than to those accused of misdemeanors. See Powell v. Alabama, supra, at 60.
In Argersinger the Court rejected arguments that social cost or a lack of available lawyers militated against its holding, in some part because it thought these arguments were factually incorrect. 407 U. S., at 37 n. 7. But they were rejected in much larger part because of the Court’s conclusion that incarceration was so severe a sanction that it should not be imposed as a result of a criminal trial unless an indigent defendant had been offered appointed counsel to assist in his defense, regardless of the cost to the States implicit in such a rule. The Court in its opinion repeatedly referred to trials “where an accused is deprived of his liberty,” id., at 32, and to “a case that actually leads to imprisonment even for a brief period,” id., at 33. The Chief Justice in his opinion concurring in the result also observed that “any deprivation of liberty is a serious matter.” Id., at 41.
Although the intentions of the Argersinger Court are not unmistakably clear from its opinion, we conclude today that Argersinger did indeed delimit the constitutional right to appointed counsel in state criminal proceedings. Even were the matter res nova, we believe that the central premise of Argersinger — that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or the mere threat of imprisonment— is eminently sound and warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel. Argersinger has proved reasonably workable, whereas any extension would create confusion and impose unpredictable, but necessarily substantial, costs on 50 quite diverse States. We therefore hold that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require only that no indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State has afforded him the right to assistance of appointed counsel in his defense. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois is accordingly
Affirmed.
Compare, e. g., Potts v. Estelle, 529 F. 2d 450 (CA5 1976); State ex rel. Winnie v. Harris, 75 Wis. 2d 547, 249 N. W. 2d 791 (1977), with Sweeten v. Sneddon, 463 F. 2d 713 (CA10 1972); Rollins v. State, 299 So. 2d 586 (Fla.), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1009 (1974).
Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 16-1 (1969). The penalty provision of the statute, at the time in question, provided in relevant part:
“A person first convicted of theft of property not from the person and not exceeding $150 in value shall be fined not to exceed $500 or imprisoned in a penal institution other than the penitentiary not to exceed one year, or both. A person convicted of such theft a second or subsequent time, or after a prior conviction of any type of theft, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary from one to 5 years. . . .”
Brief for Respondent in Argersinger v. Hamlin, O. T. 1971, No. 70-5015, p. 12.
We note that the line drawn in Argersinger was with full awareness of the various options. Both the petitioner in that case and the Legal Aid Society of New York, as amicus curiae, argued that the right to appointed counsel should pertain in any case in which imprisonment was an authorized penalty for the underlying offense. Brief for Petitioner in Argersinger v. Hamlin, O. T. 1971, No. 70-5015, p. 4; Brief for Legal Aid Society of New York as Amicus Curiae in Argersinger v. Hamlin 5-11. Respondent Florida and the amici States urged that the line be drawn as it had been in Baldwin for purposes of the jury trial guarantee. See, e. g., Brief for Respondent in Argersinger v. Hamlin 12. The Solicitor General argued for the standard that was finally adopted — that of actual imprisonment. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Argersinger v. Hamlin 22-24.
Unfortunately, extensive empirical work has not been done. That which exists suggests that the requirements of Argersinger have not proved to be unduly burdensome. See, e. g., Ingraham, The Impact of Argersinger—One Year Later, 8 Law & Soc. Rev. 615 (1974). That some jurisdictions have had difficulty implementing Argersinger is certainly not an argument for extending it. S. Krantz, C. Smith, D. Rossman, P. Froyd & J. Hoffman, Right to Counsel in Criminal Cases 1-18 (1976).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 22 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA or Act), 44 Stat. 1437, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 922, allows for modification of a disability award “on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact.” The question in this case is whether a party may seek modification on the ground of “change in conditions” when there has been no change in the employee’s physical condition but rather an increase in the employee’s wage-earning capacity due to the acquisition of new skills.
I
In 1980, respondent John Rambo injured his back and leg while working as a longshore frontman for petitioner Metropolitan Stevedore Company. Rambo filed a claim with the Department of Labor that was submitted to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). After Rambo and petitioner stipulated that Rambo sustained a 22>k% permanent partial disability and a corresponding $120.24 decrease in his $534.38 weekly wage, the ALJ, pursuant to LHWCA §8(c)(21), awarded Rambo 66%% of that figure, or $80.16 per week. App. 5. Because the ALJ also found that Rambo’s disability was not due solely to his work-related injury and was “materially and substantially greater than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone,” LHWCA § 8(f)(1), 33 U. S. C. § 908(f)(1), he limited the period of petitioner’s liability to pay compensation to 104 weeks. Ibid.; App. 6. Later payments were to issue from the special fund administered by respondent Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), LHWCA § 8(f)(2), 33 U. S. C. § 908(f)(2). Employers (or their insurance carriers) contribute to the fund based on their outstanding liabilities. See LHWCA § 44(c)(2)(B), 33 U. S. C. § 944(c)(2)(B).
After the award, Rambo began attending crane school. With the new skills so acquired, he obtained longshore work as a crane operator. He also worked in his spare time as a heavy lift truck operator. Between 1985 and 1990, Rambo’s average weekly wages ranged between $1,307.81 and $1,690.50, more than three times his preinjury earnings, though his physical condition remained unchanged. In light of the increased wage-earning capacity, petitioner, which may seek modification even when the special fund has assumed responsibility for payments, see LHWCA §22, 33 U. S. C. §922; 20 CFR § 702.148(b) (1994), filed an application to modify the disability award under LHWCA §22. Petitioner asserted there had been a “change in conditions” so that Rambo was no longer “disabled” under the Act. The ALJ agreed that an award may be modified based on changes in the employee’s wage-earning capacity, even absent a change in physical condition. After discounting wage increases due to inflation and considering Rambo’s risk of job loss and other employment prospects, the ALJ concluded Rambo “no longer has a wage-earning capacity loss” and terminated his disability payments. App. 68. The Benefits Review Board affirmed, relying on Fleetwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 16 BRBS 282 (1984), aff’d, 776 F. 2d 1225 (CA4 1985), which held that “change in condition[s]” means change in wage-earning capacity, as well as change in physical condition. App. 73. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Rambo v. Director, OWCP, 28 F. 3d 86 (1994). Rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s approach in Fleetwood, the Ninth Circuit held that LHWCA §22 authorizes modification of an award only where there has been a change in the claimant’s physical condition. We granted certiorari to resolve this split, 513 U. S. 1106 (1995), and now reverse.
II
The LHWCA is a comprehensive scheme to provide compensation “in respect of disability or death of an employee ... if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States.” LHWCA § 3, 33 U. S. C. § 903(a). Section 22 of the Act provides for modification of awards “on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact.” 33 U. S. C. § 922. In Rambo’s view and that of the Ninth Circuit, “change in conditions” means change in physical condition and does not include changes in other conditions relevant to the initial entitlement to benefits, such as a change in wage-earning capacity. In our view, this interpretation of “change in conditions” cannot stand in the face of the language, structure, and purpose of the Act.
A
Neither Rambo nor the Ninth Circuit has attempted to base their position on the language of the statute, where analysis in a statutory construction case ought to begin, for “when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute’s meaning, in all but the most extraordinary circumstance, is finished.” Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 475 (1992); Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U. S. 184, 190 (1991).
Section 22 of the Act provides the only way to modify an award once it has issued. The section states:
“Upon his own initiative, or upon the application of any party in interest (including an employer or carrier which has been granted relief under section 908(f) of this title), on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact by the deputy commissioner, the deputy commissioner may, at any time prior to one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, ... or at any time prior to one year after the rejection of a claim, review a compensation case ... and .. . issue a new compensation order which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase, or decrease such compensation, or award compensation.” 33 U.S. C. §922.
On two occasions we have construed the phrase “mistake in a determination of fact” and observed that nothing in the statutory language supports attempts to limit it to particular kinds of factual errors or to cases involving new evidence or changed circumstances. See O’Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., 404 U. S. 254, 255-256 (1971) (per curiam); Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Assn., Inc., 390 U. S. 459, 465 (1968). The language of §22 also provides no support for Rambo’s narrow construction of the phrase “change in conditions.” The use of “conditions,” a word in the plural, suggests that Congress did not intend to limit the bases for modifying awards to a single condition, such as an employee’s physical health. See 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 47.34, p. 274 (5th rev. ed. 1992) (“ ‘Ordinarily the legislature by use of a plural term intends a reference to more than one matter or thing’”) (quoting N. Y. Statutes Law §252 (McKinney 1971)); cf. 1 U.S.C. § 1 (“[WJords importing the plural include the singular”). Rather, under the “normal” or “natural reading,” Estate of Cowart, supra, at 477, the applicable “conditions” are those that entitled the employee to benefits in the first place, the same conditions on which continuing entitlement is predicated.
Our interpretation is confirmed by the language of LHWCA §§2(10) and 8(c)(21). Section 2(10) defines “[disability” as “incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.” 33 U. S. C. § 902(10). For certain injuries the statute creates a conclusive presumption of incapacity to earn wages and sets compensation at 66%% of the claimant’s actual wage for a fixed number of weeks, according to a statutory schedule. See LHWCA §§8(c)(l)-(20), (22), 33 U.S.C. §§908(c)(l)-20, (22). When these types of scheduled injuries occur, a claimant simply proves the relevant physical injury and compensation follows for a finite period of time. See Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 506 U. S. 153, 156, n. 4 (1993); Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 449 U. S. 268, 269 (1980). “In all other cases,” however, the statute provides “the compensation shall be 66% per centum of the difference between the average weekly wages of the employee and the employee’s wage-earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of partial disability.” LHWCA §8(c)(21), 33 U. S. C. § 908(c)(21). For these nonscheduled injuries, the type at issue in this case, loss of wage-earning capacity is an element of the claimant’s case, for without the statutory presumption that accompanies scheduled injuries, a claimant is not “disabled” unless he proves “incapacity because of injury to earn the wages.” LHWCA § 2(10), 33 U. S. C. §902(10). See Bath Iron Works, supra, at 156; Potomac Elec. Power Co., supra, at 269-270. These two sections make it clear that compensation, as an initial matter, is predicated on loss of wage-earning capacity, and that such compensation should continue only “during the continuance of partial disability,” LHWCA § 8(c)(21), 33 U. S. C. §908(c)(21), i. e., during the continuance of the “incapacity ... to earn the wages,” LHWCA §2(10), 33 U. S. C. §902(10). Section 22 accommodates this statutory requirement by providing for modification of an award on the ground of “a change in conditions.” 33 U. S. C. § 922.
Rambo’s insistence on what seems to us a “ ‘narrowly technical and impractical construction’ ” of this phrase, O’Keeffe, supra, at 255 (quoting Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Norton, 106 F. 2d 137, 138 (CA3 1939)), does more than disregard the plain language of §§ 22, 2(10), and 8(c)(21). It also is inconsistent with the structure and purpose of the LHWCA. Like most other workers’ compensation schemes, the LHWCA does not compensate physical injury alone but the disability produced by that injury. See LHWCA §§3(a), 8, 33 U. S. C. §§ 903(a), 908; see also 1C A. Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation §57.11 (1994). Disability under the LHWCA, defined in terms of wage-earning capacity, LHWCA §2(10), is in essence an economic, not a medical, concept. Cf. 3 Larson, supra, § 81.31(e), p. 15-1150 (1995) (“[Disability in the compensation sense has an economic as well as a medical component”). It may be ascertained for nonscheduled injuries according to the employee’s actual earnings, if they “fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity,” and if they do not, then with “due regard to the nature of [the employee’s] injury, the degree of physical impairment, his usual employment and any other factors or circumstances in the case which may affect his capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future.” LHWCA § 8(h), 33 U. S. C. § 908(h). The fundamental purpose of the Act is to compensate employees (or their beneficiaries) for wage-earning capacity lost because of injury; where that wage-earning capacity has been reduced, restored, or improved, the basis for compensation changes and the statutory scheme allows for modification.
B
Given that the language of §22 and the structure of the Act itself leave little doubt as to Congress’ intent, any argument based on legislative history is of minimal, if any, relevance. See Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 254, (1992); Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 136 (1991); cf. Intercounty Constr. Corp. v. Walter, 422 U. S. 1, 8 (1975) (construing ambiguity in application of §22’s 1-year limitations period). In any event, we find Rambo’s arguments that the legislative history provides support for his view lacking in force.
From congressional Reports accompanying amendments to § 22 in 1934,1938, and 1984, Reports suggesting Congress was unwilling to extend the 1-year limitations period in which a party may seek modification, Rambo would have us infer that Congress intended a narrow construction of other parts of § 22, including the circumstances that would justify reopening an award. We rejected this very argument in Banks, supra, at 465, and its logic continues to elude us. Congress’ decision to maintain a 1-year limitations period has no apparent relevance to which changed conditions may justify modifying an award.
Rambo next contends that following McCormick S. S. Co. v. United States Employees’ Compensation Comm’n, 64 F. 2d 84 (CA9 1933), the Courts of Appeals unanimously held that “change in conditions” refers only to changes in physical conditions, so Congress’ reenactment of the phrase “change in conditions” when it amended other parts of § 22 as late as 1984 must be understood to endorse that approach. We have often relied on Congress’ “reenact[ment of] statutory language that has been given a consistent judicial construction,” Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U. S. 164, 185 (1994); see Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 566-567 (1988), in particular where Congress was aware of or made reference to that judicial construction, see Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S. 115, 121 (1994); United States v. Calamaro, 354 U. S. 351, 359 (1957). The cases in the relevant period, however, were based on a misreading of McCormick, supra, which did not reject the idea that §22 included a change in wage-earning capacity, but merely expressed doubt that §22 “applies to a change in earnings due to economic conditions,” 64 F. 2d, at 85; they involved dicta, not holdings, see, e. g., Pillsbury v. Alaska Packers Assn., 85 F. 2d 758, 760 (CA9 1936), rev’d on other grounds, 301 U. S. 174 (1937); Burley Welding Works, Inc. v. Lawson, 141 F. 2d 964, 966 (CA5 1944); General Dynamics Corp. v. Director, OWCP, 673 F. 2d 23, 25, n. 6 (CA1 1982) (per curiam); and they were not uniform in their approach, see, e. g., Hole v. Miami Shipyards Corp., 640 F. 2d 769, 772 (CA5 1981) (“[T]he compensation award may be modified years later to reflect... greater or lesser economic injury”). Under these circumstances, we are not persuaded that congressional silence in the reenactment of the phrase “change in conditions” carries any significance.
In a related argument, Rambo criticizes petitioner’s reading of § 22 because it sweeps away an accumulation of more than 50 years of dicta. Far from counseling hesitation, however, we think this step long overdue. “[A]ge is no antidote to clear inconsistency with a statute,” Brown v. Gardner, supra, at 122, and the dictum of Pillsbury and Burley Welding Works has not even aged with integrity, see, e. g., Fleetwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 16 BRBS 282 (1984); LaFaille v. Benefits Review Board, U. S. Dept. of Labor, 884 F. 2d 54, 62 (CA2 1989); Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Guidry, 967 F. 2d 1039, 1042, n. 6 (CA5 1992) (dictum). Breath spent repeating dicta does not infuse it with life. The unnecessary observations of these Courts of Appeals “are neither authoritative nor persuasive.” McLaren v. Fleischer, 256 U. S. 477, 482 (1921); cf. United States v. Estate of Donnelly, 397 U. S. 286, 295 (1970).
Finally, Rambo argues that including a change in wage-earning capacity as a change in conditions under §22 will flood the OWCP and the courts with litigation because parties will request modification every time an employee’s wages change or the economy takes a turn in one direction or the other. Experience in the 11 years since the Benefits Review Board decided Fleetwood, supra, suggests otherwise, but that argument is, in any case, better directed at Congress or the Director in her rulemaking capacity, see LHWCA § 39(a), 33 U. S. C. § 939(a); Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U. S. 122, 134 (1995), than at the courts. It is also based on a misconception of the LHWCA and our holding today. We recognize only that an award in a nonscheduled-injury case may be modified where there has been a change in wage-earning capacity. A change in actual wages is controlling only when actual wages “fairly and reasonably represent . . . wage-earning capacity.” LHWCA § 8(h), 33 U. S. C § 908(h). Otherwise, wage-earning capacity may be determined according to the many factors identified in §8(h), including “any . . . factors or circumstances in the case which may affect [the employee’s] capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future.” This circumspect approach does not permit a change in wage-earning capacity with every variation in actual wages or transient change in the economy. There may be cases raising difficult questions as to what constitutes a change in wage-earning capacity, but we need not address them here. Rambo acquired additional, marketable skills and the ALJ, recognizing that higher wages do not necessarily prove an increase in wage-earning capacity, took care to account for inflation and risk of job loss in evaluating Rambo’s new “wage-earning capacity in an open labor market under normal employment conditions.” App. 66.
We hold that a disability award may be modified under § 22 where there is a change in the employee’s wage-earning capacity, even without any change in the employee’s physical condition. Because Rambo raised other arguments before the Ninth Circuit that the panel did not have the opportunity to address, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal question here is whether a United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany had jurisdiction, in 1950, to try a civilian citizen of the United States, who was the dependent wife of a member of the United States Armed Forces, on a charge of murdering her husband in violation of § 211 of the German Criminal Code. The homicide occurred in October, 1949, within the United States Area of Control in Germany. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that such court had that jurisdiction.
The present proceeding originates with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner, Yvette J. Mad-sen, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, seeking her release from the Federal Reformatory for Women in West Virginia where she is serving a sentence imposed by a United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany. She contends that her confinement is invalid because the court which convicted and sentenced her had no jurisdiction to do so. The District Court, after a hearing based on exhibits and agreed facts, discharged the writ and remanded petitioner to the custody of the respondent warden of the reformatory. 93 F. Supp. 319. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 188 F. 2d 272. Because of the importance and novelty of the jurisdictional issues raised, we granted certiorari. 342 U. S. 865.
I. Petitioner’s status in Germany. — Petitioner is a native-born citizen of the United States who lawfully entered the American Zone of Occupied Germany in 1947 with her husband, Lieutenant Madsen of the United States Air Force. In 1949, she resided there, with him, in a house requisitioned for military use, furnished and maintained by military authority. She was permitted to use the facilities of the United States Army maintained there for persons in its service and for those serving with or accompanying the United States Armed Forces. In brief, her status was that of a civilian dependent wife of a member of the United States Armed Forces which were then occupying the United States Area of Control in Germany.
October 20, 1949, following her fatal shooting of her husband at their residence at Buchschleg, Kreis Frankfurt, Germany, she was arrested there by the United States Air Force Military Police. On the following day, before a “United States Military Government Court,” she was charged with the murder of her husband in violation of § 211 of the German Criminal Code. In February, 1950, she was tried by “The United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany, Fourth Judicial District.” That court was composed of three United States civilians, two of whom had been appointed as district judges and one as a magistrate by or under the authority of the Military Governor of the United States Area of Control. The court adjudged her guilty and sentenced her to 15 years in the Federal Reformatory for Women at Alderson, West Virginia, or elsewhere as the Secretary of the Army might direct. In May, the “Court of Appeals of the United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany,” composed of five United States civilians appointed by the Military Governor of the Area, affirmed the judgment but committed her to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative. The Director of the United States Bureau of Prisons designated the Federal Reformatory for Women at Alderson, West Virginia, as the place for her confinement.
II. Both United States courts-martial, and United States Military Commissions or tribunals in the nature of such commissions, had jurisdiction in Germany in 1949-1950 to try persons in the status of petitioner on the charge against her. — Petitioner does not here attack the merits of her conviction nor does she claim that any nonmilitary court of the United States or Germany had jurisdiction to try her. It is agreed by the parties to this proceeding that a regularly convened United States general court-martial would have had jurisdiction to try her. The United States, however, contends, and petitioner denies, that the United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany, which tried her, also had jurisdiction to do so. In other words, the United States contends that its courts-martial’s jurisdiction was concurrent with that of its occupation courts, whereas petitioner contends that it was exclusive of that of its occupation courts.
The key to the issue is to be found in the history of United States military commissions and of United States occupation courts in the nature of such commissions. Since our nation’s earliest days, such commissions have been constitutionally recognized agencies for meeting many urgent governmental responsibilities related to war. They have been called our common-law war courts. They have taken many forms and borne many names. Neither their procedure nor their jurisdiction has been prescribed by statute. It has been adapted in each instance to the need that called it forth. See In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 18-23.
In the absence of attempts by Congress to limit the President’s power, it appears that, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, he may, in time of war, establish and prescribe the jurisdiction and procedure of military commissions, and of tribunals in the nature of such commissions, in territory occupied by Armed Forces of the United States. His authority to do this sometimes survives cessation of hostilities. The President has the urgent and infinite responsibility not only of combating the enemy but of governing any territory occupied by the United States by force of arms. The policy of Congress to refrain from legislating in this uncharted area does not imply its lack of power to legislate. That evident restraint contrasts with its traditional readiness to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;... Under that clause Congress has enacted and repeatedly revised the Articles of War which have prescribed, with particularity, the jurisdiction and procedure of United States courts-martial.
Originally Congress gave to courts-martial jurisdiction over only members of the Armed Forces and civilians rendering functional service to the Armed Forces in camp or in the field. Similarly the Articles of War at first dealt with nonmilitary crimes only by surrendering the accused to the civil authorities. Art. 33, American Articles of War of 1806, Winthrop’s Military Law and Precedents (2d ed. 1920 reprint) 979. However, in 1863, this latter jurisdiction was enlarged to include many crimes “committed by persons who are in the military service of the United States....” Still it did not cover crimes committed by civilians who, like petitioner, were merely accompanying a member of the Armed Forces.
Finally, in 1916, when Congress did revise the Articles of War so as to extend the jurisdiction of courts-martial to include civilian offenders in the status of petitioner, it expressly preserved to “military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals” all of their existing concurrent jurisdiction by adding a new Article which read in part as follows:
“II. Courts-martial.
“q. jurisdiction.
“Art. 15. Not exclusive. — The provisions of these articles conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by the law of war may be lawfully triable by such military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals.” 39 Stat. 651, 652, 653.
Article 15 thus forestalled precisely the contention now being made by petitioner. That contention is that certain provisions, added in 1916 by Articles 2 and 12 extending the jurisdiction of courts-martial over civilian offenders and over certain nonmilitary offenses, automatically deprived military commissions and other military tribunals of whatever existing jurisdiction they then had over such offenders and offenses. Articles 2 and 12, together, extended the jurisdiction of courts-martial so as to include “all persons accompanying or serving with the armies of the United States without the territorial-jurisdiction of the United States... The 1916 Act also increased the nonmilitary offenses for which civilian offenders could be tried by courts-martial. Article 15, however, completely disposes of that contention. It states unequivocally that Congress has not deprived such commissions or tribunals of the existing jurisdiction which they had over such offenders and offenses as of August 29, 1916. 39 Stat. 653, 670. See In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, and Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1.
The legislative history strengthens the Government’s position. During the consideration by Congress of the proposed Articles of War, in 1916, Judge Advocate General of the Army Crowder sponsored Article 15 and the authoritative nature of his testimony has been recognized by this Court. In re Yamashita, supra, at 19 note, 67-71. Before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Affairs he said:
“Article 15 is new. We have included in article 2 as subject to military law a number of persons who are also subject to trial by military commission. A military commission is our common-law war court. It has no statutory existence, though it is recognized by statute law. As long as the articles embraced them in the designation ‘persons subject to military law,’ and provided that they might be tried by court-martial, I was afraid that, having made a special provision for their trial by court-martial, it might be held that the provision operated to exclude trials by military commission and other war courts; so this new article was introduced:....”
“It just saves to these war courts the jurisdiction they now have and makes it a concurrent jurisdiction with courts-martial, so that the military commander in the field in time of war will be at liberty to employ either form of court that happens to be convenient.” S. Rep. No. 130, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 40.
The concurrent jurisdiction thus preserved is that which “by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals.” (Emphasis supplied.) 39 Stat. 653, 41 Stat. 790, 10 U. S. C. § 1486. The “law of war” in that connection includes at least that part of the law of nations which defines the powers and duties of belligerent powers occupying enemy territory pending the establishment of civil government. The jurisdiction exercised by our military commissions in the examples previously mentioned extended to nonmilitary crimes, such as murder and other crimes of violence, which the United States as the occupying power felt it necessary to suppress. In the case of In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 20, following a quotation from Article 15, this Court said, “By thus recognizing military commissions in order to preserve their traditional jurisdiction over enemy combatants unimpaired by the Articles, Congress gave sanction, as we held in Ex parte Quirin, to any use of the military commission contemplated by the common law of war.” The enlarged jurisdiction of the courts-martial therefore did not exclude the concurrent jurisdiction of military commissions and of tribunals in the nature of such commissions.
III. The United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany were, at the time of the trial of petitioner’s case, tribunals in the nature of military commissions conforming to the Constitution and laws of the United States. — Under the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces occupying a certain area of Germany conquered by the allies, the system of occupation courts now before us developed gradually. The occupation courts in Germany are designed especially to meet the needs of law enforcement in that occupied territory in relation to civilians and to nonmilitary offenses. Those courts have been directed to apply the German Criminal Code largely as it was theretofore in force. (See Appendix, infra, pp. 362-371, entitled “Chronology of Establishment of United States Military Government Courts and Their Jurisdiction Over Civilians in the United States Area of Control in Germany 1945-1950.”) The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, in 1945 established, through the Commanding General of the United States Forces in the European Theater, a United States Military Government for Germany within the United States Area of Control. Military Government Courts, in the nature of military commissions, were then a part of the Military Government. By October 20, 1949, when petitioner was alleged to have committed the offense charged against her, those courts were known as United States Military Government Courts. They were vested with jurisdiction to enforce the German Criminal Code in relation to civilians in petitioner’s status in the area where the homicide occurred.
September 21, 1949, the occupation statute had taken effect. Under it the President vested the authority of the United States Military Government in a civilian acting as the United States High Commissioner for Germany. He gave that Commissioner “authority, under the immediate supervision of the Secretary of State (subject, however, to consultation with and ultimate direction by the President), to exercise all of the governmental functions of the United States in Germany (other than the command of troops)... Executive Order 10062, June 6, 1949, 14 Fed. Reg. 2965, Appendix, infra, p. 367; Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, Staff Announcement No. 1, September 21, 1949, Appendix, infra, p. 368. Under the Transitional Provisions of Allied High Commission, Law No. 3, Article 5, 14 Fed. Reg. 7458, Appendix, infra, p. 369, preexisting legislation was applied to the appropriate new authorities. Finally by Allied High Commission, Law No. 1, Article 1, 15 Fed. Reg. 2086, Appendix, infra, p. 370, effective January 1, 1950, the name of the “United States Military Government Courts for Germany” was changed to “United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany.” They derived their authority from the President as occupation courts, or tribunals in the nature of military commissions, in areas still occupied by United States troops. Although the local government was no longer a “Military Government,” it was a government prescribed by an occupying power and it depended upon the continuing military occupancy of the territory.
The government of the occupied area thus passed merely from the control of the United States Department of Defense to that of the United States Department of State. The military functions continued to be important and were administered under the direction of the Commander of the United States Armed Forces in Germany. He remained under orders to take the necessary measures, on request of the United States High Commissioner, for the maintenance of law and order and to take such other action as might be required to support the policy of the United States in Germany. Executive Order 10062, supra.
The judges who served on the occupation courts were civilians, appointed by the United States Military Governor for Germany, and thereafter continued in office or appointed by the United States High Commissioner for Germany. Their constitutional authority continued to stem from the President. The members of the trial court were designated by the Chief Presiding District Judge as a panel to try the case. The volume of business, the size of the area, the number of civilians affected, the duration of the occupation and the need for establishing confidence in civilian procedure emphasized the propriety of tribunals of a nonmilitary character. With this purpose, the Military Government Courts for Germany, substantially from their establishment, have had a less military character than that of courts-martial. In 1948, provision was made for the appointment of civilian judges with substantial legal experience. The rights of individuals were safeguarded by a code of criminal procedure dealing with warrants, summons, preliminary hearings, trials, evidence, witnesses, findings, sentences, contempt, review of cases and appeals. This subjected German and United States civilians to the same procedures and exhibited confidence in the fairness of those procedures.
It is suggested that, because the occupation statute took effect September 21, 1949, whereas the crime charged occurred October 20, 1949, the constitutional authority for petitioner’s trial by military commission expired before the crime took place. Such is not the case. The authority for such commissions does not necessarily expire upon cessation of hostilities or even, for all purposes, with a treaty of peace. It may continue long enough to permit the occupying power to discharge its responsibilities fully. Santiago v. Nogueras, 214 U. S. 260; Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109, 124; Burke v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall. 519; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176; Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164.
IV. Petitioner and the offense charged against her came within the jurisdiction assigned to the court which tried her. — Under United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31, August 18,1948, Article 7,14 Eed. Reg. 126, Appendix, infra, p. 365, the United States gave its Military Government District Courts “criminal jurisdiction over all persons in the United States Area of Control except persons, other than civilians, who are subject to military, naval or air force law and are serving with any forces of the United Nations.” It thus excepted from the jurisdiction of those occupation courts military men and women who were subject to military law but expressly gave those courts jurisdiction over civilian men and women who were subject to military law. Article of War 2 (d) further defined “any person subject to military law” as including “all persons accompanying or serving with the armies of the United States without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States....” This included petitioner.
Article 7 of United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31 further provided, however, that “No person subject to military law of the United States shall be brought to trial for any offense except upon authorization of the Commander-in-Chief, European Command.” 14 Fed. Reg. 126, Appendix, infra, p. 365. That authorization appears in the official correspondence relating to the case of Wilma B. Ybarbo. The correspondence includes a written endorsement from the proper authority, dated December 11, 1948, covering not only the Ybarbo case but also the case “of any dependent of a member of the United States Armed Forces....” See Appendix, infra, p. 367.
The applicability of the German Criminal Code to petitioner’s offense springs from its express adoption by the United States Military Government. The United States Commanding General, in his Proclamation No. 2, September 19, 1945, stated that, except as abrogated, suspended or modified by the Military Government or by the Control Council for Germany, “the German law in force at the time of the occupation shall be applicable in each area of the United States Zone of Occupation....” 12 Fed. Reg. 6997, Appendix, infra, p. 363. Section 211 of the German Criminal Code accordingly was applicable to petitioner on October 20, 1949. The United States also expressly required that its civilians be tried by its occupation courts rather than by the German courts. United States Military Government Law No. 2, German courts, Art. VI (i)(c) and (d), 12 Fed. Reg. 2191, 2192, Appendix, infra, p. 364. United States Military Government Ordinance No. 2, Art. II (2)(iii), 12 Fed. Reg. 2190-2191, Appendix, infra, p. 363.
The jurisdiction of the United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany to try petitioner being established, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the discharge of the writ of habeas corpus for petitioner’s release from custody is
Affirmed.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Chronology of Establishment of United States Military Government Courts and Their Jurisdiction Over Civilians in the United States Area of Control in Germany 1945-1950.
(Emphasis supplied throughout except in headings.)
1. June 5,1945. — Allied Powers assumed “supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not effect the annexation of Germany.” Declaration by Commanding Generals representing the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the French Provisional Government, THE AXIS IN DEFEAT — A Collection of Documents on American Policy Toward Germany and Japan, published by the United States Department of State, p. 63.
2. July 14,1945. — Commanding General, United States Armed Forces in Europe, established a Military Government under his authority in the United States Zone of Occupation — Military Government — United States Area of Control, Proclamation No. 1,12 Fed. Reg. 6997.
3. September 19,1945. — Commanding General, United States Forces, European Theater, proclaimed:
“Article II. Except as heretofore abrogated, suspended or modified by Military Government or by the Control Council for Germany, the German law in force at the time of the occupation shall be applicable in each area of the United States Zone of Occupation, until repealed by, or superseded by a new law enacted by the Control Council for Germany, or by Military Government or the states hereby constituted or by other competent authority.” Military Government — United States Area of Control, Proclamation No. 2, 12 Fed. Reg. 6997.
4. 1946. — Military Government Courts, as distinguished from courts-martial, were given jurisdiction over all persons in the occupied territory, including civilians subject to military law and over offenses under the laws of the occupied territory.
“... Article II; jurisdiction. (1) Military Government courts shall have jurisdiction over all persons in the occupied territory except persons other than civilians who are subject to military, naval or air force law and are serving under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary-Force, or any other Commander of any forces of the United Nations.
“(2) Military Government Courts shall have jurisdiction over:
“(i) All offences against the laws and usages of war.
“(ii) All offences under any proclamation, law, ordinance, notice or order issued by or under the authority of the Military Government or of the Allied Forces.
“(in) All offences under the laws of the occupied territory or of any part thereof.” United States Military Government Ordinance No. 2, Military Government Courts, 12 Fed. Reg. 2190-2191.
5. 1943. — German courts were denied jurisdiction in certain criminal cases, including those involving any national of the United Nations or any dependent accompanying any of the Armed Forces of any of the United Nations.
“... Article VI; limitations on jurisdiction. (1) Except when expressly authorized by Control Council or Military Government Law, ordinance or regulation, or by order of the Director of Military Government of the appropriate Land, no German court shall assert or exercise jurisdiction in the following cases or classes or [of] cases:
“(i) Criminal cases involving:
“(a) Any of the United Nations, or
“(b) The Armed Forces of any of the United Nations, or
“(c) Any person serving with any such Forces or a dependent accompanying any of them, or
“(d) Any national of the United Nations, or... United States Military Government, Law No. 2, German courts, 12 Fed. Reg. 2191, 2192.
6. August 18, 1948. — United States Military Government Courts for Germany established;
“... Ordinance No. 31; United States Military Government Courts for Germany; creation of the courts — (a) Article 1; judicial system. A system of courts is hereby established for the United States Area of Control of Germany....
“(c) Article 3; District Courts. (1) A District Court is hereby established for each judicial district within the United States Area of Control.
“(3) Each District Court shall consist of one or more District Judges and one or more Magistrates who shall sit singly except as provided in subpara-graph (5) of this paragraph.
“(5) A District Court composed of three District Judges or two District Judges and a Magistrate may hear and decide any civil or criminal case, and, in the latter, may impose any lawful sentence including death. A majority of such Court shall decide any case before it, provided that no sentence of death shall be imposed except by the unanimous decision of the Court.
“(8) Where an accused is charged with an offense under German law, the Court shall he limited to the sentence or other penal provision of such law.
“jurisdiction of the courts
“(g) Article 7, jurisdiction of District Courts in criminal cases. (1) District Courts shall have criminal jurisdiction over all persons in the United States Area of Control except persons, other than civilians, who are subject to military, naval or air force law and are serving with any forces of the United Nations. No person subject to military law of the United States shall be brought to trial for any offense except upon authorization of the Commander-in-Chief, European Command. No member of an Allied Mission, visiting governmental official, or person subject to the military law of any country other than the United States, shall be brought to trial for any offense except upon authorization of the Military Governor.
“(2) District Courts shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:
“(i) Offenses under legislation issued by or under the authority of the Allied Control Council;
“(ii) Offenses under United States Military Government Legislation;
“(iii) Offenses under German law in force in the Judicial District of the Court.” 14 Fed. Reg. 124, 125, 126.
7. December 11, 1948. — The Commander-in-Chief of the United States European Command endorsement addressed to the Chief Attorney, United States Military Government Courts for Germany:
“Authorization is hereby given for trial of any dependent of a member of the United States Armed Forces or of any dependent of a civilian employee of the Department of the Army for any non-military offenses before the appropriate Military Government Court established by Military Government Ordinance No. 31 unless, in a particular case, this headquarters has directed trial by Court Martial.” Resp. Ex. 4, R. 71.
8. May 12, 1949. — Occupation statute promulgated by Military Governors and Commanders-in-Chief of the Western Zones of Germany — to become effective at a later date. It declared that—
“1. During the period in which it is necessary that the occupation continue... [the occupying powers] desire and intend that the German people shall enjoy self-government to the maximum possible degree consistent with such occupation. The Federal State and the participating Laender [states] shall have, subject only to the limitations in this Instrument, full legislative, executive and judicial powers in accordance with the Basic Law and with their respective constitutions.
“2. In order to ensure the accomplishment of the basic purposes of the occupation, powers in the following fields are specifically reserved....
“(e) Protection, prestige, and security of Allied forces, dependents, employees and representatives, their immunities and satisfaction of occupation costs and their other requirements;... 14 Fed. Reg. 7457.
9. June 6, 1949. — Executive Order 10062 of the President Establishing the Position of United States High Commissioner for Germany:
“2. The United States High Commissioner for Germany, hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner, shall be the supreme United States authority in Germany. The High Commissioner shall have the authority, under the immediate supervision of the Secretary of State (subject, however, to consultation with and ultimate direction by the President), to exercise all of the governmental functions of the United States in Germany (other than the command of troops), including representation of the United States on the Allied High Commission for Germany when established, and the exercise of appropriate functions of a Chief of Mission within the meaning of the Foreign Service Act of 1946.
“4. In the event that the High Commissioner shall assume his duties in accordance with this Executive Order prior to the date that the Military Government of the United States Zone of Germany is terminated, he shall during such interval report to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army, and shall be the United States Military Governor with all the powers thereof including those vested in the United States Military Governor under all international agreements.” 14 Fed. Reg. 2965.
10. September 21,1949. — Council of Allied High Commission declared occupation statute to be in force as promulgated May 12, 1949. 14 Fed. Reg. 7456.
11. September 21,1949. — United States High Commissioner for Germany, in accordance with Executive Order 10062, assumed the authority residing in the United States Military Governor and the Office of Military Government for Germany for the governmental functions of the United States in Germany:
“2. The Office of the U. S. High Commissioner for Germany is hereby established as the agency through which the authority vested in the U. S. High Commissioner shall be exercised. Its organization shall be as shown in the attached charts [including U. S. High Commission Courts, Court of Appeals, District Courts], and its functions shall be assigned among its constituent elements as set forth in separate issu-ances, effective this date.” Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, Staff Announcement No. 1, Resp. Ex. 1, R. 67, 68.
12. September 21, 191$. — The United States High Commissioner for Germany announced that the United States Courts for Germany, as established by Staff Announcement No. 1 (and previously established as the “United States Military Government Courts for Germany,” pursuant to United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31) “form an independent judicial unit responsible directly to the United States High Commissioner. The integrated system provides for district judges and magistrates at the district court level and for a Chief Judge and associate judges of the Court of Appeals.” Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, Staff Announcement No. 5, Resp. Ex. 2, R. 69. Similar announcement was made as to the Office of General Counsel and of the Chief Attorney. Staff Announcement No. 6, Resp. Ex. 3, R. 70.
13. September 21, 191$.- — “Allied Forces” defined by Allied High Commission:
“In the absence of any indication to the contrary, in legislation of the Allied High Commission:
“3. The expression ‘Allied Forces’ shall include—
“(a) The Occupation Authorities.
“(b) The Occupation Forces and their members.
“(c) Non-German nationals, civilian or military, who are serving with the Occupation Authorities.
“(d) Members of the families and non-German persons in the service of the persons referred to in subparagraphs (a) (b) and (c) of this paragraph.” Allied High Commission, Law No. 2, Art. 1, 14 Fed. Reg. 7457.
14. September 21, 191$. — Transitional Provisions proclaimed by Allied High Commission for Germany adapting existing legislation to the provisions of the occupation statute effective September 21, 1949.
“ARTICLE 5
“References in any legislation enacted before the entry into force of the Occupation Statute to the Control Council, the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force, the Commanding General, the Armed Forces, Military Government, the Military Governor and to other authorities shall, where the context so requires or admits, be deemed to refer to the appropriate authorities exercising the particular functions mentioned in such legislation.” Allied High Commission, Law No. 3, 14 Fed. Reg. 7458.
15. November 25,1949. — Judicial powers were reserved, from the German courts, as to members of families of members of the Occupation Forces, thus bringing them under the jurisdiction of the occupation courts.
“The Council of the Allied High Commission enacts as follows:
“article i
“Except when expressly authorized, either generally or in specific cases, by the High Commissioner of the Zone in which the Court is located, German Courts shall not exercise criminal jurisdiction:
“(a)(i) Over the Allied Forces;....” Allied High Commission, Law No. 13, 15 Fed. Reg. 1056.
16. December 28, 1949 (Effective January 1, 1950).— Occupation courts were changed.
“The United States High Commissioner for Germany enacts as follows:
“article i
“Article 1 of United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31, ‘United States Military Government Courts for Germany’, is hereby amended by changing the last sentence of said Article to read as follows:
“ 'The Courts so created shall be known as the United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany.’ ”
“article 2
“Article 4 of United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31, ‘United States Military Government Courts for Germany’, is hereby amended by changing the first sentence of Section 2 of said Article to read as follows:
“ ‘The Court of Appeals shall consist of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.’ ”
“article 3
“Wherever the term ‘United States Military Government Courts for Germany’ or the terms ‘Chief Judge’ or ‘Associate Judge’ or ‘Associate Judges’ of the Court of Appeals are used in any legislation and regulations now in force, such terms shall be deemed to refer to the United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany and the Chief Justice and an Associate Justice or Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals of such Courts, respectively.” Allied High Commission, Law No. 1, 15 Fed. Reg. 2086.
See United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31, August 18, 1948, 14 Fed. Reg. 124-128. See Appendix, infra, p. 365.
The agreed statement of facts states:
“4. Section 211 of the German Criminal Code reads as follows in English translation:
“ ‘Murder — Mord
“ ‘211. (As in force prior to 4 September 1941). Whoever intentionally kills a human being is guilty of murder if the killing was accomplished with premeditation, and shall be punished by death.
“ ‘211. (As amended 4 September 1941, RGBI /, 549). The murderer shall be punished by death.
“ ‘A murderer is hereby defined as one who kills a human being out of the morbid desire to kill (Mordlust) ;
“ ‘For the satisfaction of sexual desire;
“ ‘For cupidity (Habgier) or any other base motives;
“ ‘In a treacherous or cruel manner or by means causing common danger, or
“ ‘In order to make possible or to conceal another offense.
“ ‘If, in especially exceptional cases, the death penalty is not suitable (angemessen), punishment of confinement for life in a penitentiary shall be imposed.’ ”
The agreed statement also contains a translation of §§44 and 51 of the German Criminal Code providing for reduction of sentence under circumstances which were deemed applicable to petitioner by the trial court.
See Allied High Commission, Law No. 1, Art. 1, December 28, 1949, 15 Fed. Reg. 2086, Appendix, infra, pp. 370-371.
See United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31, Art. 13, August 18, 1948, 14 Fed. Reg. 127.
See notes 1, 3 and 4, supra.
See 38 Stat. 1084-1085, 10 U. S. C. § 1452, and, since May 31, 1951, see Art. 58 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 64 Stat. 126, 50 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 639.
There was no nonmilitary court of the United States in Germany. She enjoyed the immunity from the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed upon the limited grounds on which the District Court rested its decision. 162 F. Supp. 372, 384.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
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.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is a companion to Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, ante, p. 332. It arises out of a controversial decision to construct a dam at Elk Creek in the Rogue River Basin in southwest Oregon. In addition to the question whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. §4321 et seq., must contain a complete mitigation plan and a “worst case analysis,” which we answered in Robertson, it presents the question whether information developed after the completion of the EIS requires that a supplemental EIS be prepared before construction of the dam may continue.
I
In the 1930’s in response to recurring floods in the Rogue River Basin, federal and state agencies began planning a major project to control the water supply in the Basin. See, e. g., ch. 346, 49 Stat. 439. In 1961 a multiagency study recommended the construction of three large dams: the Lost Creek Dam on the Rogue River, the Applegate Dam on the Applegate River, and the Elk Creek Dam on the Elk Creek near its confluence with the Rogue River. See H. R. Doc. No. 566, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 7-89 (1962). The following year, Congress authorized the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to construct the project in accordance with the recommendations of the 1961 study. See Flood Control Act of 1962, Pub. L. 87-874, §203, 76 Stat. 1192-1193. The Lost Creek Dam was completed in 1977, and the Applegate Dam was completed in 1981.
Plans for the Elk Creek Dam describe a 238-foot-high concrete structure that will control the run-off from 132 square miles of the 135-square-mile Elk Creek watershed. When full, the artificial lake behind the dam will cover 1,290 acres of land, will have an 18-mile shoreline, and will hold 101,000 acre-feet of water. The dam will cost approximately $100 million to construct and will produce annual benefits of almost $5 million. It will be operated in coordination with the nearby Lost Creek Dam, where the control center for both dams will be located. Its “multiport” structure, which will permit discharge of water from any of five levels, makes it possible to regulate, within limits, the temperature, turbidity, and volume of the downstream flow. Although primarily designed to control flooding along the Rogue River, additional project goals include enhanced fishing, irrigation, and recreation.
In 1971, the Corps completed its EIS for the Elk Creek portion of the three-dam project and began development by acquiring 26,000 acres of land and relocating residents, a county road, and utilities. Acknowledging incomplete information, the EIS recommended that further studies concerning the project’s likely effect on turbidity be developed. The results of these studies were discussed in a draft supplemental EIS completed in 1975. However, at the request of the Governor of Oregon, further work on the project was suspended, and the supplemental EIS was not filed to make it possible to analyze the actual consequences of the construction of the Lost Creek Dam, which was nearing completion, before continuing with the Elk Creek project. Following that analysis and the receipt of a statement from the Governor that he was “extremely interested in pursuing construction of the Elk Creek Dam,” the Corps completed and released its final Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement No. 1 (FEISS), in December 1980.
Because the Rogue River is one of the Nation’s premier fishing grounds, the FEISS paid special heed to the effects the dam might have on water quality, fish production, and angling. In its chapter on the environmental effects of the proposed project, the FEISS explained that water quality studies were prepared in 1974 and in 1979 and that “[w]ater temperature and turbidity have received the most attention.” FEISS 33. Using computer simulation models, the 1974 study predicted that the Elk Creek Dam might, at times, increase the temperature of the Rogue River by one to two degrees Fahrenheit and its turbidity by one to three JTU’s. Ibid. The 1979 study took a second look at the potential effect of the Elk Creek Dam on turbidity and, by comparing the 1974 study’s predictions concerning the effects of the Lost Creek Dam with actual measurements taken after that dam became operational, it “increased technical confidence in the mathematical model predictions... and reinforced the conclusions of the 1974 [study].” Id., at 33-34. Based on these studies, the FEISS predicted that changes in the “turbidity regime” would not have any major effect on fish production, but that the combined effect of the Lost Creek and Elk Creek Dams on the turbidity of the Rogue River might, on occasion, impair fishing.
Other adverse effects described by the FEISS include the displacement of wildlife population — including 100 black-tailed deer and 17 elk — and the loss of forest land and vegetation resulting from the inundation of 1,290 acres of land with the creation of the artificial lake. Id., at 26, 38, 46. Most significantly, it is perfectly clear that the dam itself would interfere with the migration and spawning of a large number of anadromous fish, but this effect has been mitigated by the construction of a new hatchery. Id., at 35. Finally, the FEISS found that no endangered or threatened species would be affected by the project. Id., at 27.
On February 19, 1982, after reviewing the FEISS, the Corps’ Division Engineer made a formal decision to proceed with construction of the Elk Creek Dam, “subject to the approval of funds by the United States Congress.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a. In his decision, he identified the mitigation measures that had already been taken with respect to the loss of anadromous fish spawning habitat, as well as those that would “most likely” be taken to compensate for the loss of other wildlife habitat. Id., at 56a-57a. He concluded that the benefits that would be realized from the project “outweigh the economic and environmental costs” and that completion would serve “the overall public interest.” Id., at 58a. In August 1985, Congress appropriated the necessary funds. Act of Aug. 15, 1985, Pub. L. 99-88, 99 Stat. 314. The dam is now about one-third completed and the creek has been rechanneled through the dam.
II
In October 1985, four Oregon nonprofit corporations filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon seeking to enjoin construction of the Elk Creek Dam. Their principal claims were that the Corps violated NEPA by failing (1) to consider the cumulative effects of the three dams on the Rogue River Basin in a single EIS; (2) adequately to describe the environmental consequences of the project; (3) to include a “worst case analysis” of uncertain effects; and (4) to prepare a second supplemental EIS to review information developed after 1980.
After conducting a hearing on respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the District Judge denied relief on each of the NEPA claims. 628 F. Supp. 1557 (1986). He first held that courts must employ a standard of “reasonableness” in reviewing an agency’s compliance with NEPA. Under this standard of review, the court must “ ‘make a pragmatic judgment whether the EIS’s form, content and preparation foster both informed decision-making and informed public participation.’” Id., at 1562 (quoting California v. Block, 690 F. 2d 753, 761 (CA9 1982)). Applying this standard, the District Judge concluded that the Corps had, in fact, taken a sufficiently “hard look” at the cumulative effects of the three dams and at the individual effects of the Elk Creek Dam. 628 F. Supp., at 1563-1565. He also con-eluded that a “worst case analysis” was not required because the Corps used state-of-the-art mathematical models, thus avoiding scientific uncertainty and the need to fill gaps in information with a worst case scenario. Id., at 1567. Finally, the District Court held that the Corps’ decision not to prepare a second supplemental EIS to address new information was “reasonable.”
The new information relied upon by respondents is found in two documents. The first, an internal memorandum prepared by two Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) biologists based upon a draft ODFW study, suggested that the dam will adversely affect downstream fishing, and the second, a soil survey prepared by the United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS), contained information that might be taken to indicate greater downstream turbidity than did the FEISS. As to both documents, the District Judge concluded that the Corps acted reasonably in relying on the opinions of independent and Corps experts discounting the significance of the new information. Id., at 1567-1568. At the conclusion of his opinion, the District Judge directed that the motion for preliminary relief be consolidated with trial on the merits pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), and thus denied respondents’ claim for a permanent injunction as well.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 832 F. 2d 1489 (CA9 1987). Applying the same “reasonableness” standard of review employed by the District Court, the Court of Appeals reached a contrary conclusion, holding that the Corps had not adequately evaluated the cumulative environmental impact of the entire project. Id., at 1497. Since the Corps did not seek review of that holding, we do not discuss it. The court also held that the FEISS was defective because it did not include a complete mitigation plan and because it did not contain a “worst case analysis.” Id., at 1493-1494, 1496-1497. These holdings were erroneous for the reasons stated in our opinion in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, ante, p. 332, and will not be further discussed. With regard to the failure to prepare a second supplemental EIS, the Court of Appeals'concluded that the ODFW and SCS documents brought to light “significant new information” concerning turbidity, water temperature, and epizootic fish disease; that this information, although “not conclusive,” is “probably accurate;” and that the Corps’ experts failed to evaluate the new information with sufficient care. 832 F. 2d, at 1494-1496. The court thus concluded that a second supplemental EIS should have been prepared. Judge Wallace, writing in dissent, took issue with the majority’s analysis of the new information. In his view, it was reasonable for the Corps to have concluded, based on its own expert evaluation, that the information contained in the ODFW document was inaccurate, and that the information contained in the SCS document was insignificant. Id., at 1500 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Ill
The subject of postdecision supplemental environmental impact statements is not expressly addressed in NEPA. Preparation of such statements, however, is at times necessary to satisfy the Act’s “action-forcing” purpose. NEPA does not work by mandating that agencies achieve particular substantive environmental results. Rather, NEPA promotes its sweeping commitment to “prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere” by focusing Government and public attention on the environmental effects of proposed agency action. 42 U. S. C. § 4321. By so focusing agency attention, NEPA ensures that the agency will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct. See Robertson, ante, at 349. Similarly, the broad dissemination of information mandated by NEPA permits the public and other government agencies to react to the effects of a proposed action at a meaningful time. Ante, at 349-350. It would be incongruous with this approach to environmental protection, and with the Act’s manifest concern with preventing uninformed action, for the blinders to adverse environmental effects, once unequivocally removed, to be restored prior to the completion of agency action simply because the relevant proposal has received initial approval. As we explained in TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 188, n. 34 (1978), although “it would make sense to hold NEPA inapplicable at some point in the life of a project, because the agency would no longer have a meaningful opportunity to weigh the benefits of the project versus the detrimental effects on the environment,” up to that point, “NEPA cases have generally required agencies to file environmental impact statements when the remaining governmental action would be environmentally ‘significant.’”
“(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” 83 Stat. 853, 42 U. S. C. § 4332.
This reading of the statute is supported by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Corps regulations, both of which make plain that at times supplementation is required. The CEQ regulations, which we have held are entitled to substantial deference, see Robertson, ante, at 355-356; Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U. S. 347, 358 (1979), impose a duty on all federal agencies to prepare supplements to either draft or final EIS’s if there “are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” Similarly, the Corps’ own NEPA implementing regulations require the preparation of a supplemental EIS if “new significant impact information, criteria or circumstances relevant to environmental considerations impact on the recommended plan or proposed action.”
The parties are in essential agreement concerning the standard that governs an agency’s decision whether to prepare a supplemental EIS. They agree that an agency should apply a “rule of reason,” and the cases they cite in support of this standard explicate this rule in the same basic terms. These cases make clear that an agency need not supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized. To require otherwise would render agency decisionmaking intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information outdated by the time a decision is made. On the other hand, and as petitioners concede, NEPA does require that agencies take a “hard look” at the environmental effects of their planned action, even after a proposal has received initial approval. See Brief for Petitioners 36. Application of the “rule of reason” thus turns on the value of the new information to the still pending decisionmaking process. In this respect the decision whether to prepare a supplemental EIS is similar to the decision whether to prepare an EIS in the first instance: If there remains “major Federal actio[n]” to occur, and if the new information is sufficient to show that the remaining action will “affec[t] the quality of the human environment” in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a supplemental EIS must be prepared. Cf. 42 U. S. C. § 4332(2)(C).
The parties disagree, however, on the standard that should be applied by a court that is asked to review the agency’s decision. Petitioners argue that the reviewing court need only decide whether the agency decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” whereas respondents argue that the reviewing court must make its own determination of reasonableness to ascertain whether the agency action complied with the law. In determining the proper standard of review, we look to § 10e of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706, which empowers federal courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” if they fail to conform with any of six specified standards. We conclude that review of the narrow question before us whether the Corps’ determination that the FEISS need not be supplemented should be set aside is controlled by the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of § 706(2)(A).
Respondents contend that the determination whether the new information suffices to establish a “significant” effect is either a question of law or, at a minimum, a question of ultimate fact and, as such, “deserves no deference” on review. Brief for Respondents 29. Apparently, respondents maintain that the question for review centers on the legal meaning of the term “significant” or, in the alternative, the predominantly legal question whether established and uncontested historical facts presented by the administrative record satisfy this standard. Characterizing the dispute in this manner, they posit that strict review is appropriate under the “in accordance with law” clause of §706(2)(A) or the “without observance of procedure required by law” provision of § 706 (2)(D). We disagree.
The question presented for review in this case is a classic example of a factual dispute the resolution of which implicates substantial agency expertise. Respondents’ claim that the Corps’ decision not to file a second supplemental EIS should be set aside primarily rests on the contentions that the new information undermines conclusions contained in the FEISS, that the conclusions contained in the ODFW memorandum and the SCS survey are accurate, and that the Corps’ expert review of the new information was incomplete, inconelusive, or inaccurate. The dispute thus does not turn on the meaning of the term “significant” or on an application of this legal standard to settled facts. Rather, resolution of this dispute involves primarily issues of fact. Because analysis of the relevant documents “requires a high level of technical expertise,” we must defer to “the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies.” Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U. S. 390, 412 (1976). See also Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U. S. 87, 103 (1983) (“When examining this kind of scientific determination... a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential”). Under these circumstances, we cannot accept respondents’ supposition that review is of a legal question and that the Corps’ decision “deserves no deference.” Accordingly, as long as the Corps’ decision not to supplement the FEISS was not “arbitrary or capricious,” it should not be set aside.
As we observed in Citizens to Presene Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 416 (1971), in making the factual inquiry concerning whether an agency decision was “arbitrary or capricious,” the reviewing court “must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” This inquiry must “be searching and careful,” but “the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one.” Ibid. When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive. On the other hand, in the context of reviewing a decision not to supplement an EIS, courts should not automatically defer to the agency’s express reliance on an interest in finality without carefully reviewing the record and satisfying themselves that the agency has made a reasoned decision based on its evaluation of the significance— or lack of significance — of the new information. A contrary approach would not simply render judicial review generally meaningless, but would be contrary to the demand that courts ensure that agency decisions are founded on a reasoned evaluation “of the relevant factors.”
> hH
Respondents’ argument that significant new information required the preparation of a second supplemental EIS rests on two written documents. The first of the documents is the so-called “Cramer Memorandum,” an intraoffice memorandum prepared on February 21, 1985, by two scientists employed by ODFW. See Cramer Memorandum 3a. The Cramer Memorandum, in turn, relied on a draft ODFW study describing the effects of the Lost Creek Dam on fish production. The second document is actually a series of maps prepared in 1982 by SCS to illustrate the composition of soil near the Elk Creek shoreline. The information was provided to the Corps for use in managing the project. Although respondents contend that the maps contained data relevant to a prediction of the dam’s impact on downstream turbidity, the maps do not purport to shed any light on that subject. Nor do they purport to discuss any conditions that had changed since the FEISS was completed in 1980. The Corps responded to the claim that these documents demonstrate the need for supplementation of the FEISS by preparing a formal Supplemental Information Report, dated January 10, 1986. See U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Elk Creek Lake Supplemental Information Report No. 2, p. 7a (hereinafter SIR). The SIR explained: “While it is clear based upon our review that this information does not require additional NEPA documentation, Corps regulations provide that a Supplemental Information Report can be used to disseminate information on points of concern regarding environmental impacts set forth in the EIS.”
The significance of the Cramer Memorandum and the SCS survey is subject to some doubt. Before respondents commenced this litigation in October 1985, no one had suggested that either document constituted the kind of new information that made it necessary or appropriate to supplement the FEISS. Indeed, the record indicates that the Corps was not provided with a copy of the Cramer Memorandum until after the lawsuit was filed. Since the probative value of that document depends largely on the expert qualification of its authors, the fact that they did not see fit to promptly apprise the Corps of their concern — or to persuade ODFW to do so— tends to discount the significance of those concerns. Similarly, the absence of any pretrial expression of concern about the soil characteristics described in the 1982 SCS survey is consistent with the view that it shed little, if any, new light on the turbidity potential of the dam. Yet, even if both documents had given rise to prompt expressions of concern, there are good reasons for concluding that they did not convey significant new information requiring supplementation of the FEISS.
The Court of Appeals attached special significance to two concerns discussed in the Cramer Memorandum: the danger that an increase in water temperature downstream during fall and early winter will cause an early emergence and thus reduce survival of spring chinook fry and the danger that the dam will cause high fish mortality from an epizootic disease. Both concerns were based partly on fact and partly on speculation.
With respect to the first, the Cramer Memorandum reported that the authors of the draft ODFW study had found that warming of the Rogue River caused by the Lost Creek Dam had reduced the survival of spring chinook fry; however, the extent of that reduction was not stated, nor did the memorandum estimate the extent of warming to be expected due to closure of the Elk Creek Dam. Instead, the memorandum estimated that an increase of only one degree centigrade in river temperature in January would decrease survival of spring chinook “from by 60-80%.” Cramer Memorandum 3a. The authors of the memorandum concluded that because the Elk Creek Dam is likely to increase the temperature of the Rogue River, further evaluation of this effect should be completed “before ODFW sets its final position on this project.” Ibid.
The Corps’ response to this concern in its SIR acknowledged that the “biological reasoning is sound and has been recognized for some time,” but then explained why the concern was exaggerated. SIR 10a. The SIR stressed that because the model employed by ODFW had not been validated, its predictive capability was uncertain. Indeed, ODFW scientists subsequently recalculated the likely effect of a one-degree-centigrade increase in temperature, adjusting its estimate of a 60-to-80 percent loss downward to between 30 and 40 percent. Id., at 9a. Moreover, the SIR supplied a variable missing in the Cramer Memorandum, suggesting that the Elk Creek Dam would, in most cases, either reduce or leave unchanged the temperature of the Rogue River. Id., at 10a. Discernible increases were only found in July, August, and December of the study year, and even during those months the maximum temperature increase was only 0.6 degrees centigrade. Ibid. Finally, the SIR observed that the Cramer Memorandum failed to take into account the dam’s beneficial effects, including its ability to reduce peak downstream flow during periods of egg incubation and fry rearing and its ability to reduce outflow temperature through use of the multiport structure. Id., at 9a-10a. Given these positive factors, the Corps concluded that any adverse effects of the 0.6-degree temperature increase can be offset. Id., at 10a.
With respect to the second concern emphasized by the Court of Appeals, the Cramer Memorandum reported the fact that “an unprecedented 76% of the fall chinook in 1979 and 32% in 1980 were estimated to have died before spawning” and then speculated that the Lost Creek Dam, which had been completed in 1977, was a contributing cause of this unusual mortality. Cramer Memorandum 4a. The Corps responded to this by pointing out that the absence of similar epizootics after the closure of the Applegate Dam and the evidence of prespawning mortality in the Rogue River prior to the closing of the Lost Creek Dam were inconsistent with the hypothesis suggested in the Cramer Memorandum. See SIR 10a-lla. In addition, the Corps noted that certain diseased organisms thought to have been the cause of the unusually high mortality rates were not found in the outflow from the Lost Creek Dam. Id., at 11a.
In thus concluding that the Cramer Memorandum did not present significant new information requiring supplementation of the FEISS, the Corps carefully scrutinized the proffered information. Moreover, in disputing the accuracy and significance of this information, the Corps did not simply rely on its own experts. Rather, two independent experts hired by the Corps to evaluate the ODFW study on which the Cramer Memorandum was premised found significant fault in the methodology and conclusions of the study. We also think it relevant that the Cramer Memorandum did not express the official position of ODFW. See SIR 9a. In preparing the memorandum, the authors noted that the agency had “adopted a neutral stand on Elk Creek Dam” and argued that new information raised the question whether “our agency should continue to remain neutral. ” Cramer Memorandum 3a. The concerns disclosed in the memorandum apparently were not sufficiently serious to persuade ODFW to abandon its neutral position.
The Court of Appeals also expressed concern that the SCS survey, by demonstrating that the soil content in the Elk Creek watershed is different than assumed in the FEISS, suggested a greater turbidity potential than indicated in the FEISS. 832 F. 2d, at 1495. In addition, the court observed that ODFW scientists believe that logging and road building in the Elk Creek watershed has caused increased soil disturbance resulting in higher turbidity than forecast by the FEISS. Ibid. As to this latter point, the SIR simply concluded that although turbidity may have increased in the early 1980’s due to logging, “watershed recovery appears to have occurred to reduce the turbidity levels back to those of the 1970’s.” SIR 12a. The implications of the SCS soil survey are of even less concern. As discussed in the FEISS, water quality studies were conducted in 1974 and 1979 using computer simulation models. FEISS 33. The 1974 study indicated that turbidity in the Rogue River would increase by no more than one to three JTU’s as a result of the Elk Creek Dam, and the 1979 study verified this result. Ibid. These studies used water samples taken from Elk Creek near the proposed dam site and from near the Lost Creek Dam, and thus did not simply rely on soil composition maps in drawing their conclusions. Id., at 18-19, 21-22, 33-34. Although the SIR did not expressly comment on the SCS survey, in light of the in-depth 1974 and 1979 studies, its conclusion that “the turbidity effects are not expected to differ from those described in the 1980 EISS” surely provided a legitimate reason for not preparing a supplemental FEISS to discuss the subject of turbidity. SIR 12a.
There is little doubt that if all of the information contained in the Cramer Memorandum and SCS survey was both new and accurate, the Corps would have been required to prepare a second supplemental EIS. It is also clear that, regardless of its eventual assessment of the significance of this information, the Corps had a duty to take a hard look at the proffered evidence. However, having done so and having determined based on careful scientific analysis that the new information was of exaggerated importance, the Corps acted within the dictates of NEPA in concluding that supplementation was unnecessary. Even if another decisionmaker might have reached a contrary result, it was surely not “a clear error of judgment” for the Corps to have found that the new and accurate information contained in the documents was not significant and that the significant information was not new and accurate. As the SIR demonstrates, the Corps conducted a reasoned evaluation of the relevant information and reached a decision that, although perhaps disputable, was not “arbitrary or capricious.”
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
As described by the Army Corps of Engineers:
“Lying within the southwest corner of Oregon, the Rogue River Basin drains a 5,060 square mile area in Jackson, Josephine, Coos, and Klamath Counties, as well as small portions of Del Norte and Siskiyou Counties in California.... Rogue River passes through vastly different environmental settings in the course of its journey from its upper reaches near Crater Lake to the Pacific Ocean at Gold Beach, Oregon. The climatological factors and other characteristics of the basin are such that floods are frequently experienced.” U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Elk Creek Lake Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement No. 1, p. 1 (Dec. 1980) (hereinafter PEISS).
“Turbidity is an expression of the optical property of water which causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted through in straight lines. Turbidity is caused by the presence of suspended matter.” Id., App. E, p. 3. This optical property of water is most commonly measured using the Jackson Turbidity Unit (JTU). “A general rule of thumb guideline is that 5 JTU is the limit for drinking water, 10 JTU impairs flyfishing, 20 JTU impairs other fishing methods, and long-term 50 JTU water alters fish behavior.” Id., at 21.
See Letter from Governor Atiyeh of August 1, 1979, reprinted in id., App. F.
See n. 2, supra.
The FEISS explained that suspended sediments can reduce fish production by clogging or injuring gill structures, by causing abrasions, by reducing food supply, and by making it more difficult for fish to locate what food is available by reducing visibility. FEISS 37. The study nonetheless concluded:
“Much of the heavy suspended materials will settle out in Elk Creek reservoir so no downstream effect of siltation is expected. Average annual downstream turbidity will be the same with or without the project.
“No major adverse effect on fish production in the Rogue River is expected as a result of the changes in the turbidity regime as a result of the Elk Creek project. Minor effects on production can be expected in the reach of Elk Creek between the project and its confluence with the Rogue River during normal years when turbidity will be higher than without the project. However, the project will also provide periods when turbidity will be lower than without the project. The multi-level withdrawal capability which will be built into the Elk Creek project will provide the ability to minimize turbidity effects on fish production.” Ibid.
The impact on fishing is described as follows:
“Increases in magnitude and extended duration of turbidity in the Rogue River are expected to result from operation of Elk Creek Dam. These increases could affect angling for salmonids in the Rogue because the ability of fish to see lures or flies is impaired by turbidity. Fly-fishing for resident trout and summer steelhead would be the most vulnerable to effects of turbidity. The fly-fishing season runs from late July into October. According to Rogue River guides and [Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife] biologists, fly-fishing success declines at a turbidity level of 10 JTU or greater. Other fishing methods are not productive when turbidity exceeds 20 JTU. It is possible that fisheries at other times, such as in the winter, will be affected for short periods. It is not expected that outflow from Lost Creek and Elk Creek Dams would, under the worst conditions, ever cause turbidity in the Rogue River to exceed 13 JTUs during late summer and early fall.” Id., at 36.
A “salmonid” is a soft-finned, elongated fish that has an upturned final vertebrae. See Webster’s Third International Dictionary 2004 (1981). Salmon and trout are two common salmonids. Ibid.
“Anadromous fish are those which spend most of their life in the open sea, but which return as adults to freshwater streams... to spawn.” Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Washington Game Dept., 433 U. S. 165, 168 (1977).
As described in the FEISS:
“Cole M. Rivers Fish Hatchery was constructed to mitigate the loss of anadromous fish-spawning habitat in Elk Creek, Applegate River, and the upper Rogue River, as well as to provide rainbow trout and kokanee for stocking in the reservoirs as mitigation for lost trout production. The hatchery is located about 0.2 miles downstream of Lost Creek Dam. It has a design capacity of 355,000 pounds of salmon and steelhead and 71,000 pounds of trout and kokanee. Production for Elk Creek would utilize approximately 14 percent of the total design capacity....” FEISS 35.
In the Report accompanying this legislation the Senate Appropriations Committee stressed that it “included specific language in the legislation directing the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to award a continuing contract for construction of the main dam for the Elk Creek Lake project.” S. Rep. No. 99-82, p. 97 (1985).
The four corporations, which are respondents herein, are the Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Oregon Guides and Packers Association, Inc., the Rogue Fly-fishers, Inc., and the Rogue River Guides Association.
Respondents’ complaint also included claims under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WASRA), 16 U. S. C. § 1278, and the Freedom of Informatio¿i Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552. However, prior to the hearing, respondents withdrew their WASRA claim. In order to facilitate prompt consideration of respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the NEPA claims, the District Judge postponed consideration of the FOIA claim for a later date. After considering the NEPA claims, the District Judge directed the entry of final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to permit prompt appellate review.
An epizootic disease is one that affects many animals of the same kind at the same time. See 832 F. 2d, at 1496, n. 5.
NEPA provides in pertinent part:
“The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible... (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall—
“(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on—
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to consider whether an interlocutory order of a United States District Court denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss a damages action on the basis of a contractual forum-selection clause is immediately appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291 as a collateral final order. We hold that it is not.
I
The individual respondents were, or represent the estates of persons who were, passengers aboard the cruise ship Achille Lauro when it was hijacked by terrorists in the Mediterranean in October 1985. Petitioner Lauro Lines s.r.l., an Italian company, owns the Achille Lauro. Respondents filed suits against Lauro Lines in the District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of the hijacking and for the wrongful death of passenger Leon Klinghoffer. Lauro Lines moved before trial to dismiss the actions, citing the'forum-selection clause printed on each passenger ticket. This clause purported to obligate the passenger to institute any suit arising in connection with the contract in Naples, Italy, and to renounce the right to sue elsewhere.
The District Court denied petitioner’s motions to dismiss, holding that the ticket as a whole did not give reasonable notice to passengers that they were waiving the opportunity to sue in a domestic forum. Without moving for certification for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b), Lauro Lines sought to appeal the District Court’s orders. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the ground that the District Court’s orders denying petitioner’s motions to dismiss were interlocutory and not appealable under § 1291. The court held that the orders did not fall within the exception to the rule of nonappealability carved out for collateral final orders in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). 844 F. 2d 50 (1988). We granted certiorari to resolve a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals. 488 U. S. 887 (1988). Compare, e. g., 844 F. 2d 50 (1988) (case below); Rohrer, Hibler & Replogle, Inc. v. Perkins, 728 F. 2d 860, 862-863 (CA7) (holding prejudgment denial of motion to dismiss on basis of forum-selection clause not to be immediately appeal-able under § 1291), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 890 (1984), with Hodes v. S. N. C. Achille Lauro ed Altri-Gestione, 858 F. 2d 905, 908 (CA3 1988), cert. dism’d, 490 U. S. 1001 (1989); Sterling Forest Associates, Ltd. v. Barnett-Range Corp., 840 F. 2d 249, 253 (CA4 1988); Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Frazier-Parrott Commodities, Inc., 806 F. 2d 848, 851 (CA8 1986) (holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order). We now affirm.
II
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1291 provides for appeal to the courts of appeals only from “final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” For purposes of § 1291, a final judgment is generally regarded as “a decision by the district court that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S. 517, 521 (1988), quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233 (1945). An order denying a motion to dismiss a civil action on the ground that a contractual forum-selection clause requires that such suit be brought in another jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits that ends the litigation. On the contrary, such an order “ensures that litigation will continue in the District Court.” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U. S. 271, 275 (1988). Section 1291 thus permits an appeal only if an order denying a motion to dismiss based upon a forum-selection clause falls within the “narrow exception to the normal application of the final judgment rule [that] has come to be known as the collateral order doctrine.” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U. S. 794, 798 (1989). That exception is for a “small class” of prejudgment orders that “finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, [and that are] too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen, supra, at 546. We have held that to fall within the Cohen exception, an order must satisfy at least three conditions: “It 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.’” Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Roller, 472 U. S. 424, 431 (1985), quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978). For present purposes, we need not decide whether an order denying a dismissal motion based upon a contractual forum-selection clause conclusively determines a disputed issue, or whether it resolves an important issue that is independent of the merits of the action, for the District Court’s orders fail to satisfy the third requirement of the collateral order test.
We recently reiterated the “general rule” that an order is “effectively unreviewable” only “where the order at issue involves ‘an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial.’” Midland Asphalt Corp., supra, at 798, quoting United States v. MacDonald, 435 U. S. 850, 860 (1978). If it is eventually decided that the District Court erred in allowing trial in this case to take place in New York, petitioner will have been put to unnecessary trouble and expense, and the value of its contractual right to an Italian forum will have been diminished. It is always true, however, that “there is value ... in triumphing before trial, rather than after it,” MacDonald, supra, at 860, n. 7, and this Court has declined to find the costs associated with unnecessary litigation to be enough to warrant allowing the immediate appeal of a pretrial order, see Richardson-Merrell Inc., supra, at 436 (“[T]he possibility that a ruling may be erroneous and may impose additional litigation expense is not sufficient to set aside the finality requirement imposed by Congress” in § 1291). Instead, we have insisted that the right asserted be one that is essentially destroyed if its vindication must be postponed until trial is completed.
We have thus held in cases involving criminal prosecutions that the deprivation of a right not to be tried is effectively unreviewable after final judgment and is immediately appeal-able. Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U. S. 500 (1979) (denial of motion to dismiss under the Speech or Debate Clause); Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651 (1977) (denial of motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds). See Midland Asphalt Corp., supra, at 801 (“A right not to be tried in the sense relevant to the Cohen exception rests upon an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur”) (emphasis added). Similarly, in civil cases, we have held that the denial of a motion to dismiss based upon a claim of absolute immunity from suit is immediately appealable prior to final judgment, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 742-743 (1982), “for the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action,” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 525 (1985). And claims of qualified immunity may be pursued by immediate appeal, because qualified immunity too “is an immunity from suit.” Id., at 526 (emphasis in original).
On the other hand, we have declined to hold the collateral order doctrine applicable where a district court has denied a claim, not that the defendant has a right not to be sued at all, but that the suit against the defendant is not properly before the particular court because it lacks jurisdiction. In Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S. 517 (1988), a civil defendant moved for dismissal on the ground that he had been immune from service of process because his presence in the United States had been compelled by extradition to face criminal charges. We noted that, after Mitchell, “[t]he critical question ... is whether ‘the essence’ of the claimed right is a right not to stand trial,” 486 U. S., at 524, and held that the immunity from service of process defendant asserted did not amount to an immunity from suit — even though service was essential to the trial court’s jurisdiction over the defendant. See also Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S., at 236 (order denying motion to dismiss petition for condemnation of land not immediately appealable, “even when the motion is based upon jurisdictional grounds”).
Lauro Lines argues here that its contractual forum-selection clause provided it with a right to trial before a tribunal in Italy, and with a concomitant right not to be sued anywhere else. This “right not to be haled for trial before tribunals outside the agreed forum,” petitioner claims, cannot effectively be vindicated by appeal after trial in an improper forum. Brief for Petitioner 38-39. There is no obviously correct way to characterize the right embodied in petitioner’s forum-selection provision: “all litigants who have a meritorious pretrial claim for dismissal can reasonably claim a right not to stand trial.” Van Cauwenberghe, supra, at 524. The right appears most like the right to be free from trial if it is characterized — as by petitioner — as a right not to be sued at all except in a Neapolitan forum. It appears less like a right not to be subjected to suit if characterized — as by the Court of Appeals — as “a right to have the binding adjudication of claims occur in a certain forum.” 844 F. 2d, at 55. Cf. Van Cauwenberghe, supra, at 526-527. Even assuming that the former characterization is proper, however, petitioner is obviously not entitled under the forum-selection clause of its contract to avoid suit altogether, and an entitlement to avoid suit is different in kind from an entitlement to be sued only in a particular forum. Petitioner’s claim that it may be sued only in Naples, while not perfectly secured by appeal after final judgment, is adequately vindicable at that stage — surely as effectively vindicable as a claim that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant — and hence does not fall within the third prong of the collateral order doctrine.
Petitioner argues that there is a strong federal policy favoring the enforcement of foreign forum-selection clauses, citing The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1 (1972), and that “the essential concomitant of this strong federal policy ... is the right of immediate appellate review of district court orders denying their enforcement.” Brief for Petitioner 40-41. A policy favoring enforcement of forum-selection clauses, however, would go to the merits of petitioner’s claim that its ticket agreement requires that any suit be filed in Italy and that the agreement should be enforced by the federal courts. Immediate appealability of a prejudgment order denying enforcement, insofar as it depends upon satisfaction of the third prong of the collateral order test, turns on the precise contours of the right asserted, and not upon the likelihood of eventual success on the merits. The Court of Appeals properly dismissed petitioner’s appeal, and its judgment is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
By merging with a major competitor, American Stores Co. (American) more than doubled the number of supermarkets that it owns in California. The State sued, claiming that the merger violates the federal antitrust laws and will harm consumers in 62 California cities. The complaint prayed for a preliminary injunction requiring American to operate the acquired stores separately until the case is decided, and then to divest itself of all of the acquired assets located in California. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction preventing American from integrating the operations of the two companies. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court’s conclusion that California had made an adequate showing of probable success on the merits, but held that the relief granted by the District Court exceeded its authority under § 16 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 737, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 26. In its view, the “injunctive relief... against threatened loss or damage” authorized by § 16 does not encompass divestiture, and therefore the “indirect divestiture” effected by the preliminary injunction was impermissible. 872 F. 2d 837 (1989). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits over whether divestiture is a form of injunctive relief within the meaning of § 16. 493 U. S. 916 (1989). We conclude that it is.
I
American operates over 1,500 retail grocery stores in 40 States. Prior to the merger, its 252 stores in California made it the fourth largest supermarket chain in that State. Lucky Stores, Inc. (Lucky), which operated in seven Western and Midwestern States, was the largest, with 340 stores. The second and third largest, Von’s Companies and Safeway Stores, were merged in December 1987. 697 F. Supp. 1125, 1127 (CD Cal. 1988); Pet. for Cert. 3.
On March 21, 1988, American notified the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that it intended to acquire all of Lucky’s outstanding stock for a price of $2.5 billion. The FTC conducted an investigation and negotiated a settlement with American. On May 31, it simultaneously filed both a complaint alleging that the merger violated § 7 of the Clayton Act and a proposed consent order disposing of the §7 charges subject to certain conditions. Among those conditions was a requirement that American comply with a “Hold Separate Agreement” preventing it from integrating the two companies’ assets and operations until after it had divested itself of several designated supermarkets. American accepted the terms of the FTC’s consent order. In early June, it acquired and paid for Lucky’s stock and consummated a Delaware “short form merger.” 872 F. 2d, at 840; Brief for Respondents 2. Thus, as a matter of legal form American and Lucky were merged into a single corporate entity on June 9, 1988, but as a matter of practical fact their business operations have not yet been combined.
On August 31, 1988, the FTC gave its final approval to the merger. The next day California filed this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that the merger violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1, and § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. §18, and that the acquisition, “if consummated,” would cause considerable loss and damage to the State: Competition and potential competition “in many relevant geographic markets will be eliminated,” App. 61, and “the prices of food and non-food products might be increased.” Id., at 62. In its prayer for relief, California sought, inter alia, (1) a preliminary injunction “requiring American to hold and operate separately from American all of Lucky’s California assets and businesses pending final adjudication of the merits”; (2) “such injunctive relief, including rescission... as is necessary and appropriate to prevent the effects” alleged in the complaint; and (3) “an injunction requiring American to divest itself of all of Lucky’s assets and businesses in the State of California.” Id., at 65, 66-67.
The District Court granted California’s motion for a temporary restraining order and, after considering extensive statistical evidence, entered a preliminary injunction. Without reaching the Sherman Act claim, the court concluded that the State had proved a prima facie violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act. On the question of relief, the District Court found that the State had made an adequate showing “that Californians will be irreparably harmed if the proposed merger is completed,” 697 F. Supp., at 1134, and that the harm the State would suffer if the merger was not enjoined “far outweighs” the harm that American will suffer as the result of an injunction. Id., at 1135. The court also rejected American’s argument that the requested relief was foreclosed by a prior decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that divestiture is not a remedy authorized by § 16 of the Clayton Act. American contended that the proposed injunction was “tantamount to divestiture” since the merger of the two companies had already been completed, but the District Court disagreed. It held that since the FTC’s Hold Separate Agreement was still in effect, the transaction was not a completed merger.
American filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(a)(1). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit first held that the District Court had not abused its discretion in finding that California had proved a likelihood of success on the merits and the probability of irreparable harm. Nevertheless, on the authority of its earlier decision in International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp., 518 F. 2d 913 (1975) (IT&T), it set aside the injunction. The Court of Appeals reasoned that its own prior decisions established both that “‘divestiture is not an available remedy in private actions under § 16 of the Clayton Act/” and that “section 16 does not permit indirect divestiture, that is, an injunction which on its face does not order divestiture but which has the same effect. IT&T, 518 F. 2d at 924.” 872 F. 2d, at 844. The Court of Appeals applied this rule to conclude that the injunction issued by the District Court was legally impermissible. Observing that under the injunction “these stores must operate as if Lucky had never been acquired by American Stores at all,” the Court of Appeals held that “[s]uch an injunction requires indirect divestiture.” Id., at 845. Finally, the Court of Appeals added that the District Court had “compounded its misapprehension of the law of divestiture” by misunderstanding “the legal status of the merger.” Specifically, the District Court erred by concluding that the “FTC’s consent order” undid “the legal effect of this merger” which “had already taken place” according to Delaware corporation law. Ibid.
On California’s application, Justice O’Connor entered a stay continuing the District Court’s injunction pending further review by this Court. 492 U. S. 1301 (1989). We then granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between this decision and the earlier holding of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in CIA. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Caribbean, Inc., 754 F. 2d 404 (1985). We now reverse.
II
In its IT&T opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the term “injunctive relief” as used in § 16 is ambiguous and that it is necessary to review the statute’s legislative history to determine whether it includes divestiture. Then, based on its reading of a colloquy during a hearing before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, it concluded that the draftsmen of the bill did not intend to authorize the remedies of “dissolution” or “divestiture” in actions brought by private litigants. 518 F. 2d, at 921-922. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has rejected that reasoning. It found instead that a fair reading of the statutory text, buttressed by recognized canons of construction, required a construction of the words “injunctive relief” broad enough to encompass divestiture. Moreover, it doubted whether the references to “dissolution” in the legislative history referred to “divestiture,” and did not consider this evidence sufficiently probative, in any event, to justify a restrictive reading of the Act that seemed inconsistent with its basic policy. 754 F. 2d, at 415-428.
American endorses the analysis of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but places greater reliance on two additional arguments. First, it argues that there is a significant difference between the text of § 15 of the Act, which authorizes equitable relief in actions brought by the United States, and the text of § 16, which applies to other parties. Specifically, it argues that the former is broad enough to encourage “structural relief” whereas the latter is limited to relief against anticompetitive “conduct.” Second, reading § 16 in its historical context, American argues that it reflects a well-accepted distinction between prohibitory injunctions (which are authorized) and mandatory injunctions (which, American argues, are not).
American’s argument directs us to two provisions in the statutory text, and that is the natural place to begin our analysis. Section 15 grants the federal district courts jurisdiction “to prevent and restrain violations of this Act” when United States attorneys “institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations” through petitions “praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited.” Section 16 entitles “[a]ny person, firm, corporation, or association... to sue for and have injunctive relief... against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws... when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity.”
It is agreed that the general language of § 15, which provides that antitrust violations “shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited,” is broad enough to authorize divestiture. Indeed, in Government actions divestiture is the preferred remedy for an illegal merger or acquisition. As we wrote in the Du Pont case:
“Divestiture or dissolution has traditionally been the remedy for Sherman Act violations whose heart is inter-corporate combination and control, and it is reasonable to think immediately of the same remedy when §7 of the Clayton Act, which particularizes the Sherman Act standard of illegality, is involved. Of the very few litigated §7 cases which have been reported, most decreed divestiture as a matter of course. Divestiture has been called the most important of antitrust remedies. It is simple, relatively easy to administer, and sure. It should always be in the forefront of a court’s mind when a violation of §7 has been found.” United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U. S. 316, 329-331 (1961) (footnotes omitted).
On its face, the simple grant of authority in § 16 to “have injunctive relief” would seem to encompass divestiture just as plainly as the comparable language in § 15. Certainly § 16’s reference to “injunctive relief... against threatened loss or damage” differs from § 15’s grant of jurisdiction to “prevent and restrain violations,” but it obviously does not follow that one grant encompasses remedies excluded from the other. Indeed, we think it could plausibly be argued that § 16’s terms are the more expansive. In any event, however, as the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit correctly observed, § 16 “states no restrictions or exceptions to the forms of injunctive relief a private plaintiff may seek, or that a court may order.... Rather, the statutory language indicates Congress’ intention that traditional principles of equity govern the grant of injunctive relief.” 754 F. 2d, at 416. We agree that the plain text of § 16 authorizes divestiture decrees to remedy § 7 violations.
American rests its contrary argument upon two phrases in § 16 that arguably narrow its scope. The entitlement “to sue for and have injunctive relief” affords relief “against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws.” Moreover, the right to such relief exists “when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity....”
In this case, however, the requirement of “threatened loss or damage” is unquestionably satisfied. The allegations of the complaint, the findings of the District Court, and the opinion of the Court of Appeals all assume that even if the merger is a completed violation of law, the threatened harm to California consumers persists. If divestiture is an appropriate means of preventing that harm, the statutory reference to “threatened loss or damage” surely does not negate the court’s power to grant such relief.
The second phrase, which refers to “threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage,” is not drafted as a limitation on the power to grant relief, but rather is a part of the general reference to the standards that should be applied in fashioning injunctive relief. It is surely not the equivalent of a directive stating that unlawful conduct may be prohibited but structural relief may not be mandated. Indeed, as the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of the issue demonstrates, the distinction between conduct and structure — or between prohibitory and mandatory relief — is illusory in a case of this kind. Thus, in the IT&T case the court recognized that an injunction prohibiting the parent company from voting the stock of the subsidiary should not be treated differently from a mandatory order of divestiture. And in this case the court treated the Hold Separate Agreement as a form of “indirect divestiture.” In both cases the injunctive relief would unquestionably prohibit “conduct” by the defendants. American’s textual arguments — which rely on a distinction between mandatory and prohibitive relief — do not explain why such remedies would not be appropriate.
If we assume that the merger violated the antitrust laws, and if we agree with the District Court’s finding that the conduct of the merged enterprise threatens economic harm to California consumers, the literal text of § 16 is plainly sufficient to authorize injunctive relief, including an order of divestiture, that will prohibit that conduct from causing that harm. This interpretation is consistent with our precedents, which have upheld injunctions issued pursuant to § 16 regardless of whether they were mandatory or prohibitory in character. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100, 129-133 (1969) (reinstating injunction that required defendants to withdraw from patent pools); see also Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U. S. 341, 345, 365 (1963) (reinstating judgment for defendants in suit to compel installation of wire services). We have recognized when construing § 16 that it was enacted “not merely to provide private relief, but... to serve as well the high purpose of enforcing the antitrust laws.” Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U. S., at 130-131. We have accordingly applied the section “with this purpose in mind, and with the knowledge that the remedy it affords, like other equitable remedies, is flexible and capable of nice ‘adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs as well as between competing private claims.’” Ibid., quoting Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329-330 (1944).
Finally, by construing §16 to encompass divestiture decrees we are better able than is American to harmonize the section with its statutory context. The Act’s other provisions manifest a clear intent to encourage vigorous private litigation against anticompetitive mergers. Section 7 itself creates a relatively expansive definition of antitrust liability: To show that a merger is unlawful, a plaintiff need only prove that its effect “may be substantially to lessen competition.” Clayton Act § 7, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 18 (emphasis supplied). See Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 323 (1962). In addition, § 5 of the Act provided that during the pendency of a Government action, the statute of limitations for private actions would be tolled. The section also permitted plaintiffs to use the final judgment in a Government antitrust suit as prima facie evidence of liability in a later civil suit. Private enforcement of the Act was in no sense an afterthought; it was an integral part of the congressional plan for protecting competition. See Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co., 381 U. S. 311, 318 (1965). Congress also made express its view that divestiture was the most suitable remedy in a suit for relief from a § 7 violation: In § 11 of the Act, Congress directed the FTC to issue orders requiring that a violator of § 7 “cease and desist from the violation,” and, specifically, that the violator “divest itself of the stock held” in violation of the Act. Section 16, construed to authorize a private divestiture remedy when appropriate in light of equitable principles, fits well in a statutory scheme that favors private enforcement, subjects mergers to searching scrutiny, and regards divestiture as the remedy best suited to redress the ills of an anticompetitive merger.
Ill
Although we do not believe the statutory language is ambiguous, we nonetheless consider the legislative history that persuaded the Ninth Circuit to place a narrow construction on § 16. To understand that history, however, it is necessary to place the statute in its historical perspective.
The Sherman Act became law just a century ago. It matured some 15 years later, when, under the administation of Theodore Roosevelt, the Sherman Act “was finally being used against trusts of the dimension that had called it into being, and with enough energy to justify the boast that the President was using a Big Stick.” W. Letwin, Law and Economic Policy in America 240 (1965). Two of the most famous prosecutions concluded in 1911, with decisions from this Court endorsing the “Rule of Reason” as the principal guide to the construction of the Sherman Act’s general language. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U. S. 1; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106. In consequence of the violations found in those two cases, wide-ranging injunctions were entered requiring the separation of the “oil trust” and the “tobacco trust” into a number of independent, but still significant, companies. The relief granted received mixed reviews. In some quarters, the cases were hailed as great triumphs over the forces of monopoly; in others, they were regarded as Pyrrhic victories.
Concern about the adequacy of the Sherman Act’s prohibition against combinations in restraint of trade prompted President Wilson to make a special address to Congress in 1914 recommending that the antitrust laws be strengthened. 2 The New Democracy, The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson 81-89 (R. Baker & W. Dodd eds. 1926). Congressman Clayton, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, promptly appointed a subcommittee to prepare the legislation. The bill drafted by the subcommittee contained most of the provisions that were eventually enacted into the law now known as the Clayton Act. The statute reenacted certain provisions of the Sherman Act and added new provisions of both a substantive and procedural character. Letwin, Law and Economic Policy in America, at 272-273; 2 A. Link, Wilson: The New Freedom 426 (1956). Thus, § 4 of the Sherman Act, which authorizes equitable relief in actions brought by the United States, was reenacted as § 15 of the Clayton Act, while § 16 filled a gap in the Sherman Act by authorizing equitable relief in private- actions. Section 7 of the Clayton Act made stock acquisitions of competing companies more vulnerable, and §§4 and 5 gave special procedural advantages to private litigants. The reform project had broad social significance, and it is obvious that the Act as a whole is fairly characterized as important remedial legislation.
Some proponents of reform, however, were critical of the bill for not going further. Thus, for example, proposals that were never enacted would have expressly authorized private individuals to bring suit for the dissolution of corporations adjudged to have violated the law and for appointment of receivers to wind up the corporation’s affairs. Samuel Untermyer, a New York lawyer who urged Congress to give private plaintiffs express authority to seek dissolution decrees, stated his views in a colloquy with Congressman John Floyd during a hearing on the bill before the House Judiciary Committee. Floyd told Untermyer that “We did not intend by section 13 to give the individual the same power to bring a suit to dissolve the corporation that the Government has,” and added that the committee Members had discussed the matter very thoroughly. Untermyer replied that “the very relief that the man needs nine times out of ten is the dissolution of the corporation, because... it may not be doing any specific act of illegality, but its very existence, in violation of law, is the thing that is injuring him.” Hearings on Trust Legislation before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 842-846 (1914) (House Hearings).
Two weeks later, Louis Brandéis, testifying on behalf of the administration before the same committee, was asked whether he favored a proposal “to give the individual the right to file a bill in equity for the dissolution of one of these combinations, the same right which the Government now has and which it is its duty to perform.” Brandéis responded that the proposal was not sound and added:
“It seems to me that the right to change the status [of the combination], which is the right of dissolution, is a right which ought to be exercised only by the Government, although the right for full redress for grievances and protection against future wrongs is a right which every individual ought to enjoy.
“Now, all of this procedure ought to be made so as to facilitate, so far as possible, the enforcement of the law in aid, on the one hand, of the Government, and in aid, on the other hand, of the individual. But that fundamental principle is correct, that the Government ought to have the right, and the sole right, to determine whether the circumstances are such as to call for a dissolution of an alleged trust.” Id., at 649-650.
American relies on these exchanges to support two slightly different arguments. First, it suggests that the committee recognized a distinction between relief directed at conduct and relief that is designed to change a company’s status or structure. Second, it suggests that Congressman Floyd’s statements permit an inference that the Congress as a whole rejected the possibility of a private dissolution remedy, and thereby rejected divestiture as well, because divestiture is a species of dissolution. Neither suggestion is persuasive.
We have already concluded that the suggested distinction between divestiture and injunctions that prohibit future conduct is illusory. These excerpts, moreover, from the legislative history provide even less support for such a categorical distinction than does the text of § 16 itself.
The flaw in American’s second suggestion is its assumption that the dissolution proposals submitted to Congress contemplated nothing more extreme than divestiture. Dissolution could be considerably more awesome. As the New York Court of Appeals ominously declared before affirming a decree against the North River Sugar Refining Company, dissolution was a “judgment... of corporate death,” which “representad] the extreme rigor of the law.” This meaning is evident from the text of the Senate amendment proposing private dissolution suits, which provided for a receiver to administer the doomed corporation’s assets.
The concept of dissolution, of course, also encompassed remedies comparable to divestiture, or to our present-day understanding of dissolution. It was one thing to dissolve a pool, trust, combination, or merger, and quite another to atomize, or to revoke the charter of, a large corporation. In the early part of this century, however, new forms of corporate organization were arising at a pace that outstripped the vocabulary used to describe them. Concern about monopoly and competition dominated domestic politics, but people disagreed about what these things were, and about why, and to what extent, they were good or bad. Men like McReynolds, Wilson’s Attorney General, and Brandéis, the President’s chief adviser on antitrust policy, could concur upon the need for forceful antitrust legislation and prosecution while finding themselves parted — as their later battles on this Court made clear — by a vast gulf in their understandings of economic theory and marketplace ethics. Absent agreement on the terms of debate, dissolution could mean the corporate death sentence, or the decrees of the Standard Oil and American Tobacco cases, or something else. So long as this ambiguity persisted, dissolution had to be considered a public remedy, one that encompassed a power peculiarly suited to transgressions so “material and serious” as to “harm or menace the public welfare” in a manner transcending the “quarrels of private litigants.” For those like Brandéis, who viewed dissolution as desirable only if treated not as a moral penalty but rather as a necessary economic remedy, it would be imprudent to allow private parties to control a weapon potentially so lethal. Although it may now be second nature to conceive of dissolution in economic terms compatible with the policy Brandéis championed, this view was anything but uncontroversial when the Act was drafted.
Once the historical importance of the distinction between dissolution and divestiture is understood, American’s argument from the legislative history becomes singularly unpersuasive. The rejection of a proposed remedy that would terminate the corporate existence of American and appoint a receiver to supervise the disposition of its assets is surely not the equivalent of the rejection of a remedy that would merely rescind a purchase of stock or assets. Dissolution was too vague and ill defined a remedy to be either incorporated into or excluded from § 16 as such; Congress instead sensibly avoided the problematic word and spoke in terms of equitable relief drawn to redress damage or loss which a private party might suffer by consequence of the Act’s violation. That divestiture was encompassed within the concept of dissolution as understood at the time of the Clayton Act’s framing does not imply that the equitable formulation of § 16 cannot permit divestiture while excluding more severe sanctions that also traveled under the name “dissolution.”
For similar reasons, we need not consider how much weight might otherwise be due to Graves v. Cambria Steel Co., 298 F. 761 (NY 1924), a brief District Court decision by Judge Learned Hand upon which American relies heavily. The suit appears to have been brought by dissatisfied shareholders of a target corporation who wished to dissolve the new merged entity. The plaintiffs sought relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act. Judge Hand remarked that the suit “is really a suit for the dissolution of a monopoly pro tanto. I cannot suppose that any one would argue that a private suit for dissolution would lie under section 16 of the Clayton Act.” 298 F., at 762. Not only does Hand, like Floyd, Untermyer, and Brandéis before him, refer to dissolution rather than divestiture, but, moreover, the state corporation law overtones of the inchoate complaint make it possible that the suit implicated the more drastic forms of dissolution.
The inferences that American draws from its excerpts from the subcommittee hearings simply are not confirmed by anything that has been called to our attention in the Committee Reports, the floor debates, the Conference Report, or contemporaneous judicial interpretations. Indeed, a fair reading of the entire legislative history supports the conclusion that § 16 means exactly what it says when it endorses the “conditions and principles” governing injunctive relief in courts of equity: that the provision should be construed generously and flexibly pursuant to principles of equity. See CIA. Petrolera Caribe, Inc., 754 F. 2d, at 418-427. As the Court stated in Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S., at 329:
“The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it.”
More recently, in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 313 (1982), we observed that when Congress endows the federal courts with equitable jurisdiction, Congress acts aware of this longstanding tradition of flexibility. “ ‘Unless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court’s jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied.’” Ibid., quoting Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395, 398 (1946). These principles unquestionably support a construction of the statute that will enable a chancellor to impose the most effective, usual and straightforward remedy to rescind an unlawful purchase of stock or assets. The fact that the term “divestiture” is used to describe what is typically nothing more than the familiar remedy of rescission does not place the remedy beyond the normal reach of the chancellor.
IV
Our conclusion that a district court has the power to order divestiture in appropriate cases brought under § 16 of the Clayton Act does not, of course, mean that such power should be exercised in every situation in which the Government would be entitled to such relief under § 15. In a Government case the proof of the violation of law may itself establish sufficient public injury to warrant relief. See Du Pont, 366 U. S., at 319-321; see also Virginian R. Co. v. Railway Employees, 300 U. S. 515, 552 (1937) (“Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much farther both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go when only private interests are involved”); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 30-31 (1940) (authorizing issuance of injunction at Government’s request without balancing of the equities). A private litigant, however, must have standing — in the words of § 16, he must prove “threatened loss or damage” to his own interests in order to obtain relief. See Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U. S. 104 (1986). Moreover, equitable defenses such as laches, or perhaps “unclean hands,” may protect consummated transactions from belated attacks by private parties when it would not be too late for the Government to vindicate the public interest.
Such questions, however, are not presented in this case. We are merely confronted with the naked question whether the District Court had the power to divest American of any part of its ownership interests in the acquired Lucky Stores, either by forbidding the exercise of the owner’s normal right to integrate the operations of the two previously separate companies, or by requiring it to sell certain assets located in California. We hold that such a remedy is a form of “injunctive relief” within the meaning of § 16 of the Clayton Act. 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.
See 15 U. S. C. § 18a (Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976).
Among other requirements, the Hold Separate Agreement obligated American to maintain separate books and records for the acquisition; to prevent any waste or deterioration of the acquired company’s California operation; to refrain from replacing the company’s executives; to assure that it is maintained as a viable competitor in California; to refrain from selling or otherwise disposing of the acquired company’s warehouse, distribution or manufacturing facilities, or any retail grocery stores in California; and to preserve separate purchasing for its retail grocery sales. 697 F. Supp. 1125, 1134 (CD Cal. 1988).
The District Court observed that because the Hold Separate Agreement was still in effect, “this is not a completed merger. [American] and Lucky, pursuant to the Hold Separate Agreement, are performing numerous functions as separate entities. They retain their separate names and with them their respective corporate identities.” The court stated that only by completing a “linguistic triathalon” could one conclude that an injunction stopping such a merger was “tantamount to divestiture.” 697 F. Supp., at 1134.
The Court of Appeals observed:
“Although we have no way of definitively determining the congressional intent in passing § 16, there remains at least one secure guidepost: when Congress uses broad generalized language in a remedial statute, and that language is not contravened by authoritative legislative history, a court should interpret the provision generously so as to effectuate the important congressional goals.” CIA. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Caribbean, Inc., 754 F. 2d 404, 428 (1985).
The section provides in pertinent part:
“The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this Act, and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition, the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition, and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises....” 15 U. S. C. § 25.
The section provides in pertinent part:
“Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws, including sections 13, 14, 18, and 19 of this title, when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity, under the rules governing such proceedings, and upon the execution of proper bond against damages for an injunction improvidently granted and a showing that the danger of irreparable loss of damage is immediate, a preliminary injunction may issue....” 15 U. S. C. § 26.
That the two provisions do differ is not surprising at all, since § 15 was largely copied from § 4 of the Sherman Act, see 26 Stat. 209, ch. 647, 15 U. S. C. § 4, while § 16, which had to incorporate standing limits appropriate to private actions — see Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U. S. 104 (1986) — had no counterpart in the Sherman Act.
Indeed, the evident import of Congress’ reference to “threatened loss or damage” is not to constrict the availability of injunctive remedies against violations that have already begun or occurred, but rather to expand their availability against harms that are as yet unrealized. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100, 130, and n. 24 (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: | 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.
Petitioner was charged with two burglaries and one attempted burglary. He entered pleas of not guilty to each count. Before trial, petitioner requested a hearing on the voluntariness of certain oral admissions and a written confession he had given while in police custody. The hearing was held and the trial court found that the statements had been voluntarily made. Petitioner waived jury trial. The statements were admitted in evidence and he was convicted on all three counts. On each of them he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of not more than five years, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, on appeal, affirmed the convictions. It agreed with the trial court that the statements in question were voluntary. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. We grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant the writ, and reverse the judgment below.
Petitioner, who has a ninth-grade education, was arrested on suspicion of burglary shortly before 10:45 on the evening of January 20, 1965. He was taken to a police station. He was suffering from high blood pressure, a condition for which he was taking medication twice a day. Petitioner had last taken food and medication, before his arrest, at 4 p. m. He did not have medication with him at the time of the arrest. At the police station petitioner was interrogated from 10:45 until midnight. He was not advised of his constitutional rights. Petitioner repeatedly denied guilt. No incriminating statements were made at this time.
Petitioner was booked and fingerprinted and, sometime after 2 a. m., he was taken to a cell in the city jail. A plank fastened to the wall served as his bed. Petitioner claims he did not sleep. At 6 a. m., petitioner was led from the cell to a “bullpen.” At 8:30 he was placed in a lineup. At 8:45, his interrogation recommenced. It was conducted by several officers at a time, in a small room. Petitioner testified that in the course of the morning he was not offered food and that he continued to be without medication. For an hour or two he refused to answer any questions. When he did speak, it was to deny, once again, his guilt.
Sometime after 10 a. m., petitioner was asked to write out a confession. He refused, stating that “it was against my constitutional rights” and that he was “entitled to have a lawyer.” These statements were ignored. No further reference was made to an attorney, by petitioner or by the police officers.
At about 11 a. m. petitioner began a series of oral admissions culminating in a full oral confession at about 11:30. At noon he was offered food. The confession was reduced to writing around 1 p. m. Just before the confession was reduced to writing, petitioner was advised of his constitutional rights. According to his testimony, he confessed because “I knew they weren’t going to leave me alone until I did.”
It is our duty, in a case such as this, to make an examination of the record in order to ascertain whether petitioner’s statements were voluntary. See Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737, 741-742 (1966). We believe that, considering the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding the statements, see Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967), it was error for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to conclude that they were voluntarily made. We reach this decision as in Clewis, without reference to disputed testimony taken at the pretrial hearing.
All of the above recited facts are, under our decisions, relevant to the claim that the statements were involuntary: the lack of counsel, especially in view of the accused’s statement that he desires counsel (see Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 730, 735 (1966); cf. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964)); the lack of food, sleep, and medication (see Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967)); the lack or inadequacy of warnings as to constitutional rights (see Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568, 630 (1961); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 730 (1966)). Considering the totality of these circumstances, we do not think it credible that petitioner’s statements were the product of his free and rational choice.
Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed.
Petitioner’s trial began before the date of our decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Although petitioner’s trial was after the date of our decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), we need not and do not decide whether that decision would, in itself, require reversal of petitioner’s convictions. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 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 by the Attorney General brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, against the State of Mississippi, the three members of the Mississippi State Board of Election Commissioners, and six county Registrars of Voters. The complaint charged that the defendants and their agents had engaged and, unless restrained, would continue to engage in acts and practices hampering and destroying the right of Negro citizens of Mississippi to vote, in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1971 (a) (1958 ed.), and of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and Article I of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction of the Court was invoked under 42 U. S. C. § 1971 (d) (1958 ed.) and 28 U. S. C. § 1345 (1958 ed.), and because the complaint charged that provisions of the state constitution and statutes pertaining to voter registration violated the United States Constitution, the case was heard by three judges, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1958 ed.). All the defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. In addition the State moved separately to dismiss on the ground that the United States had no power to make it a defendant in such a suit, and the three Election Commissioners answered that the complaint failed to show that they had enforced or that they had a duty to enforce the provisions of state law alleged to be unconstitutional. Five of the registrars moved for a severance and separate trials, and the four who were not residents of the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, moved for changes of venue to the respective districts and divisions where they lived. The District Court in an opinion by the late Circuit Judge Cameron, in which District Judge Cox joined, dismissed the complaint on all the grounds which the defendants had assigned and also ruled that the registrars could not be sued jointly and that venue was improper as to the registrars who did not live in the district and division in which the court was sitting. 229 F. Supp. 925. Circuit Judge Brown dissented. We noted probable jurisdiction, 377 U. S. 988, and set the case down for argument immediately preceding Louisiana v. United States, post, p. 145.
The basic issue before us in this case is whether the dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted was proper. The United States alleges that in 1890 a majority of the qualified voters in Mississippi were Negroes, but that in that year a constitutional convention adopted a new state constitution, one of the chief purposes of which was, in the words of the complaint, to “restrict the Negro franchise and to establish and perpetuate white political supremacy and racial segregation in Mississippi.” Section 244 of that constitution established a new prerequisite for voting: that a person otherwise qualified be able to read any section of the Mississippi Constitution, or understand the same when read to him, or give a reasonable interpretation thereof. This new requirement, coupled with the fact that until about 1952 Negroes were not eligible to vote in the primary election of the Democratic Party, victory in which was “tantamount to election,” worked so well in keeping Negroes from voting, the complaint charges, that by 1899 the percentage of qualified voters in the State who were Negroes had declined from over 50% to about 9%, and by 1954 only about 5% of the Negroes of voting age in Mississippi were registered.
By the 1950’s a much higher proportion of Negroes of voting age in Mississippi was literate than had been the case in 1890, and since a decision of the Fifth Circuit in 1951 had pointed out that the 1890 requirement allowed persons to vote if they met any one of the three alternative requirements, the State took steps to multiply the barriers keeping its Negro citizens from voting. In 1954 the state constitution was amended to provide that thereafter an applicant for registration had to be able to read and copy in writing any section of the Mississippi Constitution, and give a reasonable interpretation of that section to the county registrar, and, in addition, demonstrate to the registrar “a reasonable understanding of the duties and obligations of citizenship under a constitutional form of government.” The complaint charges that these provisions lend themselves to misuse and to discriminatory administration because they leave the registrars completely at large, free to be as demanding or as lenient as they choose in judging an applicant’s understanding of the state constitution and of the “duties and obligations of citizenship,” and that since the adoption of this amendment the registrars have in fact applied standards which varied in difficulty according to whether an applicant was white or colored.
In 1960 the state constitution was amended to add a new voting qualification of “good moral character,” an addition which it is charged was to serve as yet another device to give a registrar power to permit an applicant to vote or not, depending solely on the registrar’s own whim or caprice, ungoverned by any legal standard. A statute also passed in 1960 repealed a prior Mississippi statute which had provided that application forms be retained as permanent public records, and adopted a new rule that unless appeal is taken from an adverse ruling and no new application is made prior to final judgment on that appeal, registrars no longer need keep any record made in connection with the application of anyone to register to vote. This law is alleged to be in direct violation of Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which requires that records of voting registration be kept. The complaint alleged further that the defendants had destroyed and unless restrained by the court would continue to destroy these records. Finally, it was alleged that in 1962 the Mississippi Legislature adopted a package of legislation affecting registration, the purpose and effect of which was to “deter, hinder, prevent, delay and harass Negroes and to make it more difficult for Negroes in their efforts to become registered voters, to facilitate discrimination against Negroes, and to make it more difficult for the United States to protect the right of all its citizens to vote without distinction of race or color.” These 1962 laws provide, among other things, that application forms must be filled out “properly and responsively” by the applicant without any assistance, and that a registrar may not tell an applicant why he failed the test because to do so might constitute assistance, and they allegedly give registrars even greater discretion to deny Negroes the right to register on formal, technical, inconsequential errors.
By way of relief the court was asked (1) to declare the challenged state laws unconstitutional as violations of federal constitutional provisions and statutes; (2) to find that by these laws Negroes had been denied the right to vote pursuant to a “pattern and practice” of racial discrimination; (3) to enjoin the defendants from enforcing any of these state laws or in any other way acting to “delay, prevent, hinder, discourage, or harass Negro citizens, on account of their race or color, from applying for registration and becoming registered voters in the State of Mississippi,” or using any other interpretation or understanding test which “bears a direct relationship to the quality of public education afforded Negro applicants”; and (4) to order the defendants to register any Negro applicant who is over age 21, able to read, a resident for the period of time prescribed by state law, and not disqualified by state laws disfranchising the insane and certain convicted criminals.
It is apparent that the complaint which the majority of the District Court dismissed charged a long-standing, carefully prepared, and faithfully observed plan to bar Negroes from voting in the State of Mississippi, a plan which the registration statistics included in the complaint would seem to show had been remarkably successful. This brings us to a consideration of the specific grounds assigned by the District Court for its dismissal.
I.
One ground upon which the majority of the District Court dismissed the Government’s complaint was that the United States is without authority, absent the clearest possible congressional authorization, to bring an action like this one which challenges the validity of state laws allegedly used as devices to keep Negroes from voting on account of their race. We need not discuss the power of the United States to bring such an action without authorization by Congress, for in 42 U. S. C. § 1971 (1958 ed.) there is express congressional authorization for the United States to file a suit precisely of this kind. Section 1971 (a) guarantees the right of citizens “who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election” to be allowed to vote “without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.” And subsection (c) of § 1971 specifically authorizes the Attorney General to file proper proceedings for preventive relief to protect this right to vote without discrimination on account of color whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person of that right. The District Court’s holding that despite the clear language quoted above the United States still was not authorized to file this suit seems to rest on the emphasis it places on the phrase “otherwise qualified by law” in § 1971 (a). By stressing these words the majority below reached the conclusion that if Negroes were kept from voting by state laws, even though those laws were unconstitutional, instead of being barred by unlawful discriminatory application of laws otherwise valid, then they were not “otherwise qualified” and so § 1971 did not apply to them. In other words, while private persons might file suits under § 1971 against individual registrars who discriminated in applying otherwise valid laws, and while such suits might even be filed by the Government, see United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, the statute did not authorize the United States to bring suits challenging the validity of the State’s voting laws as such, however discriminatory they might be. We can find no possible justification for such a construction of § 1971 (a) and § 1971 (c). Subsection (a) explicitly stated the legislative purpose of protecting the rights of colored citizens to vote notwithstanding “any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State.” The phrase “otherwise qualified by law to vote” obviously meant that Negroes must possess the qualifications required of all voters by valid state or federal laws. It is difficult to take seriously the argument that Congress intended to dilute its guarantee of the right to vote regardless of race by saying at the same time that a'State was free to disqualify its Negro citizens by laws which violated the United States Constitution. Cf. Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370. The Fifteenth Amendment protects the right to vote regardless of race against any denial or abridgment by the United States or by any State. Section 1971 was passed by Congress under the authority of the Fifteenth Amendment to enforce that Amendment’s guarantee, which protects against any discrimination by a State, its laws, its customs, or its officials in any way. We reject the argument that the Attorney General was without power to institute these proceedings in order to protect the federally guaranteed right to vote without discrimination on account of color.
II.
The District Court held, and it is contended here, that even if the Attorney General did have power to file this suit on behalf of the United States, as we have held he did, nevertheless he was without power to make the State a party defendant. The District Court gave great weight to Mississippi’s argument that the Fifteenth Amendment “is directed to persons through whom a state may act and not to the sovereign entity of the state itself.” 229 F. Supp., at 933. Largely to avoid what it called this “substantial constitutional claim,” the District Court proceeded to construe the language of § 1971 as not granting the Attorney General authority to make the State a defendant. We do not agree with that construction.
Section 1971 (c) says that whenever the Attorney General institutes a suit under this section against a state official who has deprived a ..citizen of his right to vote because of race or color,
“the act or practice shall also be deemed that of the State and the State may be joined as a party defendant and, if, prior to the institution of such proceeding, such official has resigned or has been relieved of his office and no successor has assumed such office, the proceeding may be instituted against the State.”
The District Court accepted the State’s argument that this meant that a State can be made a defendant in such a case only when the office of registrar is vacant, so that there is no registrar against whom to file suit. This argument relies on the fact that in a case pending in this Court when the statutory language was changed, registrars had resigned their offices in order to keep from being sued under § 1971. United States v. Alabama, 267 F. 2d 808 (C. A. 5th Cir.), vacated and remanded, 362 U. S. 602. Congress, the State says, passed the provision authorizing suit against a State solely to provide a party defendant when registrars resigned, as they had in the Alabama case. But whatever the reasons Congress had for amending § 1971 (c), and without our now deciding whether it was necessary to do so to permit the United States to sue a State under that section, the language Congress adopted leaves no room for the construction which the District Court put on these provisions. Indeed, on remand in the Alabama case the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s refusal to dismiss the State as a defendant even though new registrars had qualified, and this Court affirmed that judgment. Alabama v. United States, 371 U. S. 37, affirming 304 F. 2d 583 (C. A. 5th Cir.).
The State argues also that even if Congress has authorized making the State a defendant here, as we hold it has, Congress had no constitutional power to do so. The Fifteenth Amendment in plain, unambiguous language provides that no “State” shall deny or abridge the right of citizens to vote because of their color. In authorizing the United States to make a State a defendant in a suit under § 1971, Congress was acting under its power given in § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to enforce that Amendment by appropriate legislation. The State’s argument that’ Congress acted here beyond its constitutional power is based on a number of cases that have allowed private individuals to enjoin state officials from denying constitutional rights, while recognizing that without its consent a State could not be sued by private persons in such circumstances, because of the immunity given the State in the Eleventh Amendment. See, e. g., Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123. But none of these cases decided or even suggested that Congress could not authorize the United States to institute legal proceedings against States to protect constitutional rights of citizens. The Eleventh Amendment in terms forbids suits against States only when “commenced or prosecuted ... by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” While this has been read to bar a suit by a State’s own citizen as well, Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, nothing in this or any other provision of the Constitution prevents or has ever been seriously supposed to prevent a State’s being sued by the United States. The United States in the past has in many cases been allowed to file suits in this and other courts against States, see, e. g., United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621; United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, with or without specific authorization from Congress, see United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 26-28. See also Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184. In light of this history, it seems rather surprising that the District Court entertained seriously the argument that the United States. could not constitutionally sue a State. The reading of the Constitution urged by Mississippi is not supported by precedent, is not required by any language of the Constitution, and would without justification in reason diminish the power of courts to protect the people of this country against deprivation and destruction by States of their federally guaranteed rights. We hold that the State was properly made a defendant in this case.
III.
The District Court held with respect to the three members of the Mississippi Board of Election Commissioners that the complaint failed to show that they had a sufficient interest in administering or enforcing the laws under attack to permit making them parties defendant. We do not agree. Under state law the Election Commissioners have power, authority, and responsibility to help administer the voter registration laws by formulating rules for the various tests applied to applicants for registration. Section 3209.6 of the Mississippi Code directs that the forms and the questions on the forms shall be prepared and maintained under the supervision of the Election Board and that these application forms shall be
“designed to test the ability of applicants for registration to vote to read and write any section of the Constitution of this state and give a reasonable interpretation thereof, and demonstrate to the county registrar a reasonable understanding of the duties and obligations of citizenship under a constitutional form of government; and to demonstrate to the county registrar that applicant is a person of good moral character as required by Section 241-A of the Constitution of Mississippi.”
These “interpretation” and “duties and obligations of citizenship” tests, as has been pointed out, are vitally important elements of the Mississippi laws challenged as unconstitutional in this suit. Should the Government prove its case and obtain an injunction, it would be natural to assume that such an order should run against the Board of Election Commissioners with reference to these two tests. Therefore the Election Commissioners should not have been stricken as defendants.
IV.
The District Court said that the complaint improperly attempted to hold the six county registrars jointly liable for what amounted to nothing more than individual torts committed by them separately with reference to separate applicants. For this reason apparently it would have held the venue improper as to the three registrars who lived outside the Southern District of Mississippi and a fourth who lived in a different division of the Southern District, and it would have ordered that each of the other two registrars be sued alone. But the complaint charged that the registrars had acted and were continuing to act as part of a state-wide system designed to enforce the registration laws in a way that would inevitably deprive colored people of the right to vote solely because of their color. On such an allegation the joinder of all the registrars as defendants in a single suit is authorized by Rule 20 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
"... All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action.”
These registrars were alleged to be carrying on activities which were part of a series of transactions or occurrences the validity of which depended to a large extent upon “question [s] of law or fact common to all of them.” Since joinder of the registrars in one suit was proper, the argument that venue as to some of them was not properly laid is also without merit. 28 U. S. C. §§ 1392 (a), 1393 (b) (1958 ed.).
V.
As a general ground for dismissal, the District Court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In considering the correctness of this ruling the allegations of the complaint are to be taken as true, and indeed the record contains answers to pretrial interrogatories which indicate that the United States stands ready to produce much evidence tending to prove the truthfulness of all the allegations in the complaint. While the Government has argued that several provisions of the Mississippi laws challenged here might or should be held unconstitutional on their face without introduction of evidence or further hearings, with respect to all the others the Solicitor General in this Court specifically has declined to “urge that the constitutionality of these provisions be decided prior to trial.” In this situation we have decided that it is the more appropriate course to pass only upon the sufficiency of the complaint’s allegations to justify relief if proved.
We have no doubt whatsoever that it was error to dismiss the complaint without a trial. The complaint charged that the State of Mississippi and its officials for the past three quarters of a century have been writing and adopting constitutional provisions, statutes, rules, and regulations, and have been engaging in discriminatory practices, all designed to keep the number of white voters at the highest possible figure and the number of colored voters at the lowest. It alleged that the common purpose running through the State’s legal and administrative history during that time has been to adopt whatever expedient seemed necessary to establish white political supremacy in a completely segregated society. This purpose, indeed, was recognized by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 1896 when it said, speaking of the convention which adopted the 1890 constitution:
“Within the field of permissible action under the limitations imposed by the federal constitution, the convention swept the circle of expedients to obstruct the exercise of the franchise by the negro race.”
The success of the expedients adopted in 1890 and in later years to accomplish this purpose appears from statistics in the complaint. For example, the complaint states that at the time the suit was filed Amite County, Mississippi, the registrar of which was one of the defendants here, had a white voting age population of 4,449 with white registration of 3,295, while it had 2,560 colored persons of voting age, of whom only one was a registered voter. There is no need to multiply examples. The allegations of this complaint were too serious, the right to vote in this country is too precious, and the necessity of settling grievances peacefully in the courts is too important for this complaint to have been dismissed. Compare Davis v. Schnell, 81 F. Supp. 872 (D. C. S. D. Ala.), aff'd, 336 U. S. 933; Louisiana v. United States, post, p. 145, this day decided. The case should have been tried. It should now be tried without delay.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Harlan considers that the constitutional conclusions reached in this opinion can properly be based only on the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment. In all other respects, he fully subscribes to this opinion.
United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, provides in part:
“SbctioN 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
United States Constitution, Amendment XV, provides:
“Section 1. 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.
“Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Judge Cox also wrote a separate concurring opinion.
Section 244 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 provided:
“On and after the first day of January, A. D., 1892, every elector shall, in addition to the foregoing qualifications, be able to read any section of the constitution of this State; or he shall be able to understand the same when read to him, or give a reasonable interpretation thereof. A new registration shall be made before the next ensuing election after January the first, A. D., 1892.”
Peay v. Cox, 190 F. 2d 123, 126 (C. A. 5th Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 896.
As amended § 244 of the Mississippi Constitution reads in part:
“Every elector shall, in addition to the foregoing qualifications be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of this State and give a reasonable interpretation thereof to the county registrar. He shall demonstrate to the county registrar a reasonable understanding of the duties and obligations of citizenship under a constitutional form of government. . . .”
Section 241-A of the Mississippi Constitution provides:
“In addition to all other qualifications required of a person to be entitled to register for the purpose of becoming a qualified elector, such person shall be of good moral character.
“The Legislature shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this section by appropriate legislation.”
Miss. Laws 1960, c. 449, Miss. Code Ann. § 3209.6 (1962 Cum. Supp.).
74 Stat. 88, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1974-1974e (1958 ed., Supp. V).
Miss. Laws 1962, c. 569, § 1, Miss. Code Ann. § 3209.6 (1962 Cum. Supp.) (requiring that application forms provide that applicants demonstrate “good moral character” and that registrars observe this requirement); Miss. Laws 1962, c. 570, Miss. Code Ann. § 3213 (1962 Cum. Supp.) (requiring applicants to fill in all blanks on the application form “properly and responsively” without any assistance) ; Miss. Laws 1962, c. 571, Miss. Code Ann. § 3212.5 (1962 Cum. Supp.) (prohibiting registrars from telling an applicant why he was rejected, “as so to do may constitute assistance to the applicant on another application"); Miss. Laws 1962, c. 572, Miss. Code Ann. § 3212.7 (1962 Cum. Supp.) (requiring newspaper publication of applicants’ names); Miss. Laws 1962, c. 573, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 3217 — 01—3217—15 (1962 Cum. Supp.) (providing for challenge by any voter of an applicant’s qualifications to vote); Miss. Laws 1962, c. 574, Miss. Code Ann. § 3232 (1962 Cum. Supp.) (eliminating designation of race in county poll books).
Miss. Laws 1962, c. 570, Miss. Code Ann. § 3213 (1962 Cum. Supp.), is claimed by the Government to have had the latter effect. In its brief in this Court the Government argues that this provision is invalid on its face as contrary to § 101 (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, amending § 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 Stat. 637, 42 U. S. C. § 1971 (a) (1958 ed.).
Such a finding would by force of 42 U. S. C. § 1971 (e) (1958 ed., Supp. V) authorize a court to make an order declaring that a person denied the right to vote because of color is entitled to vote.
“All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish,, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140, 42 U. S. C. §1971 (a) (1958 ed.).
74 Stat. 90, 42 U. S. C. § 1971 (c) (1958 ed., Supp. V), provides:
“Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order. In any proceeding hereunder the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.
“Whenever, in a proceeding instituted under this subsection any official of a State or subdivision thereof is alleged to have committed any act or practice constituting a deprivation of any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) of this section, the act or practice shall also be deemed that of the State and the State may be joined as a party defendant and, if, prior to the institution of such proceeding, such official has resigned or has been relieved of his office and no successor has assumed such office, the proceeding may be instituted against the State.”
Ratliff v. Beale, 74 Miss. 247, 266, 20 So. 865, 868.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States instituted this civil proceeding against ten Chicago dairies, charging conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the sale of fluid milk to wholesale customers and others in the Chicago area, in violation of the Sherman Act, and price discrimination in violation of the Clayton Act. Prior to trial a consent decree was entered against five of the smaller defendant companies, enjoining continuation of the conduct charged in the complaint. At the close of the Government’s case against the remaining five defendants, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. It held that, as to the alleged violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the evidence failed to establish the existence of a conspiracy or combination; and that, though there was proof of price discrimination violative of § 2 (a) of the Clayton Act by four of the defendants, a prior decree in a private antitrust action brought by a competitor dairy company enjoined the conduct in question and made it “useless” to award the Government an injunction. Ill F. Supp. 562. The Government then appealed directly to this Court under 15 U. S. C. § 29, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 346 U. S. 914.
Three of the four questions presented on this appeal deal with rulings by the district judge that certain evidence was inadmissible. The Government does not challenge the court’s conclusion that on the record conspiracy was not shown, but it insists that error in these rulings precluded establishment of the conspiracy. After hearing argument and considering as much of the record as is before us, including the Government’s offers of proof, we are of the opinion that, even assuming error in each of the challenged rulings, it does not appear that admission of the evidence in question would have been sufficient to change the conclusion that the Government had not established a case under the Sherman Act; hence the rulings cannot be said to have affected substantial rights of the parties within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 2111. Since on this basis we affirm the judgment of dismissal as to the Sherman Act allegations, it is unnecessary to discuss the propriety or impropriety of the several rulings.
The fourth question challenges the basis of the District Court’s refusal to grant the Government injunctive relief against price discrimination by four of the defendants. The district judge found that government evidence tended to prove that these defendant companies have sold at prices which discriminate between purchasers of milk of like grade and quality. This, he said, would give defendants the burden of establishing that the discrimi-nations fall within statutory exceptions, were it not that under a consent decree entered against defendants in a private suit in 1952 by another judge of the same court, they already are enjoined from performing all acts specified by the Government in its prayer for relief. In the opinion of the district judge,
“A decree of this court entered at the instance of a private litigant is as binding upon a defendant as a decree entered at the instance of the government; and a consent decree, entered by any judge of this court without hearing evidence, is as binding as a decree entered by another judge after a protracted trial. I conclude, therefore, that each of the remaining defendants is now effectively enjoined by this court from performing any of the acts set forth in the government’s prayer for injunctive relief, insofar as the Clayton Act is concerned.
“As a court of equity, I will not perform a useless task. The violations of the Clayton Act described in the complaint and shown at the trial are, for the most part, old violations. And to this court, the Dean decree assures, as completely as any decree can assure, that there will be no new violations.” Ill F. Supp., at 581.
Accordingly the court dismissed that part of the complaint which alleged violations of § 2 (a) of the Clayton Act. Thus it appears that the Government was refused an injunction solely because of the existence of the prior decree entered against defendants in the course of a private action. We think that refusal on this basis constituted an abuse of discretion.
Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 25, charges the United States district attorneys, under supervision of the Attorney General, with the duty of instituting equity proceedings to prevent and restrain violations of certain of the antitrust laws, including price discrimination. Under § 16 of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 26, a private plaintiff may obtain injunctive relief against such violations only on a showing of “threatened loss or damage”; and this must be of a sort personal to the plaintiff, Beegle v. Thomson, 138 F. 2d 875, 881 (1943). The private-injunction action, like the treble-damage action under § 4 of the Act, supplements government enforcement of the antitrust laws; but it is the Attorney General and the United States district attorneys who are primarily charged by Congress with the duty of protecting the public interest under these laws. The Government seeks its injunctive remedies on behalf of the general public; the private plaintiff, though his remedy is made available pursuant to public policy as determined by Congress, may be expected to exercise it only when his personal interest will be served. These private and public actions were designed to be cumulative, not mutually exclusive. S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 42; cf. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 694—695 (1948). “. . . [T]he scheme of the statute is sharply to distinguish between Government suits, either criminal or civil, and private suits for injunctive relief or for treble damages. Different policy considerations govern each of these. They may proceed simultaneously or in disregard of each other.” United States v. Bendix Home Appliances, 10 F. R. D. 73, 77 (S. D. N. Y. 1949). In short, the Government’s right and duty to seek an injunction to protect the public interest exist without regard to any private suit or decree.
To hold that a private decree renders unnecessary an injunction to which the Government is otherwise entitled is to ignore the prime object of civil decrees secured by the Government — the continuing protection of the public, by means of contempt proceedings, against a recurrence of antitrust violations. Should a private decree be violated, the Government would have no right to bring contempt proceedings to enforce compliance; it might succeed in intervening in the private action but only at the court’s discretion. The private plaintiff might find it to his advantage to refrain from seeking enforcement of a violated decree; for example, where the defendant’s violation operated primarily against plaintiff’s competitors. Or the plaintiff might agree to modification of the decree, again looking only to his own interest. In any of these events it is likely that the public interest would not be adequately protected by the mere existence of the private decree. It is also clear that Congress did not intend that the efforts of a private litigant should supersede the duties of the Department of Justice in policing an industry. Yet the effect of the decision below is to place on a private litigant the burden of policing a major part of the milk industry in Chicago, a task beyond its ability, even assuming it to be consistently so inclined.
We agree with appellees that the statute confers on the Government no absolute right to an injunction upon a showing of past violation of the antitrust laws by defendants. As we said in United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 633 (1953):
. . the moving party must satisfy the court that relief is needed. The necessary determination is that there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than the mere possibility which serves to keep the case alive. The chancellor's decision is based on all the circumstances; his discretion is necessarily broad and a strong showing of abuse must be made to reverse it.”
The Government contends that it has “an independent right to relief against violations of the Clayton Act, without regard to whether such violations previously have been enjoined by a decree in a private antitrust suit.” But we cannot say that the existence of the private decree warrants no consideration by the chancellor in assessing the likelihood of recurring illegal activity. We hold only that, in view of the difference in the respective interests sought to be vindicated by the Government and the private litigant, the district judge abused his discretion in refusing the Government an injunction solely because of the existence of the private decree.
The judgment of dismissal as to the Sherman Act allegations is affirmed; as to the Clayton Act allegations the case is remanded to the District Court for further consideration, and such further proceedings as may be necessary, in accordance with this opinion.
Mb. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Borden Company, Bowman Dairy Company, Belmont Dairy Company, Ridgeview Farms Dairy, Beloit Dairy Company, Capitol Dairy Company, American Processing and Sales Company, Hunding Dairy Company, Meadowmoor Dairies and Western United Dairy Company.
Borden, Bowman, Belmont, Ridgeview and Beloit.
Borden, Bowman, Belmont and Ridgeview.
The trial court refused to allow the Government to use for impeachment of a hostile witness a deposition taken in another case; to introduce in evidence certain tape recordings made for use in the prior case; and to introduce testimony as to a conversation with a deceased agent of one of the defendants.
“On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 61: “Harmless Error. No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
See note 3, supra. Since the Government does not question the correctness of the judgment of dismissal of its claim under § 2 (a) of the Clayton Act against Beloit, the fifth defendant, it is not before us.
Dean Milk Co. v. American Processing & Sales Co., U. S. D. C. N. D. Ill. E. D., No. 49 C 1159, Dec. 3, 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.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the Attorney General, when deciding whether to grant a discretionary waiver of deportation under the applicable provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 95 Stat. 1616, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(1)(H), may take into account acts of fraud committed by the alien in connection with his entry into the United States.
' Respondent Yueh-Shaio Yang and his wife, Hai-Hsia Yang, were born and married in the People’s Republic of China, and subsequently moved to Taiwan. In order to gain entry to the United States, they executed the following scheme: After divorcing respondent in Taiwan, Hai-Hsia traveled to the United States in 1978 and, using $60,000 provided by respondent, obtained a fraudulent birth certificate and passport in the name of Mary Wong, a United States citizen. Respondent then remarried Hai-Hsia in Taiwan under her false identity and fraudulently obtained an immigrant visa to enter the United States as the spouse of a United States citizen. In 1982, four years after his fraudulent entry, respondent submitted an application for naturalization, which fraudulently stated that his wife “Mary” was a United States citizen by birth and that respondent had been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. In 1985, while respondent’s naturalization application was still pending, respondent and his wife obtained another divorce in order to permit her to obtain a visa under her true name (as the relative of a daughter who had obtained United States citizenship).
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ultimately learned of respondent’s unlawful entry, and in 1992 issued an order to show cause why he should not be deported. The INS maintained that respondent was de-portable under 8 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(1)(A), because he was ex-cludable from the United States at the time of entry under the former 8 U. S. C. §§ 1182(a)(14), (19), and (20) (1988 ed.). Respondent conceded that he was deportable and filed a request for a waiver of deportation under § 1251(a)(1)(H). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s denial of this request. The Board concluded that respondent was statutorily eligible for a waiver, but denied it as a matter of discretion. Although the Board did not consider respondent’s fraudulent entry in 1978 as itself an adverse factor, it did consider, among other things, respondent’s “acts of immigration fraud before and after his 1978 entry into the United States,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a, including his first sham divorce to facilitate his wife’s unlawful entry, his 1982 application for naturalization, and his second sham divorce to assist his wife in obtaining an immigrant visa under her real name.
visa The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted respondent’s petition for review, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Yang v. INS, 58 F. 3d 452 (1995). The Ninth Circuit held that the Board abused its discretion by considering as an adverse factor respondent’s participation in his wife’s fraudulent entry, because those acts were “inextricably intertwined with Mr. Yang’s own efforts to secure entry into the country and must be considered part of the initial fraud.” Id., at 453. The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the Board improperly considered respondent’s fraudulent application for naturalization as an adverse factor because that application “must be considered an extension of the initial fraud.” Ibid. We granted certiorari. 516 U. S. 1110 (1996).
Section 1251(a)(1)(H) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
“The provisions of this paragraph relating to the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry as aliens described in section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) of this title [who have obtained a visa, documentation, entry or INA benefit by fraud or misrepresentation] . . . may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived for any alien ... who—
“(i) is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and
"(ii) was possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of such entry except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) of section 1182(a) of this title [relating to possession of valid labor certifications, immigrant visas and entry documents] which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation.”
The meaning of this language is clear. While it establishes certain prerequisites to eligibility for a waiver of deportation, it imposes no limitations on the factors that the Attorney General (or her delegate, the INS, see 8 CFR §2.1 (1996)) may consider in determining who, among the class of eligible aliens, should be granted relief. We have described the Attorney General’s suspension of deportation under a related and similarly phrased provision of the INA as “ ‘an act of grace’ ” which is accorded pursuant to her “unfettered discretion,” Jay v. Boyd, 351 U. S. 345, 354 (1956) (quoting Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U. S. 490, 492 (1935)), and have quoted approvingly Judge Learned Hand’s likening of that provision to “ ‘a judge’s power to suspend the execution of a sentence, or the President’s to pardon a convict,’” 351 U. S., at 354, n. 16 (quoting United States ex rel. Kaloudis v. Shaughnessy, 180 F. 2d 489, 491 (CA2 1950)).
Respondent contends, however, that the portion of § 1251(a)(l)(H)(ii) requiring the alien to be “otherwise admissible” — that is, not excludable on some ground other than the entry fraud — precludes the Attorney General from considering the alien’s fraudulent entry at all. The text will not bear such a reading. Unlike the prior version of the waiver-of-deportation statute at issue in INS v. Errico, 385 U. S. 214 (1966), under which the Attorney General had no discretion to deny a waiver if the statutory requirements were met, satisfaction of the requirements under § 1251(a)(1)(H), including the requirement that the alien have been “otherwise admissible,” establishes only the alien’s eligibility for the waiver. Such eligibility in no way limits the considerations that may guide the Attorney General in exercising her discretion to determine who, among those eligible, will be accorded grace. It could be argued that if the Attorney General determined that any entry fraud or misrepresentation, no matter how minor and no matter what the attendant circumstances, would cause her to withhold waiver, she would not be exercising the conferred discretion at all, but would be making a nullity of the statute. But that is a far cry from respondent’s argument that all entry fraud must be excused, which is untenable.
Respondent asserts (and the United States acknowledges) that it is the settled policy of the INS to disregard entry fraud or misrepresentation, no matter how egregious, in making the waiver determination. See Delmundo v. INS, 43 F. 3d 436, 440 (CA9 1994). This is such a generous disposition that it may suggest a belief on the part of the agency that the statute requires it; and such a belief is also suggested by the INS’s frequent concessions in litigation that the underlying fraud for which the alien is deportable “should not be considered as an adverse factor in the balancing equation,” Liwanag v. INS, 872 F. 2d 685, 687 (CA5 1989); see also Braun v. INS, 992 F. 2d 1016, 1020 (CA9 1993); Start v. INS, 803 F. 2d 539, 542 (CA9 1986), withdrawn, 862 F. 2d 787 (1988). (Such concessions were facilitated, no doubt, by the Ninth Circuit’s frequent intimations that the statute forbade consideration of the initial fraud. See Hernandez-Robledo v. INS, 777 F. 2d 536, 541 (1985); see also Braun, supra, at 1020; Delmundo, supra, at 441.) Before us, however, the United States disclaims such a position — and even if that were the agency’s view we could not permit it to overcome the unmistakable text of the law. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 229-230 (1994). But that does not render the INS’s practice irrelevant. Though the agency’s discretion is unfettered at the outset, if it announces and follows — by rule or by settled course of adjudication — a general policy by which its exercise of discretion will be governed, an irrational departure from that policy (as opposed to an avowed alteration of it) could constitute action that must be overturned as “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). The INS has not, however, disregarded its general policy here; it has merely taken a narrow view of what constitutes “entry fraud” under that policy, excluding events removed in time and circumstance from respondent’s entry: his preentry and postentry sham divorces, and the fraud in his 1982 application for naturalization. The “entry fraud” exception being, under the current statute, a rule of the INS’s own invention, the INS is entitled, within reason, to define that exception as it pleases. The Ninth Circuit held that the acts of fraud counted against respondent can be described as “inextricably intertwined” with, or an “extension” of, the fraudulent entry itself because they were essential to its ultimate success or concealment. Perhaps so, but it is up to the Attorney General whether she will adopt an “inextricably intertwined” or “essential extension” augmentation of her “entry fraud” exception. It is assuredly rational, and therefore lawful, for her to distinguish aliens such as respondent who engage in a pattern of immigration fraud from aliens who commit a single, isolated act of misrepresentation. for the Ninth
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Our jurisdiction over this matter is not in question. See 5 U. S. C. § 702. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRA), Div. C., Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. 104-208,110 Stat. 3009, provides that “[notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any . . . decision or action of the Attorney General the authority for which is specified under [Title 8 U. S. C.] to be in the discretion of the Attorney General _” IIRA § 306(a). That provision does not take effect, however, until April 1,1997. See IIRA §§ 306(c)(1), 309(a) (as amended by Pub. L. 104-302, §2,110 Stat. 3656).
The last clause of the quoted provision is less than artfully drawn, since the phrase “that fraud or misrepresentation” has no apparent antecedent. The antecedent was unmistakable in the prior version of the provision, which, in its prologue, that [the aliens] were excludable at the time of entry as aliens who have sought to procure or have procured visas or other documentation, or entry into the United States, by fraud or misrepresentation.” 8 U. S. C. § 1251(f) (1988 ed.). In the prologue of the current provision, that explicit (but lengthy) reference to fraud or misrepresentation has been replaced by citation of § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), which uses almost the same language to define a class of excludable aliens. We think it if not obvious, then at least inevitable, that the phrase “that fraud or misrepresentation” refers to the fraud or misrepresentation for which waiver is sought, alluded to, through citation of § 1182 (a) (6)(G)(i), in the prologue.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice BREYER
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 91 Stat. 874, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., prohibits a debt collector from asserting any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation,” or using any “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect, or attempt to collect, a debt, §§ 1692e, 1692f. In this case, a debt collector filed a written statement in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding claiming that the debtor owed the debt collector money. The statement made clear, however, that the 6-year statute of limitations governing collection of the claimed debt had long since run. The question before us is whether the debt collector’s filing of that statement falls within the scope of the aforementioned provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We conclude that it does not.
1 — i
In March 2014, Aleida Johnson, the respondent, filed for personal bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (or Code), 11 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Two months later, Midland Funding, LLC, the petitioner, filed a “proof of claim,” a written statement asserting that Johnson owed Midland a credit-card debt of $1,879.71. The statement added that the last time any charge appeared on Johnson’s account was in May 2003, more than 10 years before Johnson filed for bankruptcy. The relevant statute of limitations is six years. See Ala. Code § 6-2-34 (2014). Johnson, represented by counsel, objected to the claim; Midland did not respond to the objection; and the Bankruptcy Court disallowed the claim.
Subsequently, Johnson brought this lawsuit against Midland seeking actual damages, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs for a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. The District Court decided that the Act did not apply and therefore dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals for' the Eleventh Circuit disagreed and reversed the District Court. 823 F.3d 1334 (2016). Midland filed a petition for certiorari, noting a division of opinion among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether the conduct at issue here is “false,” “deceptive,” “misleading,” “unconscionable,” or “unfair” within the meaning of the Act, Compare ibid, (finding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applicable) with In re Dubois, 834 F.3d 522 (C.A.4 2016) (finding the Act inapplicable); Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 832 F.3d 726 (C.A.7 2016) (same); and Nelson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 828 F.3d 749 (C.A.8 2016) (same). We granted the petition. We now reverse the Court of Appeals.
II
Like the majority of Courts of Appeals that have considered the matter, we conclude that Midland’s filing of a proof of claim that on its face indicates that the limitations period has run does not fall within the scope of any of the five relevant words of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We believe it reasonably clear that Midland’s proof of claim was not “false, deceptive, or misleading.” Midland’s proof of claim falls within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of the term “claim.” A “claim” is a “right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). State law usually determines whether a person has such a right. See Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443, 450-451, 127 S.Ct. 1199, 167 L.Ed.2d 178 (2007). The relevant state law is’ the law of Alabama. And Alabama’s law, like the law of many States, provides that a creditor has the right to payment of a debt even after the limitations period has expired. See Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288, 296 (Ala.2007) (passage of time extinguishes remedy but the right remains); see also, e.g., Sallaz v. Rice, 161 Idaho 223, 228, 384 P.3d 987, 992-993 (2016) (similar); Notte v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 185 N.J. 490, 499-500, 888 A.2d 464, 469 (2006) (similar); Potterton v. Ryland Group, Inc., 289 Md. 371, 375-376, 424 A.2d 761, 764 (1981) (similar); Summers v. Connolly, 159 Ohio St. 396, 400-402, 112 N.E.2d 391, 394 (1953) (similar); De Vries v. Secretary of State, 329 Mich. 68, 75, 44 N.W.2d 872, 876 (1950) (similar); Fleming v. Yeazel, 379 Ill. 343, 344-346, 40 N.E.2d 507, 508 (1942) (similar); Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Lackland, 175 Va. 178, 185-187, 8 S.E.2d 306, 309 (1940) (similar); Insurance Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 724, 728-731, 69 S.W. 345, 346 (1902) (similar); but see, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-3(1) (2012) (expiration of the limitations period extinguishes the remedy and the right); Wis. Stat. § 893.05 (2011-2012) (same).
Johnson argues that the Code’s word “claim” means “enforceable claim.” She notes that this Court once referred to a bankruptcy “claim” as “an enforceable obligation.” Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 559, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990). And, she concludes, Midland’s “proof of claim” was false (or deceptive or misleading) because its “claim” was not enforceable. Brief for Respondent 22; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18-20 (making a similar argument).
But we do not find this argument convincing. The word “enforceable” does not appear in the Code’s definition of “claim.” See 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). The Court in Davenport likely used the word “enforceable” descriptively, for that case involved an enforceable debt. 495 U.S., at 559, 110 S.Ct. 2126. And it is difficult to square Johnson’s interpretation with our later statement that “Congress intended... to adopt the broadest available definition of ‘claim.’ ” Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991).
It is still more difficult to square Johnson’s interpretation with other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 502(b)(1) of the Code, for example, says that, if a “claim” is “unenforceable,” it will be disallowed. It does not say that an “unenforceable” claim is not a “claim.” Similarly, § 101(5)(A) says that a “claim” is a “right to payment,” “whether or not such right is... fixed, contingent,... [or] disputed.” If a contingency does not arise, or if a claimant loses a dispute, then the claim is unenforceable. Yet this section makes clear that the unenforceable claim is nonetheless a “right to payment,” hence a “claim,” as the Code uses those terms.
Johnson looks for support to other provisions that govern bankruptcy proceedings, including § 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which states that a claim will be allowed in the absence of an objection, and Rule 3001(f) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which states that a properly filed “proof of claim.,. shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim.” But these provisions do not discuss the scope of the term “claim.” Rather, they restate the Bankruptcy Code’s system for determining whether a claim will be allowed. Other provisions make clear that the running of a limitations period constitutes an affirmative defense, a defense that the debtor is to assert after a creditor makes a “claim.” §§ 502, 558. The law has long treated unenforceability of a claim (due to the expiration of the limitations period) as an affirmative defense. See, e.g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c)(1); 13 Encyclopaedia of Pleading and Practice 200 (W. McKinney ed. 1898). And we see nothing misleading or deceptive in the filing of a proof of claim that, in effect, follows the Code’s similar system.
Indeed, to determine whether a statement is misleading normally “requires consideration of the legal-sophistication of its audience.” Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 383, n. 37, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977). The audience in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases includes a trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 1302(a), who must examine proofs of claim and, where appropriate, pose an objection, §§ 704(a)(5), 1302(b)(1) (including any timeliness objection, §§ 502(b)(1), 558). And that trustee is likely to understand that, as the Code says, a proof of claim is a statement by the creditor that he or she has a right to payment subject to disallowance (including disallowance based upon, and following, the trustee’s objection for untimeliness). §§ 101(5)(A), 502(b), 704(a)(5), 1302(b)(1). (We do not address the appropriate standard in ordinary civil litigation.)
Ill
Whether Midland’s assertion of an obviously time-barred claim is “unfair” or “unconscionable” (within the terms of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) presents a closer question. First, Johnson points out that several lower courts have found or indicated that, in the context of an ordinary civil action to collect a debt, a debt collector’s assertion of a claim known to be time barred is “unfair.” See, e.g., Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 736 F.3d 1076, 1079 (C.A.7 2013) (holding as much); Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F.Supp. 1480, 1487 (M.D.Ala. 1987) (same); Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Management, 641 F.3d 28, 32-33 (C.A.3 2011) (indicating as much); Castro v. Collecto, Inc., 634 F.3d 779, 783 (C.A.5 2011) (same); Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 248 F.3d 767, 771 (C.A.8 2001) (same).
We are not convinced, however, by this precedent. It considers a debt collector’s assertion in a civil suit of a claim known to be stale. We assume, for argument’s sake, that the precedent is correct in that context (a matter this Court itself has not decided and does not now decide). But the context of a civil suit differs significantly from the present context, that of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. The lower courts rested their conclusions upon their concern that a consumer might unwittingly repay a time-barred debt. Thus the Seventh Circuit pointed out that “ ‘few unsophisticated consumers would be aware that a statute of limitations could be used to defend against lawsuits based on stale debts.’ ” Phillips, supra, at 1079 (quoting Kimber, supra, at 1487). The “ ‘passage of time,’ ” the Circuit wrote, “ ‘dulls the consumer’s memory of the circumstances and validity of the debt’” and the consumer may no longer have “ ‘personal records.’ ” 736 F.3d. at 1079 (quoting Kimber, supra, at 1487). Moreover, a consumer might pay a stale debt simply to avoid the cost and embarrassment of suit. 736 F.3d, at 1079.
These considerations have significantly diminished force in the context of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The consumer initiates such a proceeding, see 11 U.S.C. §§ 301, 303(a), and consequently the consumer is not likely to pay a stale claim just to avoid going to court. A knowledgeable trustee is available. See § 1302(a). Procedural bankruptcy rules more directly guide the evaluation of claims. See Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 3001(c)(3)(A); Advisory Committee’s Notes on Rule 3001-2011 Arndt, 11 U.S.C. App., p. 678. And, as the Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel put it, the claims resolution process is “generally a more streamlined and less unnerving prospect for a debtor than facing a collection lawsuit.” In re Gatewood, 533 B.R. 905, 909 (2015); see also, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 502 (outlining generally the claims resolution process). These features of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding make it considerably more likely that an effort to collect upon a stale claim in bankruptcy will be met with resistance, objection, and disallowance.
Second, Johnson argues that the practice at least risks harm to the debtor and that there is not “a single legitimate reason” for allowing this kind of behavior. Brief for Respondent 32. Would it not be obviously “unfair,” she asks, for a debt collector to adopt a practice of buying up stale claims cheaply and asserting them in bankruptcy knowing they are stale and hoping for careless trustees? The United States, supporting Johnson, adds its view that the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure make the practice open to sanction, and argues that sanetionable conduct is unfair conduct. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20. See Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 9011(b)(2) (sanction possible if party violates the Rule that by “presenting to the [bankruptcy] court” any “paper,” a “party is certifying that to the best of’ his or her “knowledge,... the claims... therein are warranted by existing law”).
We are ultimately not persuaded by these arguments. The bankruptcy system, as we have already noted, treats untimeliness as an affirmative defense. The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims and pointing out that a claim is stale. See supra, at 1412 -1413. Moreover, protections available in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding minimize the risk to the debtor. See supra, at 1413. And, at least on occasion, the assertion of even a stale claim can benefit a debtor. Its filing and disallowance “discharge[s]” the debt. 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a). And that discharge means that the debt (even if unenforceable) will not remain on a credit report potentially affecting an individual’s ability to borrow money, buy a home, and perhaps secure employment. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(4) (debt may remain on a credit report for seven years); cf. Ala. Code § 6-2-34 (6-year statute of limitations); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101 (2013) (3-year statute of limitations); cf. 16 C.F.R. pt. 600, App. § 607, ¶ 6 (1991) (a credit report may include discharged debt only if “the debt [is reported] as having a zero balance due to reflect the fact that the consumer is no longer liable for the discharged debt”); FTC, 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff Report with Summary of Interpretations 66 (2011) (similar).
More importantly, a change in the simple affirmative-defense approach, carving out an exception, itself would require defining the boundaries of the exception. Does it apply only where (as Johnson alleged in the complaint) a claim’s staleness appears “on [the] face” of the proof of claim? Does it apply to other affirmative defenses or only to the running of a limitations period?
At the same time, we do not find in either the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the Bankruptcy Code good reason to believe that Congress intended an ordinary civil court applying the Act to determine answers to these bankruptcy-related questions. The Act and the Code have different purposes and structural features. The Act seeks to help consumers, not necessarily by closing what Johnson and the United States characterize as a loophole in the Bankruptcy Code, but by preventing consumer bankruptcies in the first place. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (recognizing the “abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices [which] contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies”); see also § 1692(b) (“Existing laws and procedures... are inadequate to protect consumers”); § 1692(e) (statute seeks to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices”). The Bankruptcy Code, by way of contrast, creates and maintains what we have called the “delicate balance of a debtor’s protections and obligations.” Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 651, 94 S.Ct. 2431, 41 L.Ed.2d 374 (1974).
To find the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applicable here would upset that “delicate balance.” From a substantive perspective it would authorize a new significant bankruptcy-related remedy in the absence of language in the Code providing for it. Administratively, it would permit postbankruptcy litigation in an ordinary civil court concerning a creditor’s state of mind — a matter often hard to determine. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c) (safe harbor for any debt collector who “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error”). Procedurally, it would require creditors (who assert a claim) to investigate the merits of an affirmative defense' (typically the debtor’s job to assert and prove) lest the creditor later be found to have known the claim was untimely. The upshot could well be added complexity, changes in settlement incentives, and a shift from the debtor to the creditor the obligation to investigaté the staleness of a claim.
Unlike the United States, we do not believe that the Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure settled the issue when it promulgated Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The Committee, in considering amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure in 2009, specifically rejected a proposal that would have required a creditor to certify that there is no valid statute of limitations defense. See Agenda Book for Meeting 86-87 (Mar. 26-27, 2009). It did so in part because the working group did not want to impose an affirmative obligation on a creditor to make a prefiling investigation of a potential time-bar defense. Ibid. In rejecting that proposal, the Committee did note that Rule 9011 imposes a general “obligation on a claimant to undertake an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances to determine... that a claim is warranted by existing law and that factual contentions have evi-dentiary support,” and to certify as much on the proof of claim. Id., at 87. The Committee also acknowledged, however, that this requirement would “not addres[s] the statute of limitation issue,” but would only ensure “the accuracy of the information provided.” Ibid.
We recognize that one Bankruptcy Court has held that filing a time-barred claim without a prefiling investigation of a potential time-bar defense merits sanctions under Rule 9011. In re Sekema, 523 B.R. 651, 654 (Bkrtcy.Ct.N.D.Ind.2015). But others have held to the contrary. See, e.g., In re Freeman, 540 B.R. 129, 143-144 (Bkrtcy.Ct.E.D.Pa.2015); In re Jenkins, 538 B.R. 129, 134-136 (Bkrcty.Ct.N.D.Ala.2015); In re Keeler, 440 B.R. 354, 366-369 (Bkrtcy.Ct.E.D.Pa. 2009); see also In re Andrews, 394 B.R. 384, 387-388 (Bkrtcy.Ct.E.D.N.C.2008) (recognizing that “[mjany courts have... found that sanctions [under Rule 9011] were not warranted for filing stale claims”).
These circumstances, taken together, convince us that we cannot find the practice at issue here “unfair” or “unconscionable” within the terms of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
IV
For these reasons, we conclude that filing (in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding) a proof of claim that is obviously time barred is not a false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable debt collection practice within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA or Act) prohibits professional debt collectors from using “false, deceptive, or misleading representation^] or means in connection with the collection of any debt” and from “us[ing] unfair or unconscionable means to collect” a debt. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f. The Court today wrongfully holds that a debt collector that knowingly attempts to collect a time-barred debt in bankruptcy proceedings has violated neither of these prohibitions.
Professional debt collectors have built a business out of buying stale debt, filing claims in bankruptcy proceedings to collect it, and hoping that no one notices that the debt is too old to be enforced by the courts. This practice is both “unfair” and “unconscionable.” I respectfully dissent from the Court’s conclusion to the contrary.
I
Americans owe trillions of dollars in consumer debt to creditors — credit card companies, schools, and car dealers, among others. See Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit 3 (2017). Most people will repay their debts, but some cannot do so. The debts they do not pay are increasingly likely to end up in the hands of professional debt collectors — companies whose business it is to collect debts that are owed to other companies. See Consumer Financial Protection Bur., Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Annual Report 2016, p. 8 (CFPB Report). Debt collection is a lucrative and growing industry. Last year, the Nation’s 6,000 debt collection agencies earned over $13 billion in revenue. Ibid.
Although many debt collectors are hired by creditors to work on a third-party basis, more and more collectors also operate as “debt buyers” — purchasing debts from creditors outright and attempting to collect what they can, with the profits going to their own accounts. See FTC, The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry 11-12 (2013) (FTC Report); CFPB Report 10. Debt buyers now hold hundreds of billions of dollars in consumer debt; indeed, a study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2009 found that nine of the leading debt buyers had purchased over $140 billion in debt just in the previous three years. FTC Report, at i-ii, T-3 (Table 3).
Because creditors themselves have given up trying to collect the debts they sell to debt buyers, they sell those debts for pennies on the dollar. Id., at 23. The older the debt, the greater the discount: While debt buyers pay close to eight cents per dollar for debts under three years old, they pay as little as two cents per dollar for debts greater than six years old, and “effectively nothing” for debts greater than 15 years old. Id., at 23-24. These prices reflect the basic fact that older debts are harder to collect. As time passes, consumers move or forget that they owe the debts; creditors have more trouble documenting the debts and proving their validity; and debts begin to fall within state statutes of limitations — time limits that “operate to bar a plaintiffs suit” once passed. CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. -, -, 134 S.Ct. 2175, 2182, 189 L.Ed.2d 62 (2014). Because a creditor (or a debt collector) cannot enforce a time-barred debt in court, the debt is inherently worth very little indeed.
But statutes of limitations have not deterred debt buyers. For years, they have filed suit in state courts — often in small-claims courts, where formal rules of evidence do not apply — to collect even debts too old to be enforced by those courts. See Holland, The One Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small-Claims Court, 6 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 259, 261 (2011). Importantly, the debt buyers’ only hope in these cases is that consumers will fail either to invoke the statute of limitations or to respond at all: In most States the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, meaning that a consumer must appear in court and raise it in order to dismiss the suit. See ante, at 1412 -1413 (majority opinion). But consumers do fail to defend themselves in court — in fact, according to the FTC, over 90% fail to appear at all. FTC Report 45. The result is that debt buyers have won “billions of dollars in default judgments” simply by filing suit and betting that consumers will lack the resources to respond. Holland, supra, at 263.
The FDCPA’s prohibitions on “misleading” and “unfair” conduct have largely beaten back this particular practice. Every court to have considered the question has held that a debt collector that knowingly flies suit in court to collect a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA. See Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 736 F.3d 1076, 1079 (C.A.7 2013); Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F.Supp. 1480, 1487 (M.D.Ala.1987); see also ante, at 1412-1413 (majority opinion) (citing other cases). In 2015, petitioner and its parent company entered into a consent decree with the Government prohibiting them from filing suit to collect time-barred debts and ordering them to pay $34 million in restitution. See Consent Order in In re Encore Capital Group, Inc., No. 2015-CFPB-0022 (Sept. 9, 2015), pp. 38, 46. And the leading trade association has now adopted a resolution barring the practice. See Brief for DBA International, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 2-3.
Stymied in state courts, the debt buyers have now turned to a new forum: bankruptcy courts. The same debt buyers that for years filed thousands of lawsuits in state courts across the country have begun to do the same thing in bankruptcy courts — specifically, in cases governed by Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows consumers earning regular incomes to restructure their debts and repay as many as they can over a period of several years. See 8 Collier on Bankruptcy 111300.01 (A. Resnick & H. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2016). As in ordinary civil cases, a debtor in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding is entitled to have dismissed any claim filed against his estate that is barred by a statute of limitations. See 11 U.S.C. § 558. As in ordinary civil cases, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, one that must be raised by either the debtor or the trustee of his estate before it is honored. §§ 502, 558, And so — -just as in ordinary civil cases — debt collectors may file claims in bankruptcy proceedings for stale debts and hope that no one notices that they are too old to be enforced.
And that is exactly what the debt buyers have done. As a wide variety of courts and commentators have observed, debt buyers have “deluge[d]” the bankruptcy courts with claims “on debts deemed unenforceable under state statutes of limitations.” Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254, 1256 (C.A.11 2014); see also In re Jenkins, 456 B.R. 236, 239, n. 2 (Bkrtcy.Ct.E.D.N.C.2011) (noting a “plague of stale claims”); Brief for National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys et al. as Amici Curiae 9 (noting study describing “hundreds of thousands of proofs of claim asserting hundreds of millions of dollars of consumer indebtedness, all in a single year”). This practice has become so widespread that the Government sued one debt buyer last year “to address [its] systemic abuse of the bankruptcy process” — including a “business model” of “knowingly and strategically” filing thousands of claims for time-barred debt. Complaint in In re Freeman-Clay v. Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P., No. 14-41871 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Mo.), ¶¶ 1, 35 (Resurgent Complaint). This practice, the Government explained, “manipulates the bankruptcy process by systematically shifting the burden” to trustees and debtors to object even to “frivolous claims”— especially given that filing an objection is costly, time consuming, and easy to overlook. Id., at ¶¶ 35, 43-44.
II
The FDCPA prohibits professional debt collectors from engaging in “unfair” and “unconscionable” practices. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Filing a claim in bankruptcy court for debt that a collector knows to be time barred — like filing a lawsuit in a court to collect such a debt — is just such a practice.
A
Begin where the debt collectors themselves began: with their practice of filing suit in ordinary civil courts to collect debts that they know are time barred. Every court to have considered this practice holds that it violates the FDCPA. There is no sound reason to depart from this conclusion.
Statutes of limitations “are not simply technicalities.” Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 487, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). They reflect strong public-policy determinations that “it is unjust to fail to put [an] adversary on notice to defend within a specified period of time.” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117, 100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979). And they “promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.” Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 348-349, 64 S.Ct. 582, 88 L.Ed. 788 (1944). Such concerns carry particular weight in the context of small-dollar consumer debt collection. As one thoughtful opinion explains:
“Because few unsophisticated consumers would be aware that a statute of limitations could be used to defend against lawsuits based on stale debts, such consumers would unwittingly acquiesce to such lawsuits. And, even if the consumer realizes that she can use time as a defense, she will more than likely still give in rather than fight the lawsuit because she must still expend energy and resources and subject herself to the embarrassment of going into court to present the defense.... ” Kimber, 668 F.Supp., at 1487.
Debt buyers’ efforts to pursue stale debt in ordinary civil litigation may also entrap debtors into forfeiting their time defenses altogether. When a debt collector sues or threatens to sue to collect a debt, many consumers respond by offering a small partial payment to forestall suit. In many States, a consumer who makes an offer like this has — unbeknownst to him — forever given up his ability to claim the debt is unenforceable. That is because in most States a consumer’s partial payment on a time-barred debt — or his promise to resume payments on such a debt — will restart the statute of limitations. FTC Report 47; see, e.g., Young v. Sorenson, 47 Cal.App.3d 911, 914, 121 Cal.Rptr. 236, 237 (1975) (“ ‘The theory on which this is based is that the payment is an acknowledgement on the existence of the indebtedness which raises an implied promise to continue the obligation and to pay the balance’ ”). Debt collectors’ efforts to entrap consumers in this way have no place in honest business practice.
B
The same dynamics are present in bankruptcy proceedings. A proof of claim filed in bankruptcy court represents the debt collector’s belief that it is entitled to payment, even though the debt should not be enforced as a matter of public policy. The debtor’s claim will be allowed, and will be incorporated in a debtor’s payment plan, unless the debtor or his trustee objects. But such objections require ordinary and unsophisticated people (and their overworked trustees) to be on guard not only against mistaken claims but also against claims that debt collectors know will fail under law if an objection is raised. Debt collectors do not file these claims in good faith; they file them hoping and expecting that the bankruptcy system will fail. Such a practice is “unfair” and “unconscionable” in violation of the FDCPA.
The Court disagrees. But it does so on narrow grounds. To begin with, the Court does not hold that the Bankruptcy Code altogether displaces the FDCPA, leaving it with no role to play in bankruptcy proceedings. Such a conclusion would be wrong. Although the Code and the FDCPA “have different purposes and structural features,” ante, at 1414, the Court has held that Congress, in passing the FDCPA’s predecessor, did so on the understanding that “the provisions and the purposes” Of the two statutes were intended to “coexist.” Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 650, 94 S.Ct. 2431, 41 L.Ed.2d 374 (1974). Although petitioner suggests that the FDCPA is best read “to have no application to [a] debt collector’s conduct” in a bankruptcy proceeding, Brief for
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether an accrual-basis taxpayer providing medical benefits to its employees may deduct at the close of the taxable year an estimate of its obligation to pay for medical care obtained by employees or their qualified dependents during the final quarter of the year, claims for which have not been reported to the employer.
H-t
Taxpayers, respondents herein, are the General Dynamics Corporation and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries (General Dynamics). General Dynamics uses the accrual method of accounting for federal tax purposes; its fiscal year is the same as the calendar year. From 1962 until October 1, 1972, General Dynamics purchased group medical insurance for its employees and their qualified dependents from two private insurance carriers. Beginning in October 1972, General Dynamics became a self-insurer with regard to its medical care plans. Instead of continuing to purchase insurance from outside carriers, it undertook to pay medical claims out of its own funds, while continuing to employ private carriers to administer the medical care plans.
To receive reimbursement of expenses for covered medical services, respondent’s employees submit claims forms to employee benefits personnel, who verify that the treated persons were eligible under the applicable plan as of the time of treatment. Eligible claims are then forwarded to the plan’s administrators. Claims processors review the claims and approve for payment those expenses that are covered under the plan.
Because the processing of claims takes time, and because employees do not always file their claims immediately, there is a delay between the provision of medical services and payment by General Dynamics. To account for this time lag, General Dynamics established reserve accounts to reflect its liability for medical care received, but still not paid for, as of December 31, 1972. It estimated the amount of those reserves with the assistance of its former insurance carriers.
Originally, General Dynamics did not deduct any portion of this reserve in computing its tax for 1972. In 1977, however, after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began an audit of its 1972 tax return, General Dynamics filed an amended return, claiming it was entitled to deduct its reserve as an accrued expense, and seeking a refund. The IRS disallowed the deduction, and General Dynamics sought relief in the Claims Court.
The Claims Court sustained the deduction, holding that it satisfied the “all events” test embodied in Treas. Reg. § 1.461-1(a)(2), 26 CFR § 1.461-l(a)(2) (1986), since “all events” which determined the fact of liability had taken place when the employees received covered services, and the amount of liability could be determined with reasonable accuracy. Thus, the court held that General Dynamics was entitled to a refund. 6 Cl. Ct. 250 (1984). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, largely on the basis of the Claims Court opinion. 773 F. 2d 1224, 1226 (1985).
The United States sought review of the question whether all the events necessary to fix liability had occurred. We granted certiorari, 476 U. S. 1181 (1986). We reverse.
I — I hH
As we noted in United States v. Hughes Properties, Inc., 476 U. S. 593, 600 (1986), whether a business expense has been “incurred” so as to entitle an accrual-basis taxpayer to deduct it under § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 162(a), is governed by the “all events” test that originated in United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422, 441 (1926). In Anderson, the Court held that a taxpayer was obliged to deduct from its 1916 income a tax on profits from munitions sales that took place in 1916. Although the tax would not be assessed and therefore would not formally be due until 1917, all the events which fixed the amount of the tax and determined the taxpayer’s liability to pay it had occurred in 1916. The test is now embodied in Treas. Reg. § 1.461-1(a)(2), 26 CFR § 1.461-1(a)(2) (1986), which provides that “[ujnder an accrual method of accounting, an expense is deductible for the taxable year in which all the events have occurred which determine the fact of the liability and the amount thereof can be determined with reasonable accuracy.”
It is fundamental to the “all events” test that, although expenses may be deductible before they have become due and payable, liability must first be firmly established. This is consistent with our prior holdings that a taxpayer may not deduct a liability that is contingent, see Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U. S. 445, 452 (1930), or contested, see Security Flour Mills Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 321 U. S. 281, 284 (1944). Nor may a taxpayer deduct an estimate of an anticipated expense, no matter how statistically certain, if it is based on events that have not occurred by the close of the taxable year. Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193, 201 (1934); cf. American Automobile Assn. v. United States, 367 U. S. 687, 693 (1961).
We think that this case, like Brown, involves a mere estimate of liability based on events that had not occurred before the close of the taxable year, and therefore the proposed deduction does not pass the “all events” test. We disagree with the legal conclusion of the courts below that the last event necessary to fix the taxpayer’s liability was the receipt of medical care by covered individuals. A person covered by a plan could only obtain payment for medical services by filling out and submitting a health-expense-benefits claim form. App. 23. Employees were informed that submission of satisfactory proof of the charges claimed would be necessary to obtain payment under the plans. Id., at 58. General Dynamics was thus liable to pay for covered medical services only if properly documented claims forms were filed. Some covered individuals, through oversight, procrastination, confusion over the coverage provided, or fear of disclosure to the employer of the extent or nature of the services received, might not file claims for reimbursement to which they are plainly entitled. Such filing is not a mere technicality. It is crucial to the establishment of liability on the part of the taxpayer. Nor does the failure to file a claim represent the type of “extremely remote and speculative possibility” that we held in Hughes, 476 U. S., at 601, did not render an otherwise fixed liability contingent. Cf. Lucas v. North Texas Lumber Co., 281 U. S. 11, 13 (1930) (where executory contract of sale was created in 1916 but papers necessary to effect transfer were not prepared until 1917, unconditional liability for the purchase price was not created in 1916, and the gain from the sale was therefore not realized until 1917). Mere receipt of services for which, in some instances, claims will not be submitted does not, in our judgment, constitute the last link in the chain of events creating liability for purposes of the “all events” test.
The parties stipulated in this case that as of December 31, 1972, the taxpayer had not received all claims for medical treatment services rendered in 1972, and that some claims had been filed for services rendered in 1972 that had not been processed. App. 26. The record does not reflect which portion of the claims against General Dynamics for medical care had been filed but not yet processed and which portion had not even been filed at the close of the 1972 tax year. The taxpayer has the burden of proving its entitlement to a deduction. Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U. S. 507, 514 (1935). Here, respondent made no showing that, as of December 31, 1972, it knew of specific claims which had been filed but which it had not yet processed. Because the taxpayer failed to demonstrate that any of the deducted reserve represented claims for which its liability was firmly established as of the close of 1972, all the events necessary to establish liability were not shown to have occurred, and therefore no deduction was permissible.
This is not to say that the taxpayer was unable to forecast how many claims would be filed for medical care received during this period, and estimate the liability that would arise from those claims. Based on actuarial data, General Dynamics may have been able to make a reasonable estimate of how many claims would be filed for the last quarter of 1972. But that alone does not justify a deduction. In Brown, supra, the taxpayer, a general agent for insurance companies, sought to take a deduction for a reserve representing estimated liability for premiums to be returned on the percentage of insurance policies it anticipated would be cancelled in future years. The agent may well have been capable of estimating with a reasonable degree of accuracy the ratio of cancellation refunds to premiums already paid and establishing its reserve accordingly. Despite the “strong probability that many of the policies written during the taxable year” would be cancelled, 291 U. S., at 201, the Court held that “no liability accrues during the taxable year on account of cancellations which it is expected may occur in future years, since the events necessary to create the liability do not occur during the taxable year.” Id., at 200. A reserve based on the proposition that a particular set of events is likely to occur in the future may be an appropriate conservative accounting measure, but does not warrant a tax deduction. See American Automobile Assn. v. United States, supra, at 692; Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U. S., at 452.
That these estimated claims were not intended to fall within the “all events” test is further demonstrated by the fact that the Internal Revenue Code specifically permits insurance companies to deduct additions to reserves for such “incurred but not reported” (IBNR) claims. See 26 U. S. C. § 832(b)(5) (providing that an insurance company may treat as losses incurred “all unpaid losses outstanding at the end of the taxable year”); § 832(c)(4) (permitting deduction of losses incurred as defined in § 832(b)(5)). If the “all events” test permitted the deduction of an estimated reserve representing claims that were actuarially likely but not yet reported, Congress would not have needed to maintain an explicit provision that insurance companies could deduct such reserves.
General Dynamics did not show that its liability as to any medical care claims was firmly established as of the close of the 1972 tax year, and is therefore entitled to no deduction. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Respondents filed a consolidated federal income tax return for 1972, the year at issue here. We therefore treat them as a single entity.
The United States did not seek review of whether the amount of liability in this case could be determined with reasonable accuracy. See Pet. for Cert. 13, n. 2.
The regulation in force in 1972 was identical to the present version. See 26 CFR § 1.461-1(a)(2) (1972).
The “all events” test has been incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat 598, 607, 26 U. S. C. § 461(h)(4) (1982 ed., Supp. III). Section 461(h) imposed limits on the application of the test, providing that “in determining whether an amount has been incurred with respect to any item during any taxable year, the all events test shall not be treated as met any earlier than when economic performance with respect to such item occurs.” § 461(h)(1). The pertinent portions of the 1984 amendments were retained in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Section 461(h) does not apply in this ease. It became effective as of July 18, 1984, the date of the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act. See § 91(g)(1)(A), 26 U. S. C. § 461 note (1982 ed., Supp. III). While that statute permits a taxpayer to elect the application of § 461(h) to amounts incurred on or before July 18, 1984, see § 91(g)(2), there is no indication that the taxpayer here has done so. We do not address how this case would be decided under § 461(h), but note that the legislative history of the Act indicates that, “[i]n the case of. . . employee benefit liabilities, which require a payment by the taxpayer to another person, economic performance occurs as the payments to such person are made.” H. R. Rep. No. 98-432, pt. 2, p. 1255 (1984); see also H. Conf. Rep. No. 98-861, p. 872 (1984).
We do not challenge the Claims Court’s factual conclusion that the processing of the claims was “routine,” “clerical,” and “ministerial in nature,” 6 Cl. Ct. 250, 254 (1984). The Claims Court did not, however, make any factual findings with respect to the jfiling of claims. We conclude that, as a matter of law, the filing of a claim was necessary to create liability.
General Dynamics could not avoid its obligation to pay for services after they were received by, for example, discharging the employee. If an employee were terminated after receiving covered services but before filing a claim, the taxpayer would still be obliged to reimburse that employee, App. 22 — but only in the event that the employee filed a claim form. The filing of the claim is thus a true condition precedent to liability on the part of the taxpayer.
During the time that private insurance carriers provided insurance coverage for General Dynamics employees, the insurers maintained reserves for IBNR claims and deducted those reserves in the tax year in which the services were received. 6 Cl. Ct., at 252.
Respondent has never sought to be treated as an insurance company-entitled to take IBNR deductions under the provisions of Subchapter L.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Act), 72 Stat. 737, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), prohibits all transfers of title to aircraft from having validity against innocent third parties unless the transfer has been evidenced by a written instrument, and the instrument has been recorded with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We conclude that the Act does have such effect.
On April 19, 1978, at an airport in Illinois, a corporation operated by Roger Smith sold a new airplane to respondents. Respondents, the Shackets, paid the sale price in full and took possession of the aircraft, and they have been in possession ever since. Smith, however, did not give respondents the original bills of sale reflecting the chain of title to the plane. He instead gave them only photocopies and his assurance that he would “take care of the paperwork,” which the Shackets understood to include the recordation of the original bills of sale with the FAA. Insofar as the present record reveals, the Shackets never attempted to record their title with the FAA.
Unfortunately for all, Smith did not keep his word but instead commenced a fraudulent scheme. Shortly after the sale to the Shackets, Smith purported to sell the same airplane to petitioner, Philko Aviation. According to Philko, Smith said that the plane was in Michigan having electronic equipment installed. Nevertheless, Philko and its financing bank were satisfied that all was in order, for they had examined the original bills of sale and had checked the aircraft’s title against FAA records. At closing, Smith gave Philko the title documents, but, of course, he did not and could not have given Philko possession of the aircraft. Philko’s bank subsequently recorded the title documents with the FAA.
After the fraud became apparent, the Shackets filed the present declaratory judgment action to determine title to the plane. Philko argued that it had title because the Shackets had never recorded their interest in. the airplane with the FAA. Philko relied on § 503(c) of the Act, 72 Stat. 773, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 1403(c), which provides that no conveyance or instrument affecting the title to any civil aircraft shall be valid against third parties not having actual notice of the sale, until such conveyance or other instrument is filed for recordation with the FAA. However, the District Court awarded summary judgment in favor of the Shackets, Shacket v. Roger Smith Aircraft Sales, Inc., 497 F. Supp. 1262 (ND Ill. 1980), and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that § 503(c) did not pre-empt substantive state law regarding title transfers, and that, under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 26, ¶ 1-101 et seq. (1981), the Shackets had title but Philko did not. 681 F. 2d 506 (1982). We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 1069 (1982), and we now reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Section 503(a)(1) of the Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1403(a)(1), directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish and maintain a system for the recording of any “conveyance which affects the title to, or any interest in, any civil aircraft of the United States.” Section 503(c), 49 U. S. C. § 1403(c), states:
“No conveyance or instrument the recording of which is provided for by [§ 503(a)(1)] shall be valid in respect of such aircraft . . . against any person other than the person by whom the conveyance or other instrument is made or given, his heir or devisee, or any person having actual notice thereof, until such conveyance or other instrument is filed for recordation in the office of the Secretary of Transportation.”
The statutory definition of “conveyance” defines the term as “a bill of sale, contract of conditional sale, mortgage, assignment of mortgage, or other instrument affecting title to, or interest in, property.” 49 U. S. C. §1301(20) (1976 ed., Supp. V). If § 503(c) were to be interpreted literally in accordance with the statutory definition, that section would not require every transfer to be documented and recorded; it would only invalidate unrecorded title instruments, rather than unrecorded title transfers. Under this interpretation, a claimant might be able to prevail against an innocent third party by establishing his title without relying on an instrument. In the present case, for example, the Shackets could not prove their title on the basis of an unrecorded bill of sale or other writing purporting to evidence a transfer of title to them, even if state law did not require recordation of such instruments, but they might still prevail, since Illinois law does not require written evidence of a sale “with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted.” Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 26, ¶ 2-201 (3)(c) (1981).
We are convinced, however, that Congress did not intend § 503(c) to be interpreted in this manner. Rather, § 503(c) means that every aircraft transfer must be evidenced by an instrument, and every such instrument must be recorded, before the rights of innocent third parties can be affected. Furthermore, because of these federal requirements, state laws permitting undocumented or unrecorded transfers are pre-empted, for there is a direct conflict between § 503(c) and such state laws, and the federal law must prevail.
These conclusions are dictated by the legislative history. The House and House Conference Committee Reports, and the section-by-section analysis of one of the bill’s drafters, all expressly declare that the federal statute “requires” the recordation of “every transfer ... of any interest in a civil aircraft.” The House Conference Report explains: “This section requires the recordation with the Authority of every transfer made after the effective date of the section, of any interest in a civil aircraft of the United States. The conveyance evidencing each such transfer is to be recorded with an index in a recording system to be established by the Authority.” Thus, since Congress intended to require the recordation of a conveyance evidencing each transfer of an interest in aircraft, Congress must have intended to pre-empt any state law under which a transfer without a recordable conveyance would be valid against innocent transferees or lienholders who have recorded.
Any other construction would defeat the primary congressional purpose for the enactment of § 503(c), which was to create “a central clearing house for recordation of titles so that a person, wherever he may be, will know where he can find ready access to the claims against, or liens, or other legal interests in an aircraft.” Hearings on H. R. 9738 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 407 (1938) (testimony of F. Fagg, Director of Air Commerce, Dept, of Commerce). Here, state law does not require any documentation whatsoever for a valid transfer of an aircraft to be effected. An oral sale is fully valid against third parties once the buyer takes possession of the plane. If the state law allowing this result were not pre-empted by § 503(c), then any buyer in possession would have absolutely no need or incentive to record his title with the FAA, and he could refuse to do so with impunity, and thereby prevent the “central clearing house” from providing “ready access” to information about his claim. This is not what Congress intended.
In the absence of the statutory definition of conveyance, our reading of § 503(c) would be by far the most natural one, because the term “conveyance” is first defined in the dictionary as “the action of conveying,” i. e., “the act by which title to property ... is transferred.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 499 (P. Gove ed. 1976). Had Congress defined “conveyance” in accordance with this definition, then § 503(c) plainly would have required the recor-dation of every transfer. Congress’ failure to adopt this definition is not dispositive, however, since the statutory definition is expressly not applicable if “the context otherwise requires.” 49 U. S. C. § 1301 (1976 ed. and Supp. V). Even in the absence of such a caveat, we need not read the statutory definition mechanically into § 503(c), since to do so would render the recording system ineffective and thus would defeat the purpose of the legislation. A statutory definition should not be applied in such a manner. Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & S.S. Co., 336 U. S. 198, 201 (1949). Accordingly, we hold that state laws allowing undocumented or unrecorded transfers of interests in aircraft to affect innocent third parties are pre-empted by the federal Act.
In support of the judgment below, respondents rely on In re Gary Aircraft Corp., 681 F. 2d 365 (CA5 1982), which rejected the contention that § 503 pre-empted all state laws dealing with priority of interests in aircraft. The Court of Appeals held that the first person to record his interest with the FAA is not assured of priority, which is determined by reference to state law. We are inclined to agree with this rationale, but it does not help the Shackets. Although state law determines priorities, all interests must be federally recorded before they can obtain whatever priority to which they are entitled under state law. As one commentator has explained: “The only situation in which priority appears to be determined by operation of the [federal] statute is where the security holder has failed to record his interest. Such failure invalidates the conveyance as to innocent third persons. But recordation itself merely validates; it does not grant priority.” Scott, Liens in Aircraft: Priorities, 25 J. Air L. & Commerce 193, 203 (1958) (footnote omitted). Accord, Sigman, The Wild Blue Yonder: Interests in Aircraft under Our Federal System, 46 So. Cal. L. Rev. 316, 324-325 (1973) (although recordation does not establish priority, “failure to record . . . serves to subordinate”); Note, 36 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 205, 212-213 (1979).
In view of the foregoing, we find that the courts below erred by granting the Shackets summary judgment on the basis that if an unrecorded transfer of an aircraft is valid under state law, it has validity as against innocent third parties. Of course, it is undisputed that the sale to the Shackets was valid and binding as between the parties. Hence, if Philko had actual notice of the transfer to the Shackets or if, under state law, Philko failed to acquire or perfect the interest that it purports to assert for reasons wholly unrelated to the sale to the Shackets, Philko would not have an enforceable interest, and the Shackets would retain possession of the aircraft. Furthermore, we do not think that the federal law imposes a standard with which it is impossible to comply. There may be situations in which the transferee has used reasonable diligence to file and cannot be faulted for the failure of the crucial documents to be of record. But because of the manner in which this case was disposed of on summary judgment, matters such as these were not considered, and these issues remain open on remand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
It is perhaps noteworthy, however, that Philko’s title search did not even reveal that the seller, Smith’s corporation, owned or ever had owned the subject airplane.
U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190, 204 (1983); Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 153 (1982); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525-526 (1977).
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2635, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 74 (1938) (emphasis added); H. R. Rep. No. 2254, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 9 (1938); Hearings on S. 3760 before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 9 (1938) (section-by-section analysis of C. M. Hester, Assistant General Counsel, Treasury Dept.). Section 503(c) of the present Act is derived from § 503(b) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1006. The only pertinent legislative history that we have found is that relating to the passage of the original 1938 provision.
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2635, supra, at 74 (emphasis added). The “Authority” mentioned in the quotation is the Civil Aeronautics Authority, the predecessor of the FAA.
Although the recording system ideally should allow any transferee who has checked the FAA records to acquire his interest with the certain knowledge that the transferor’s title is clear, we recognize that the present system does not allow for such certainty, because there is a substantial lag from the time at which an instrument is mailed to the FAA to the time at which the FAA actually records the instrument. Thus, if the owner of an airplane grants a lien on it to Doe on one day and attempts to sell it to Roe on the following day, Roe might erroneously assume, based on a search of the FAA records, that his vendor has clear title to the plane, even if Doe had promptly mailed the documents evidencing his lien to the FAA for recordation.
Gary Aircraft involved a contest between the holder of a security interest in two airplanes and a subsequent purchaser. Although the security interest holder recorded its interest in the planes prior to the time that the purchaser did so, the Court of Appeals held in favor of the purchaser, because Texas law governed priorities and, under Texas law, the purchaser was a buyer in the ordinary course of business who took free of the security interest. The security interest holder argued that Texas law was pre-empted by § 503(d) of the Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1403(d), which states that all instruments recorded with the FAA shall be “valid” without further recordation, but the court found that “validity” did not mean “priority.” Instead, it only meant such “validity” as granted by state law. Gary Aircraft thus dealt with the question of the effect of recording under § 503(d), unlike the present case, which concerns the effect of nonrecording under § 503(c).
In support of its decision, the Court of Appeals, 681 F. 2d, at 510, cited Haynes v. General Electric Credit Corp., 582 F. 2d 869 (CA4 1978); Sanders v. M. D. Aircraft Sales, Inc., 575 F. 2d 1086 (CA3 1978); State Securities Co. v. Aviation Enterprises, Inc., 355 F. 2d 225 (CA10 1966); Northern Illinois Corp. v. Bishop Distributing Co., 284 F. Supp. 121 (WD Mich. 1968); and Bitzer-Croft Motors, Inc. v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., 82 Ill. App. 3d 1, 401 N. E. 2d 1340 (1980). All of these cases involved facts similar to those of Gary Aircraft and are distinguishable on the same basis.
Nothing in § 506 of the Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1406, provides support for a different conclusion. This provision states:
“The validity of any instrument the recording of which is provided for by [§ 503] shall be governed by the laws of the State, District of Columbia, or territory or possession of the United States in which such instrument is delivered, irrespective of the location or the place of delivery of the property which is the subject of such instrument.”
Section 506 was passed in 1964 to rectify the “chaotic situation existing] in the aircraft industry as a result of conflicting State rules relating to the choice of law governing the validity of instruments for the transfer of interests in tangible personal property.” H. R. Rep. No. 1033, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1963). Although §506 provided a uniform federal choice-of-law rule for determining which State’s laws govern the substantive validity of an instrument, § 506 did not repeal § 503(c)’s requirement that the instrument must be recorded before it obtains whatever validity to which it is entitled under the state law applicable pursuant to § 506. In enacting §506, the Senate Committee Report observed that, under the §503 regime, “to determine whether there are any encumbrances on [an] aircraft, it is only necessary to consult the central file,” and no disapproval of this regime was expressed. S. Rep. No. 1060, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1964).
For example, if the instrument evidencing the transfer of the aircraft from Smith’s corporation to Philko failed to comply with formal requisites of Illinois law, then Philko might have no enforceable interest at all in the plane, in which case the Shackets would retain possession. This does not mean, of course, that Philko can be deemed to have no interest in the plane on the ground that, due to the sale to the Shackets, under Illinois law Smith had no interest to transfer to Philko.
See, e. g., State Securities Co. v. Aviation Enterprises, Inc., supra, at 228 (buyer mailed its bill of sale to the FAA for recordation, but the FAA refused to record it). There is no indication in the record now before us that the Shackets made a prompt attempt to record.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by this case is whether violations of the prohibition of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consent order against “acquiring” other companies constituted single violations within the meaning of the applicable civil penalty statutes, 38 Stat. 734,.as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 21 (?); 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 45 (?), or whether such violations constituted a “continuing failure or neglect to obey” within the meaning of those statutes, authorizing imposition of daily penalties. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado interpreted the consent order to proscribe only the initial act of acquisition and held that therefore only a single penalty might be imposed. 1972 CCH Trade Cases ¶ 73,993, p. 92,127 (Aug. 2, 1971). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court to that extent, 485 F. 2d 16 (1973). A subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is in conflict, United States v. Beatrice Foods Co., 493 F. 2d 1259 (1974), cert. pending No. 73-1798. In interpreting a consent order worded in its pertinent terms similarly to that in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that acquisition is a continuing offense until it is undone, noting that the construction of “acquiring” as a single rather than continuing violation “ignores the crucial effects of an acquisition and would render nonacquisition orders virtually meaningless.” Id., at 1270.
We granted certiorari in order to resolve this conflict between Courts of Appeals concerning the proper application of the “continuing” violation clauses of 15 U. S. C. §§ 21 (?) and 45 (?) to wording employed in a large number of FTC consent orders. Since we interpret “acquiring” as used in the consent order in this case to mean both the initial transaction and the maintaining of the rights obtained without resale, we hold that violation of the consent order is a continuing violation subject to daily penalties, and reverse.
I
The FTC alleged in 1960 that Continental Baking Co. (Continental), a major producer of bread and other bakery products, had violated § 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 64 Stat. 1125, 15 U. S. C. § 18, and § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U. S. C. § 45, by various acquisitions which “may have the effect of substantially lessening competition or tending to create a monopoly... Before any decision in the case, the parties agreed to a proposed consent order which was approved by the FTC in May 1962. The order, among other things, prohibited Continental for 10 years from “acquiring, directly or indirectly, through subsidiaries or otherwise, the whole or any part of the stock, share capital, or assets of any concern, corporate or non-corporate, engaged in any state of the United States in the production and sale of bread and bread-type rolls unless the Commission, on petition for modification of this Section III of this order, permits such an acquisition... Alleging that Continental had acquired assets in three companies in violation of this order, the Government brought suit in the District of Colorado under § 11 (l) of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 21 (l) and § 5 (l) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U. S. C. § 45 (Z), for civil penalties and other relief. The complaint prayed for penalties of $1,000 per day from the date of the contract of acquisition to the date of filing of the complaint on each of the three counts.
The District Court held that two of the three transactions were in fact in violation of the consent order. It declined, however, to order daily penalties, finding that “the terms of the consent order proscribe only the act of acquisition and that the violations of the consent order... did not constitute a 'continuing failure or neglect to obey' [15 U. S. C. §§21(l), 45 (i)] said order.... Once these two acquisitions were accomplished, the violations were complete.” 1972 CCH Trade Cases, at 92,129. The District Court therefore entered a judgment against ITT Continental for $5,000 for each of the two violations found.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court only insofar as it had held one of the three transactions not in violation of the consent order. It affirmed on the matter of daily penalties, holding that “whether the order was directed to the acquisition or to the acquisition and retention of assets or interests... [is] an interpretation of the consent order, and the result is in accordance with the prevailing standards.” 485 F. 2d, at 21. Remand to the District Court was ordered only for imposition of a penalty for the third violation.
II
The basic question before us is whether there has been a “continuing failure or neglect to obey” an FTC order within the meaning of 15 U. S. C. §§ 21 (l) and 45 (l).
The “continuing failure or neglect to obey” provision of § 45 (i) was added to the Federal Trade Commission Act in 1950, and the like provision of § 21 (l) to the Clayton Act in 1959. Although the legislative history of these provisions is sparse, some examples of behavior intended to be covered by the “continuing” violation provisions do appear in the legislative history. These include continuing conspiracies to fix prices or control production, maintenance of a billboard in defiance of an order prohibiting false advertising, failure to dissolve an unlawful merger, and failure to eliminate an interlocking directorate. See letter from FTC General Counsel to Senator Fulbright, 96 Cong. Rec. 3026-3027 (1950); Hearings on H. R. 432, H. R. 2977, H. R. 6049, and S. 726 before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 21 (1959); H. R. Rep. No. 580, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1959). These violations share two discernible characteristics: the detrimental effect to the public and the advantage to the violator continue and increase over a period of time, and the violator could eliminate the effects of the violation if it were motivated to do so, after it had begun. Without these characteristics, daily penalties for such violations would probably have no greater deterrent effect than a single penalty and accumulating daily penalties would therefore be unfair.
The legislative history also makes clear that Congress was concerned with avoiding a situation in which the statutory penalty would be regarded by potential violators of FTC orders as nothing more than an acceptable cost of violation, rather than as a deterrence to violation. For example, Senator Aiken, chief proponent of the 1950 amendment, said that if daily penalties for certain violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act were not permitted, “the fine would amount to a license in the amount of $5,000 for misrepresentation, which would be a very cheap fine, indeed.” 96 Cong. Rec. 3025 (1950). Similarly, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee said in its report on the 1959 amendments:
“Although the maximum penalty may be severe, in certain cases it would be appropriate. In the absence of the maximum penalty for a continuing offense, for example, commission and board orders with respect to mergers and interlocking directorships would be ineffective. In such cases, unless the maximum penalty applied and each day of a continuing violation considered a separate offense, an order dissolving an unlawful merger could be ignored after the mere payment of a $5,000 fine.” H. R. Rep. No. 580, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1959).
See also Hearings on H. R. 432, H. R. 2977, H. R. 6049, and S. 726, supra, at 30 (letter from FTC General Counsel).
Thus, the “continuing failure or neglect to obey” provisions of 15 U. S. C. §§ 21 (l) and 45 (J) were intended to assure that the penalty provisions would provide a meaningful deterrence against violations whose effect is continuing and whose detrimental effect could be terminated or minimized by the violator at some time after initiating the violation. It seems apparent that acquisition in violation of an FTC order banning “acquiring” certain assets could be such a violation. Any anticom-petitive effect of an acquisition continues as long as the assets obtained are retained, and the violator could undo or minimize any such effect by disposing of the assets at any time after the initial transaction. On the other hand, if violation of an order prohibiting “acquiring” assets were treated as a single violation, any deterrent effect of the penalty provisions would be entirely undermined, and the penalty would be converted into a minor tax upon a violation which could reap large financial benefits to the perpetrator. As we have seen, Congress added the continuing-penalty provisions precisely to avoid such a result.
Ill
Respondent insists, however, that the underlying FTC order was a consent order proscribing only the initial act of acquisition, and that therefore the imposition of daily penalties which might otherwise be mandated cannot be permitted. Its argument is that “acquiring” in the consent order unambiguously refers only to the initial transaction, and that to read it otherwise is to add the words “holding” or “retaining” assets to the literal language of the order. This addition to the language of the order, ITT Continental contends, violates the principle of a line of cases culminating in United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U. S. 673 (1971), that any command of a consent decree or order must be found “within its four corners,” id., at 682, and not by reference to any “purposes” of the parties or of the underlying statutes. See United States v. Atlantic Refining Co., 360 U. S. 19 (1959); Hughes v. United States, 342 U. S. 353 (1952). Respondent asks us to conclude that the “ac-quirings” prohibited by the consent order are not capable of persisting over time, and that therefore there can be no “continuing failure or neglect to obey” the order. The Government, on the other hand, contends that the parties meant “acquiring” to include both purchase and retention of assets, and that therefore it is unnecessary to depart from the “four corners” rule of Armour to conclude that there has been a continuing violation.
In Armour, it was first determined that the construction of the consent decree urged by the Government was inconsistent with the express terms of the consent decree it was seeking to enforce. The decree involved in Armour was the Meat Packers Consent Decree of 1920, entered in settlement of an antitrust case filed in District Court. Paragraph fourth of the decree enjoined Armour from engaging in certain businesses. The Greyhound Corporation, which was engaged in some of those businesses, acquired control of Armour. The Government claimed that this acquisition was in violation of the consent decree, contending that the purpose of the decree was structurally to separate the meatpackers from the retail food business entirely, and that the relationship between Armour and Greyhound was therefore prohibited.
The Court noted that the language of the decree “taken in its natural sense, bars only active conduct on the part of the defendants.... [T]he decree does not speak in terms of relationships in general, but, rather, prohibits certain behavior, and in doing so prohibits some but not all economic interrelationship between Armour and the retail food business.... In short, we do not find in the decree a structural separation such as the Government claims.... [T]he decree leaves gaps inconsistent with so complete a separation.” 402 U. S., at 678, 680. (Emphasis supplied.)
Similarly, in both Atlantic Refining and Hughes the Court first undertook to determine whether the language of the decree could support the construction urged by the Government and concluded that it could not. In Hughes, the decree provided that Hughes was either to dispose of his stock in a certain corporation or commit the voting rights of his stock to a trustee “until [he] shall have sold his holdings of stock.” 342 U. S., at 355 n. The Court said: “A reading of the either/or wording would make most persons believe that Hughes was to have • a choice of two different alternatives. Hughes would have no choice if the first 'alternative’ was to sell the stock and the second 'alternative’ was also to sell the stock.” Id., at 356. (Emphasis supplied.) Therefore, the Court concluded, the consent decree could not be construed, as the Government desired, to require Hughes to sell his stock.
In Atlantic Refining, the Court concluded that the construction urged by the Government was a “strained construction,” 360 U. S., at 22, inconsistent with the “normal meaning,” id., at 23, of the language used. It commented that if the parties had intended the meaning urged by the Government, “one can hardly think of less appropriate language.” Id., at 22.
In all three of these cases, it was only after concluding that the language, fairly read, could not support the Government’s construction that the Court turned to the contention that the restrictive reading was inconsistent with the purposes of the decree and of the antitrust laws assertedly violated. It was in this context that the Court noted that, because consent decrees are normally compromises in which the parties give up something they might have won in litigation and waive their rights to litigation, it is inappropriate to search for the “purpose” of a consent decree and construe it on that basis. “[T]he decree itself cannot be said to have a purpose; rather the parties have purposes, generally opposed to each other, and the resultant decree embodies as much of those opposing purposes as the respective parties have the bargaining power and skill to achieve.... [T]he instrument must be construed as it is written, and not as it might have been written had the plaintiff established his factual claims and legal theories in litigation.” Armour, 402 U. S., at 681-682. Thus, the basic import of Armour, Atlantic Refining, and Hughes is that, since consent decrees and orders have many of the attributes of ordinary contracts, they should be construed basically as contracts, without reference to the legislation the Government originally sought to enforce but never proved applicable through litigation.
We note that this case differs from Armour, Hughes, and Atlantic Refining in a most important respect. In each of those cases the question of whether or not the consent decree was violated was the question for decision; in this case respondent was found to have committed violations, and the issue before us affects only the manner of assigning penalties for each violation found. Thus, respondent is subject to some penalty, and there is no possibility as there was in Armour, Atlantic Refining, and Hughes that respondent will be penalized for behavior not prohibited at all by the order “within its four corners,” Armour, 402 U. S., at 682. Nothing in the consent order suggests that although the parties agreed that Continental would refrain from “acquiring,” they also agreed to limit the penalties which would otherwise apply if Continental did not refrain from that behavior. Such an agreement would be exceedingly odd, for it would undermine whatever prohibitions were imposed. As we have seen, Part II, supra, it is quite possible that under §§ 21 (1) and 45 (l) violation of an FTC adjudicated order against “acquiring” would be subject to daily penalties. It is not clear that Armour would require a different result merely because we are dealing with a consent order, since the parties reached no agreement at all concerning penalties to be applied in case of violation of the order.
We need not, however, determine whether §§ 21 (l) and 45 (l) would permit the imposition of daily penalties even if the consent order must be read as respondent maintains to proscribe only the initial act of acquisition. For we agree with the Government that the order “as it is written” does support an interpretation that the act of acquisition continues until the assets acquired are disgorged.
IV
Since a consent decree or order is to be construed for enforcement purposes basically as a contract, reliance upon certain aids to construction is proper, as with any other contract. Such aids include the circumstances surrounding the formation of the consent order, any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties, and any other documents expressly incorporated in the decree. Such reliance does not in any way depart from the “four corners” rule of Armour.
In this case, the consent order was part of an agreement between the parties entitled “Agreement Containing Consent Order to Divest and to Cease and Desist.” The agreement incorporates by reference an “appendix,” which sets forth at length the background leading to the complaint and the proposed order. In addition, the agreement provides that “[t]he complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order.” Since the parties' themselves so provided, both the appendix and the complaint are proper aids to the construction of the order and of the agreement of which it is part.
The complaint alleged that Continental had pursued “a continuous practice of acquiring various bakeries throughout the United States” (emphasis supplied), which were thereby “eliminated... as independent competitive factors in the manufacture, sale and distribution of bread and bread-type rolls....” If the “acquiring” against which the order and the complaint incorporated in it were directed were limited to the single transaction by which Continental obtained rights in another company, it is hard to see why the effect which the complaint alleged followed from acquisitions would necessarily occur. For if Continental had sold the companies acquired as soon as the initial transactions were completed to other, independent companies, the bakeries would not have been “eliminated... as independent competitive factors.”
Reference to the appendix also supports the conclusion that “acquiring” as used in the order means both the initial transaction granting Continental rights in an independent bakery and the maintaining of those rights without resale. The appendix notes: “One of the principal problems in the baking industry is the tendency towards concentration and the continuous growth of major baking companies through acquisition. Such ac-quisitional growth and tendency towards concentration places in the hands of a few large companies the means to set the pattern of competition.... If this order is adopted by the Commission, the respondent’s alleged continuous practice of acquiring companies baking and selling bread and bread-type rolls will be brought to a halt....” (Emphasis supplied.) It is apparent that the “acquisitional growth” referred to in the appendix cannot be achieved merely by discrete transactions without reference to what is done with the assets obtained after those transactions. If Continental were merely a speculator in baking companies, buying assets in them and selling them soon thereafter, it would not necessarily create “through acquisition” a “tendency towards concentration” giving it the “means to set the pattern of competition.” Thus, “acquiring” in both the appendix and the order, parts of the same agreement, must mean obtaining and retaining assets, not merely the former.
Even without the aid of these explanatory documents properly usable to construe this particular order, we would have to conclude that “acquiring” as used in an antitrust decree or order continues until the assets obtained are disgorged. As the foregoing analysis of the ancillary documents here illustrates, “acquiring” and related words do not, as respondent insists, unambiguously refer to a single transaction. Rather, as a matter of ordinary usage they can, and in the antitrust context they do, encompass the continuing act of obtaining certain rights and treating them as one’s own. We must assume that the parties here used the words with the specialized meaning they have in the antitrust field, since they were composing a legal document in settlement of an antitrust complaint.
We need not go beyond the Clayton Act itself to conclude that “acquisition” as used in § 7 of the Act means holding as well as obtaining assets. The Act provides that the FTC, if it finds a violation of § 7, can require a party to “divest itself of the stock, or other share capital, or assets, held... contrary to the provisions of [§ 7].” 15 U. S. C. §21 (b). (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the framers of the Act did not regard the terms “acquire” and “acquisition” as unambiguously banning only the initial transaction of acquisition; rather, they read the ban against “acquisition” to include a ban against holding certain assets.
This Court’s opinions reflect the same understanding. For example, in FTC v. Western Meat Co., 272 U. S. 554 (1926), the Court, in discussing an FTC order based on a violation of § 7, said: “The order here questioned was entered when respondent actually held and owned the stock contrary to law. The Commission’s duty was to prevent the continuance of this unlawful action by an order directing that it cease and desist therefrom and divest itself of what it had no right to hold.” Id., at 559. (Emphasis supplied.) See also Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Elec. Co. v. FTC, 291 U. S. 587, 596-599 (1934).
Similarly, this Court’s opinion in United States v. Du Pont, 353 U. S. 586 (1957), rests upon the conclusion that “acquisition” can mean, and in the context of § 7 of the Clayton Act does mean, both the purchase of rights in another company and the retention of those rights.
In Du Pont, a § 7 case was brought in 1949 but based on a purchase of stock by Du Pont in 1917-1919. It was argued that “the Government could not maintain this action in 1949 because § 7 is applicable only to the acquisition of stock and not to the holding or subsequent use of stock.” 353 U. S., at 596-597. Thus, Du Pont was seeking to interpret “acquire” as used in § 7 much as respondent here seeks to read "acquiring” in the consent decree.
The Court in Du Pont rejected the interpretation urged upon it. Instead, the Court held that there is a violation “any time when the acquisition threatens to ripen into a prohibited effect.... To accomplish the congressional aim, the Government may proceed at any time that an acquisition may be said with reasonable probability to contain a threat that it may lead to a restraint of commerce or tend to create a monopoly of a line of commerce.” Id., at 597. Thus, there can be a violation at some time later even if there was clearly no violation— no realistic threat of restraint of commerce or creation of a monopoly — at the time of the initial acts of acquisition. Clearly, this result can obtain only because “acquisition” under § 7 is not a discrete transaction but a status which continues until the transaction is undone.
Thus, under the order “as it is written,” “acquiring” must mean both the act of first obtaining assets and the retention and use of those assets. To conclude otherwise would be to ignore the flexibility of the English language, as well as the circumstances surrounding the order and the context in which the parties were operating. And, since the order bans the continuing act of obtaining and retaining certain assets, a violation of the order is a “continuing failure or neglect to obey” it, and daily penalties may be imposed under 15 U. S. C. §§ 21 (J) and 45 (J).
Because the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that daily penalties could not be imposed, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
According to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari 18A-22A and Brief for United States 12 n. 12 in this case, there were in all as of June 18, 1974, 67 FTC orders, of which most are consent orders but some are litigated orders, which bar acquisitions in language similar to the language of the order in this case. All of these orders bar future acquisitions but do not expressly bar the “holding” or “retention” of stock or assets acquired in violation of their terms.
The Petition for Certiorari of the United States presented the single question whether its prayer for daily penalties was properly denied. Respondent did not cross-petition, yet seeks to raise several issues not presented by the petition. Respondent contends that (1) the three transactions for which penalties have been or are to be imposed did not violate the consent order; (2) the consent order was not binding upon ITT Continental as successor after Continental ceased to exist, so that daily penalties could not accrue for the period after the merger; and (3) daily penalties could not be imposed because the FTC had not advised respondent of the alleged violations prior to the filing of the complaint. We do not address any of these issues in deciding this case.
Respondent recognizes that, not having cross-petitioned, it cannot attack the judgment insofar as it sustained the findings of violations and imposed penalties for such violations. United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U. S. 425, 435 (1924). Cf. Morley Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 300 U. S. 185 (1937). Respondent argues that it may nevertheless seek to sustain the Court of Appeals' limitation on the penalties on the theory that no penalty should have been awarded at all. Ordinarily, however, as a matter of practice and control of our docket, if not of our power, we do not entertain a challenge to a decision on the merits where the only petition for certiorari presents solely a question as to the remedy granted for a liability found to exist, even if the respondent is willing to accept whatever judgment has already been entered against him. Strunk v. United States, 412 U. S. 434, 437 (1973); NLRB v. International Van Lines, 409 U. S. 48, 52 n. 4 (1972); NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426, 431-432 (1941). Cf. Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 538 (1931). But see LeTulle v. Scofield, 308 U. S. 415 (1940). We follow that rule of practice in this case, particularly because the issue of whether there were any violations concerns only a particular order as applied to a discrete set of facts and therefore would not merit this Court’s grant of a petition for certiorari.
The courts below did not decide the other two issues because they were not pertinent once it was determined that there was no continuing violation. (The District Court did express the opinion that “it would seem unreasonable to permit the Commission to knowingly let daily penalties accrue without giving notice of the Commission’s position at the earliest reasonable time,” 1972 CCH Trade Cases ¶ 73,-993, pp. 92,127, 92,129 (Aug. 2, 1971), but it said that this statement was “obiter dictum.”) In the absence of decisions on these questions by the courts below, we decline to address them. FTC v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 363 U. S. 536, 542 (1960); Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U. S. 280 (1957); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Flowers, 330 U. S. 464, 468 (1947). Cf. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 476 n. 6. (1970).
Continental was merged on September 13, 1968, with a wholly owned subsidiary of International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. called ITT Continental Baking Company (ITT Continental). While ITT Continental has never contested its liability under the merger agreement for any violations of the consent order committed by Continental before the merger, it continues to maintain in this Court, as it did below, that it is not itself bound by the consent order. See n. 2, supra.
The consent order expired by its own terms on May 15, 1972. In April 1972, the FTC ordered ITT Continental to show cause why the order’s ban on acquisitions should not be extended until April 1977. Although the administrative law judge recommended the extension, the FTC declined to approve the extension because of inadequate proof of increased concentration in the relevant local markets. In re ITT Continental Baking Co., 84 F. T. C. 1349 (1974), However, the FTC did express a continuing concern with the levels of concentration in the baking industry. It issued an order requiring ITT Continental to inform the Commission “of any acquisitions of any interest in any concern engaged in the production and sale of bread and bread-type rolls, such report to be filed not less than sixty (60) days prior to each such acquisition.” Id., at 1400. ITT Continental and other members of the baking industry were informed that “[a]ny significant mergers in this industry, and particularly any that promise to raise concentration still higher in a metropolitan area that already appears to be dangerously close to the borderline between effective competition and effective monopoly, will receive the most searching attention from this agency.” Id., at 1399.
Title 15 U. S. C. § 21 (i) provides:
“Any person who violates any order issued by the commission or board under subsection (b) of this section after such order has become final, and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation, which shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the United States. Each separate violation of any such order shall be a separate offense, except that in the case of a violation through continuing failure or neglect to obey a final order of the commission or board each day of continuance of such failure or neglect, shall be deemed a separate offense.”
Title 15 U. S. C. § 45 (l) provides:
“Any person, partnership, or corporation who violates an order of the Commission to cease and desist after it has become final, and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation, which shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the United States. Each separate violation of such an order shall be a separate offense, except that in the case of a violation through continuing failure or neglect to obey a final order of the Commission each day of continuance of such failure or neglect shall be deemed a separate offense.”
The maximum penalty for each violation under 15 U. S. C. § 45 (l) has since been increased from $5,000 to $10,000. Pub. L. 93-153, § 408 (c), 87 Stat. 591.
Although the Government requested $1,000 per day per violation, the statutes prescribe no minimum penalty, and the District Court has discretion to determine the amount of the penalty for each violation whether the transactions are construed as single or as continuing violations. Thus, while totaling the penalty as a series of daily violations rather than as a single violation could raise substantially the total penalty assessed, the statutory scheme does not require that result, and the trial judge’s determination would prevail in the absence of an abuse of discretion.
The complaint also requested a permanent injunction commanding future compliance with the consent order. The District Court found that it was empowered in a civil penalty proceeding based on an FTC order to grant equitable relief, and it issued an injunction in the exact words of the FTC order. This injunction expired, as did the consent order, on May 15, 1972. See n. 4, supra. Since the Court of Appeals decision in this case, Congress has amended 15 U. S. C. § 45 (l) expressly to empower district courts in civil penalty proceedings to grant equitable relief. Pub. L. 93-153, §408 (c), 87 Stat. 591.
Although the complaint did not request a divestiture order, the Government later requested divestiture, and this request was embodied in the District Court’s pretrial order. App. 27. However, the District Court declined to order this relief, 1972 CCH Trade Cases, at 92,129, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this denial as within the discretion of the trial court. 485 F. 2d 16, 21 (CA10 1973).
The Court in Armour noted that the Government might be able to obtain the relief sought in ways other than by construction of the consent decree. First, it could have brought a new action to enjoin the acquisition under § 7 of the Clayton Act. Second, “if the Government believed that changed conditions warranted further relief against the acquisition, it could have sought modification of the Meat Packers Decree itself.” 402 U. S., at 674r-675 Respondent argues that these alternatives are also present in this case, and that it is therefore unnecessary to adopt the construction of the order urged by the Government. However, the possible availability of other means of obtaining sanctions against the acquisitions challenged here cannot preclude the Government from obtaining whatever penalties may be proper for violations of the consent order.
In Hughes v. United States, 342 U. S. 353 (1952), the Court likewise rejected an invitation to further the asserted “purposes” of the consent decree by approving an interpretation the “language cannot support.” Id., at 356. It noted that evidence might show that the sale requirement was justified, but it regarded the construction urged by the Government as effecting “a substantial modification of the original decree.” Id., at 357. (Emphasis supplied.) While it believed this modification could be had after a proper hearing proving the need for such modification under applicable standards, it would not sanction such modification in the guise of construing a consent decree. Id., at 357-358.
Similarly, in United States v. Atlantic Refining Co., 360 U. S. 19 (1959), while the Court agreed that the interpretation offered by the Government might better effectuate the purposes of the acts assertedly violated, this “does not warrant our substantially changing the terms of a decree to which the parties consented without any adjudication of the issues. And we agree with the District Court that accepting the Government's present interpretation would do just that.” Id., at 23. (Emphasis supplied.) Again, the Court noted that modification might be appropriate, but modification disguised as construction was not. See also Liquid Carbonic Corp. v. United States, 350 U. S. 869 (1955), rev’g 123 F. Supp. 653 (EDNY 1954); United States v. International Harvester Co., 274 U. S. 693 (1927).
Consent decrees and orders have attributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees or, in this case, administrative orders. While they are arrived at by negotiation between the parties and often admit no violation of law, they are motivated by threatened or pending litigation and must be approved by the court or administrative agency. Compare United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106, 115 (1932), with the language in Armour cited in the text, supra, at 235-236. Because of this dual character, consent decrees are treated as contracts for some purposes but not for others. See Jinkinson, Negotiation of Consent Decrees, 9 Antitrust Bull. 673, 675-676 (1964); Handler, Twenty
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once more we are called upon to pass on the validity of a tax which falls in some measure upon commerce “among the several States.” In the situation before us, it is not a tax imposed on interstate commerce as such. It is a tax intended to fall on business done “within the city” that levies it, although in part it is imposed on carriers of intrastate and interstate commerce inseparably commingled. The tax is on trucks and is levied by an ordinance of the City of Chicago, of which the relevant portions are set out in the margin. It is graduated according to size, ranging from $8.25 on a truck of no more than two-ton capacity to $16.50 on a truck of more than four-ton capacity. Penalties are provided for failure to pay the tax.
Respondent is an Illinois corporation and has its place of business in Chicago. It owns a fleet of trucks which it employs to transport goods within Chicago, between Chicago and other points in Illinois, and between Chicago, and other points in Illinois, and points in Indiana and Wisconsin. It is stipulated that each of respondent’s vehicles “during every single day of the year carries on it along with property which never leaves the city . . . property destined to some point outside the State of Illinois.”
Upon respondent’s failure to pay the tax the present proceedings were instituted by the City of Chicago in its Municipal Court. The verdict having gone against the City, the Supreme Court of Illinois, on appeal, affirmed the judgment of acquittal, holding that respondent was “not subject to the license tax” because it “cannot separate its loads, nor can it discontinue any part of the service.” City of Chicago v. Willett Co., 406 Ill. 286, 295, 94 N. E. 2d 195, 200.
Being left in doubt by the Illinois court’s opinion whether it had held that the ordinance could not, because of the Commerce Clause, be validly applied to the respondent’s situation or had construed the ordinance so as not to cover a situation like respondent’s, we granted cer-tiorari and remanded for clarification. 341 U. S. 913. A restatement of its holding left us in no doubt that the Supreme Court of Illinois did not rest its affirmance on a restrictive construction of the ordinance, excluding respondent from its scope, but found that as applied to respondent the ordinance runs afoul of the Commerce Clause. City of Chicago v. Willett Co., 409 Ill. 480, 101 N. E. 2d 205. We granted certiorari to review this judgment because it raises questions of importance to the Nation’s major transportation centers. 343 U. S. 940.
“It being once admitted, as of course it must be, that not every law that affects commerce among the States is a regulation of it in a constitutional sense, nice distinctions are to be expected.” Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 225. This case does not raise the difficulties so often encountered when determination of the validity of State action affecting interstate commerce requires an accommodation between a State’s undoubted power over its own internal commerce and the national interest in the unrestricted flow of interstate commerce. This tax, as it falls on respondent, an Illinois corporation having its place of business in Chicago, is clearly unassailable under the authority of New York Central R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U. S. 584, which we reaffirmed in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U. S. 292. However, “nice distinctions” have been argued to us and they should be considered.
It is said on the one hand that Osborne v. Florida, 164 U. S. 650, Pullman Co. v. Adams, 189 U. S. 420, and Pacific Telephone Co. v. Tax Commission, 297 U. S. 403, decide this case, and on the other that it is controlled by cases such as Adams Express Co. v. New York, 232 U. S. 14, Bowman v. Continental Oil Co., 256 U. S. 642, Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U. S. 163, and Cooney v. Mountain States Telephone Co., 294 U. S. 384. As was true in Pacific Telephone Co. v. Tax Commission, supra, the taxpayer’s principal argument in this case has been that the tax is necessarily void because the taxpayer is not free to withdraw from the local business, which alone the statute purports to tax, without discontinuing its interstate business as well. Respondent relies heavily on Sprout v. South Bend, supra. But Mr. Justice Brandéis, who wrote for the Court in Sprout, pointed out in the Pacific Telephone case that in Sprout the taxpayer could not avoid the tax by restricting himself to interstate business only and withdrawing from local business, because the tax, by its terms, fell on exclusively interstate, as well as intrastate, business conducted from the City of South Bend. 297 U. S., at 416-417. That was the controlling fact in Sprout, which was absent in the Pacific Telephone case, and is absent in this case also, since the Illinois Supreme Court has told us that the Chicago ordinance is not to be read as imposing a tax on trucks which do not carry goods within the City. City of Chicago v. Willett Co., supra, 406 Ill., at 289-290, 94 N. E. 2d, at 197-198. Thus, as regards the main point pressed by respondent, the Chicago tax avoids the infirmity laid bare by the Sprout case, and meets the facts of Osborne v. Florida, supra, and Pullman Co. v. Adams, supra, as did the Pacific Telephone case. Again, as in Pacific Telephone, the taxpayer here makes no showing that the tax, though directed at intrastate business only, in fact burdens interstate commerce. This is for the taxpayer to show affirmatively and respondent has made no attempt to do so.
But, if it were necessary to decide upon the basis of the “nice distinctions” urged upon us, we could not rest without more on the authority of Pacific Telephone. For the tax in that case was measured by a percentage of the gross income drawn solely from intrastate business. Although the taxpayer’s intrastate and interstate activities were inseparable, the tax was not laid inseparably on both. 297 U. S., at 414. That is not true in this case. Here the tax falls inseparably on what have been called instrumentalities of interstate commerce, which are at once also those of intrastate commerce. Whatever intrinsic significance this difference may have in other situations, it becomes irrelevant in a case controlled, as is this one, by the governing principles of New York Central R. Co. v. Miller, supra.
In the Miller case, the taxpayer, a railroad company, was “a New York corporation owning or hiring lines without as well as within the State . . . and sending its cars to points without as well as within the State, and over other lines as well as its own.” 202 U. S., at 593. The cars were often not in the company’s possession for some time. The State of New York levied a tax computed on the basis of the amount of the capital stock employed within the State. The Court held that the railroad’s property could constitutionally be subjected to this tax by New York, as that State was its permanent situs, “notwithstanding its occasional excursions to foreign parts.” 202 U. S., at 597; see Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, supra, 322 U. S., at 299, n. 4. In the Northwest Airlines case, the taxpayer, a Minnesota corporation, used St. Paul as the home port for all its planes. The rebuilding and overhauling of planes was done in St. Paul. Minnesota assessed a tax against the airline on the basis of the entire fleet coming into the State. We held, on the authority of the Miller case, that “[t]he benefits given to Northwest by Minnesota and for which Minnesota taxes — its corporate facilities and the governmental resources which Northwest enjoys in the conduct of its business in Minnesota — are concretely symbolized by the fact that Northwest’s principal place of business is in St. Paul .... The relation between Northwest and Minnesota — a relation existing between no other State and Northwest — and the benefits which this relation affords are the constitutional foundation for the taxing power which Minnesota has asserted.” 322 U. S., at 294. And the two concurring opinions in the Northwest Airlines case harmonize with the result we reach here. Indeed, the “home port” theory favored by Mr. Justice Jackson, 322 U. S., at 306, fits a fleet of trucks at least as well as it does a fleet of airliners.
The central and decisive fact in this case is that respondent’s business has, as much as any transportation business can have, a home. That home is Chicago. To the extent that respondent’s business is not confined within the City’s limits, it revolves around the City. It is fed by terminals for rail and sea transportation which the City provides. It receives, much more continuously than did the airline in the Northwest Airlines case or the railroad in the Miller case, the City’s protection, and it benefits from the City’s public services. In the circumstances, a tax of reasonable proportions such as the one in question, not shown in fact to be a burden on interstate commerce, is not inconsistent with the Commerce Clause.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois is reversed and the cause remanded to that Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“Every . . . truck . . . which shall be operated ... for the purpose of transporting . . . goods . . . within the city for hire or reward, shall be deemed a cart ....
“Any person engaged in the business of operating a cart shall be deemed a carter.
“An annual license tax is imposed upon every carter for each cart operated or controlled by him, according to the following schedule:
“Automotive vehicles—
Capacity not exceeding two tons.. $8.25
Capacity exceeding two but not exceeding three tons_ 11.00
Capacity exceeding three but not exceeding four tons.... 13.20 Capacity exceeding four tons. 16.50
“It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of a carter without first having paid such license tax.
“Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be fined Municipal Code of Chicago, c. 163, Journal of the Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Chicago, Illinois, January 14, 1949, p. 3679.
The Miller case was not considered by the Court in Adams Express Co. v. New York, supra; Bowman v. Continental Oil Co., supra; Cooney v. Mountain States Telephone Co., supra; or Sprout v. South Bend, supra. It was inapplicable to the facts of the first three cases. In Adams Express, circumstances surrounding the imposition and enforcement of the tax indicated an attempt to exert control over interstate commerce for reasons and purposes not sanctioned by the Commerce Clause. In the Bowman case the taxpayer was a foreign corporation. In Cooney this fact is recited by the Court. In Sprout, however, the taxpayer was a resident, and it would appear that South Bend was his place of business. The Sprout case rests, as is true of all decisions in this field, on the precise facts surrounding the challenged tax — its scope, its relation to the taxing scheme of State or City, its amount, its practical consequences, and other relevant factors.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitioners instituted this class action under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 204 (a), 78 Stat. 244, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-3 (a), to enjoin racial discrimination at five drive-in restaurants and a sandwich shop owned and operated by the respondents in South Carolina. The District Court held that the operation of each of the respondents’ restaurants affected commerce within the meaning of §201 (c)(2), 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a (c)(2), and found, on undisputed evidence, that Negroes had been discriminated against at all six of the restaurants. 256 F. Supp. 941, 947, 951. But the District Court erroneously concluded that Title II does not cover drive-in restaurants of the sort involved in this case. 256 F. Supp., at 951-953. Thus the court enjoined racial discrimination only at the respondents’ sandwich shop. Id., at 953.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s refusal to enjoin discrimination at the drive-in establishments, 377 F. 2d 433, 435-436, and then directed its attention to that section of Title II which provides that “the prevailing party” is entitled to “a reasonable attorney’s fee” in the court’s “discretion.” § 204 (b), 78 Stat. 244, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-3 (b). In remanding the case, the Court of Appeals instructed the District Court to award counsel fees only to the extent that the respondents’ defenses had been advanced “for purposes of delay and not in good faith.” 377 F. 2d, at 437. We granted certiorari to decide whether this subjective standard properly effectuates the purposes of the counsel-fee provision of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 389 U. S. 815. We hold that it does not.
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was evident that enforcement would prove difficult and that the Nation would have to rely in part upon private litigation as a means of securing broad compliance with the law. A Title II suit is thus private in form only. When a plaintiff brings an action under that Title, he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a “private attorney general,” vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority. If successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys’ fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to advance the public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the federal courts. Congress therefore enacted the provision for counsel fees — not simply to penalize litigants who deliberately advance arguments they know to be untenable but, more broadly, to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief under Title II.
It follows that one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Because no such circumstances are present here, the District Court on remand should include reasonable counsel fees as part of the costs to be assessed against the respondents. As so modified, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“In any action commenced pursuant to this subchapter, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-3 (b).
In this connection, it is noteworthy that 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-3 (a) permits intervention by the Attorney General in privately initiated Title II suits “of general public importance” and provides that, “in such circumstances as the court may deem just,” a district court may “appoint an attorney for [the] complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.” Only where a “pattern or practice” of discrimination is reasonably believed to exist may the Attorney General himself institute a civil action for injunctive relief. 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-5.
See S. Rep. No. 872, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, at 11, 24 (1964) ; H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, at 18 (1963); H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, at 1-2 (1963).
If Congress’ objective had been to authorize the assessment of attorneys’ fees against defendants who make completely groundless contentions for purposes of delay, no new statutory provision would have been necessary, for it has long been held that a federal court may award counsel fees to a successful plaintiff where a defense has been maintained “in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 1352 (1966 ed.).
Indeed, this is not even a borderline case, for the respondents interposed defenses so patently frivolous that a denial of counsel fees to the petitioners would be manifestly inequitable. Thus,, for example, the “fact that the defendants had discriminated both at [the] drive-ins and at [the sandwich shop] was . . . denied . . . [although] the defendants could not and did not undertake at the trial to support their denials. Includable in the same category are defendants’ contention, twice pleaded after the decision in Katzen-bach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, . . . that the Act was unconstitutional oil the very grounds foreclosed by McClung; and defendants’ contention that the Act was invalid because it ‘contravenes the will of God’ and constitutes an interference with the ‘free exercise of the Defendant’s religion.’ ” 377 F. 2d 433, 437-438 (separate opinion of Judge Winter).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Justice Black.
Petitioner is a manufacturer of spark plugs which it sells under the trade mark “Champion.” Respondents collect the used plugs, repair and recondition them, and resell them. Respondents retain the word “Champion” on the repaired or reconditioned plugs. The outside box or carton in which the plugs are packed has stamped on it the word “Champion,” together with the letter and figure denoting the particular style or type. They also, have printed on them “Perfect Process Spark Plugs Guaranteed Dependable” and “Perfect Process Renewed Spark Plugs.” Each carton contains smaller boxes in which the plugs are individually packed. These inside boxes also carry legends indicating that the plug has been renewed. But respondent company’s business name or address is not printed on the cartons. It supplies customers with petitioner’s charts containing recommendations for the use of Champion plugs. On each individual plug is stamped in small letters, blue on black, the word “Renewed,” which at times is almost illegible.
Petitioner brought this suit in the District Court, charging infringement of its trade mark and unfair competition. See Judicial Code § 24 (1), (7), 28 U. S. C. § 41 (1), (7). The District Court found that respondents had infringed the trade mark. It enjoined them from offering or selling any of petitioner’s plugs which had been repaired or reconditioned unless (a) the trade mark and type and style marks were removed, (b) the plugs were repainted with a durable grey, brown, orange, or green paint, (c) the word “REPAIRED” was stamped into the plug in letters of such size and depth as to retain enough white paint to display distinctly each letter of the word, (d) the cartons in which the plugs were packed carried a legend indicating that they contained used spark plugs originally made by petitioner and repaired and made fit for use up to 10,000 miles by respondent company. The District Court denied an accounting. See 56 F. Supp. 782, 61 F. Supp. 247.
The Circuit Court of Appeals held that respondents not only had infringed petitioner’s trade mark but also were guilty of unfair competition. It likewise denied an accounting but modified the decree in the following respects: (a) it eliminated the provision requiring the trade mark and type and style marks to be removed from the repaired or reconditioned plugs; (b) it substituted for the requirement that the word “REPAIRED” be stamped into the plug, etc., a provision that the word “REPAIRED” or “USED” be stamped and baked on the plug by an electrical hot press in a contrasting color so as to be clearly and distinctly visible, the plug having been completely covered by permanent aluminum paint or other paint or lacquer; and (c) it eliminated the provision specifying the precise legend to be printed on the cartons and substituted therefor a more general one. 156 F. 2d 488. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted because of the apparent conflict between the decision below and Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Reich, 121 F. 2d 769, decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
There is no challenge here to the findings as to the misleading character of the merchandising methods employed by respondents, nor to the conclusion that they have not only infringed petitioner’s trade mark but have also engaged in unfair competition. The controversy here relates to the adequacy of the relief granted, particularly the refusal of the Circuit Court of Appeals to require respondents to remove the word “Champion” from the repaired or reconditioned plugs which they resell.
We put to one side the case of a manufacturer or distributor who markets new or used spark plugs of one make under the trade mark of another. See Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U. S. 689; Old Dearborn Co. v. Seagram Corp., 299 U. S. 183, 194. Equity then steps in to prohibit defendant’s use of the mark which symbolizes plaintiff’s good will and “stakes the reputation of the plaintiff upon the character of the goods.” Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, supra, p. 692.
We are dealing here with second-hand goods. The spark plugs, though used, are nevertheless Champion plugs and not those of another make. There is evidence to support what one would suspect, that a used spark plug which has been repaired or reconditioned does not measure up to the specifications of a new one. But the same would be true of a second-hand Ford or Chevrolet car. And we would not suppose that one could be enjoined from selling a car whose valves had been reground and whose piston rings had been replaced unless he removed the name Ford or Chevrolet. Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U. S. 359, was a case where toilet powders had as one of their ingredients a powder covered by a trade mark and where perfumes which were trade marked were rebottled and sold in smaller bottles. The Court sustained a decree denying an injunction where the prescribed labels told the truth. Mr. Justice Holmes stated, “A trade mark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner’s good will against the sale of another’s product as his. . . . When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth. It is not taboo.” P. 368.
Cases may be imagined where the reconditioning or repair would be so extensive or so basic that it would be a misnomer to call the article by its original name, even though the words “used” or “repaired” were added. Cf. Ingersoll v. Doyle, 247 F. 620. But no such practice is involved here. The repair or reconditioning of the plugs does not give them a new design. It is no more than a restoration, so far as possible, of their original condition. The type marks attached by the manufacturer are determined by the use to which the plug is to be put. But the thread size and size of the cylinder hole into which the plug is fitted are not affected by the reconditioning. The heat range also has relevance to the type marks. And there is evidence that the reconditioned plugs are inferior so far as heat range and other qualities are concerned. But inferiority is expected in most second-hand articles. Indeed, they generally cost the customer less. That is the case here. Inferiority is immaterial so long as the article is clearly and distinctly sold as repaired or reconditioned rather than as new. The result is, of course, that the second-hand dealer gets some advantage from the trade mark. But under the rule of Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, supra, that is wholly permissible so long as the manufacturer is not identified with the inferior qualities of the product resulting from wear and tear or the reconditioning by the dealer. Full disclosure gives the manufacturer all the protection to which he is entitled.
The decree as shaped by the Circuit Court of Appeals is fashioned to serve the requirements of full disclosure. We cannot say that of the alternatives available the ones it chose are inadequate for that purpose. We are mindful of the fact that this case, unlike Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, supra, involves unfair competition as well as trade mark infringement; and that where unfair competition is established, any doubts as to the adequacy of the relief are generally resolved against the transgressor. Warner & Co. v. Lilly & Co., 265 U. S. 526, 532. But there was here no showing of fraud or palming off. Their absence, of course, does not undermine the finding of unfair competition. Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co., 258 U. S. 483, 493-494; G. H. Mumm Champagne v. Eastern Wine Corp., 142 F. 2d 499, 501. But the character of the conduct giving rise to the unfair competition is relevant to the remedy which should be afforded. See Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 327 U. S. 608. We cannot say that the conduct of respondents in this case, or the nature of the article involved and the characteristics of the merchandising methods used to sell it, called for more stringent controls than the Circuit Court of Appeals provided.
Mishawaka Mfg. Co. v. Kresge Co., 316 U. S. 203, states the rule governing an accounting of profits where a trade mark has been infringed and where there is a basis for finding damage to the plaintiff and profit to the infringer. But it does not stand for the proposition that an accounting will be ordered merely because there has been an infringement. Under the Trade Mark Act of 1905, as under its predecessors, an accounting has been denied where an injunction will satisfy the equities of the case. Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42; Rowley Co. v. Rowley, 193 P. 390, 393; Middleby-Marshall Oven Co. v. Williams Oven Mfg. Co., 12 F. 2d 919, 921; Golden West Brewing Co. v. Milonas & Sons, 104 F. 2d 880, 882; Hemmeter Cigar Co. v. Congress Cigar Co., 118 F. 2d 64, 71-72; Durable Toy & Novelty Corp. v. J. Chein & Co., 133 F. 2d 853, 854-855. The same is true in case of unfair competition. Straus v. Notaseme Co., 240 U. S. 179, 181-183. Here, as we have noted, there has been no showing of fraud or palming off. For several years respondents apparently endeavored to comply with a cease and desist order of the Federal Trade Commission requiring them to place on the plugs and on the cartons a label revealing that the plugs were used or second-hand. Moreover, as stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals, the likelihood of damage to petitioner or profit to respondents due to any misrepresentation seems slight. In view of these various circumstances it seems to us that the injunction will satisfy the equities of the case.
Affirmed.
“The process used in renewing this plug has been developed through 10 years continuous experience. This Spark Plug has been tested for firing under compression before packing.”
“This Spark Plug is guaranteed to be a selected used Spark Plug, thoroughly renewed and in perfect mechanical condition and is guaranteed to give satisfactory service for 10,000 miles.”
The prescribed legend read:
“Used spark plug(s) originally made by Champion Spark Plug Company repaired and made fit for use up to 10,000 miles by Perfect Recondition Spark Plug Co., 1133 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y.”
The decree also provided:
“the name and address of the defendants to be larger and more prominent than the legend itself, and the name of plaintiff may be in slightly larger type than the rest of the body of the legend.”
“The decree shall permit the defendants to state on cartons and containers, selling and advertising material, business records, correspondence and other papers, when published, the original make and type numbers provided it is made clear that any plug referred to therein is used and reconditioned by the defendants, and that such material contains the name and address of defendants.”
See Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co., 258 U. S. 483, 493-494; Warner & Co. v. Lilly & Co., 265 U. S. 526, 530.
Cf. Federal Trade Commission v. Klein, 5 F. T. C. 327.
See Federal Trade Commission v. Typewriter Emporium, 1 F. T. C. 105; Federal Trade Commission v. Check Writer Manufacturers, 4 F. T. C. 87; In thé Matter of Federal Auto Products Co., 20 F. T. C. 334.
Section 19 of that Act, 33 Stat. 724, 729, 15 U. S. C. § 99, provides in part, “. . . upon a decree being rendered in any such case for wrongful use of a trade-mark the complainant shall be entitled to recover, in addition to the profits to be accounted for by the defendant, the damages the complainant has sustained thereby, and the court shall assess the same or cause the same to be assessed under its direction.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question to be decided is whether, in a civil action where the jurisdiction of the United States district court is based upon diversity of citizenship between the parties, service of process shall be made in the manner prescribed by state law or that set forth in Rule 4 (d)(1)- of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On February 6, 1963, petitioner, a citizen of Ohio, filed her complaint in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming damages in excess of $10,000 for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident in South Carolina, allegedly caused by the negligence of one Louise Plumer Osgood, a Massachusetts citizen deceased at the time of the filing of the complaint. Respondent, Mrs. Osgood’s executor and also a Massachusetts citizen, was named as defendant. On February 8, service was made by leaving copies of the summons and the complaint with respondent’s wife at his residence, concededly in compliance with Rule 4(d)(1), which provides:
“The summons and complaint shall be served together. The plaintiff shall furnish' the person making service with such copies as are necessary. Service shall be made as follows:
“(1) Upon an individual other than an infant or an incompetent person, by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to him personally or by leaving copies thereof at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein . . . .”
Respondent filed his answer on February 26, alleging, inter alia, that the action could not be maintained because it had been brought “contrary to and in violation of the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws (Ter. Ed.) Chapter 197, Section 9.” That section provides:
“Except as provided in this chapter, an executor or administrator shall not be held to answer to an action by a creditor of the deceased which is not commenced within one year from the time of his giving bond for the performance of his trust, or to such an action, which is commenced within said year unless before the expiration thereof the writ in such action has been served by delivery in hand upon such executor or administrator or service thereof accepted by him or a notice stating the name of the estate, the name and address of the creditor, the amount of the claim and the court in which the action has been brought has been filed in the proper registry of probate. . . Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., c. 197, § 9 (1958).
On October 17, 1963, the District Court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, citing Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., 337 U. S. 530, and Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, in support of its conclusion that the adequacy of the service was to be measured by § 9, with which, the court held, petitioner had not complied. On appeal, petitioner admitted noncompliance with § 9, but argued that Rule 4(d)(1) defines the method by which service of process is to be effected in - diversity actions. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, finding that “[relatively recent amendments [to § 9] evince a clear legislative purpose to require personal notification within the year,” concluded that the conflict of state and federal rules was over “a substantive rather than a procedural matter,” and unanimously affirmed. 331 F. 2d 157. Because of the threat to the goal of uniformity of federal procedure posed by the decision below, we granted certiorari, 379 U. S. 813.
We conclude that the adoption of Rule 4 (d)(1), designed to control service of process in diversity actions, neither exceeded the congressional mandate embodied in the Rules Enabling Act nor transgressed constitutional bounds, and that the Rule is therefore the standard against which the District Court should have measured the adequacy of the service. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The Rules Enabling Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2072 (1958 ed.), provides, in pertinent part:
“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure of the district courts of the United States in civil actions.
“S.uch rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury
Under the cases construing the scope of the Enabling Act, Rule 4(d)(1) clearly passes muster. Prescribing the manner in which a defendant is to be notified that a suit has been instituted against him, it relates to the “practice and procedure of the district courts.” Cf. Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 435, 439.
“The test must be whether a rule really regulates procedure, — the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them.” Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, 14.
In Mississippi Pub. Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, this Court upheld Rule 4 (f), which permits service of a summons anywhere within the State (and not merely the district) in which a district court sits:
“We think that Rule 4 (f) is in harmony with the Enabling Act .... Undoubtedly most alterations of the rules of practice and procedure may and often do affect the rights of litigants. Congress’ prohibition of any alteration of substantive rights of litigants was obviously not addressed to such incidental effects as necessarily attend the adoption of the prescribed new rules of procedure upon the rights of litigants who, agreeably to rules of practice and procedure, have been brought before a court authorized to determine their rights. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, 11-14. The fact that the application of Rule 4 (f) will operate to subject petitioner’s rights to adjudication by the district court for northern Mississippi will undoubtedly affect those rights. But it does not operate to abridge, enlarge or modify the rules of decision by which that court will adjudicate its rights.” Id., at 445-446.
Thus were there no conflicting state procedure, Rule 4(d)(1) would clearly control. National Rental v. Szukhent, 375 U. S. 311, 316. However, respondent, focusing on the contrary Massachusetts rule, calls to the Court’s attention another line of cases, a line which — like the Federal Rules — had its birth in 1938. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, overruling Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, held that federal courts sitting in diversity cases, when deciding questions of “substantive” law, are bound by state court decisions as well as state statutes. The broad command of Erie was therefore identical to that of the Enabling Act: federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. However, as subsequent cases sharpened the distinction between substance and procedure, the line of cases following Erie diverged markedly from the line construing the Enabling Act. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, made it clear that Erie-type problems were not to be solved by reference to any traditional or common-sense substance-procedure distinction:
"And so the question is not whether a statute of limitations is deemed a matter of 'procedure’ in some sense. The question is . . . does it significantly affect the result of a litigation for a federal court to disregard a law of a State that would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by the same parties in a State court?” 326 U. S., at 109.
Respondent, by placing primary reliance on York and Ragan, suggests that the Erie doctrine acts as a check on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that despite the clear command of Rule 4 (d)(1), Erie and its progeny demand the application of the Massachusetts rule. Reduced to essentials, the argument is: (1) Erie, as refined in York, demands that federal courts apply state law whenever application of federal law in its stead will alter the outcome of the case. (2) In this case, a determination that the Massachusetts service requirements obtain will result in immediate victory for respondent. If, on the other hand, it should be held that Rule 4(d)(1) is applicable, the litigation will continue, with possible victory for petitioner. (3) Therefore, Erie demands application of the Massachusetts rule. The syllogism possesses an appealing simplicity, but is for several reasons invalid.
In the first place, it is doubtful that, even if there were no Federal Rule making it clear that in-hand service is not required in diversity actions, the Erie rule would have obligated the District Court to follow the Massachusetts procedure. “Outcome-determination” analysis was never intended to serve as a talisman. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Cooperative, 356 U. S. 525, 537. Indeed, the message of York itself is that choices between state and federal law are to be made not by application of any automatic, “litmus paper” criterion, but rather by reference to the policies underlying the Erie rule. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra, at 108-112.
The Erie rule is rooted in part in a realization that it would be unfair for the character or result of a litigation materially to differ because the suit had .been brought in a federal court.
“Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction was conferred in order to prevent apprehended discrimination in state courts against those not citizens of the State. Swift v. Tyson introduced grave discrimination by non-citizens against citizens. It made rights enjoyed under the unwritten 'general law’ vary according to whether enforcement was sought in the state or in the federal court; and the privilege of selecting the court in which the right should be determined was conferred upon the non-citizen. Thus, the doctrine rendered impossible equal protection of the law.” Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, at 74-75.
The decision was also in part a reaction to the practice of “forum-shopping” which had grown up in response to the rule of Swift v. Tyson. 304 U. S., at 73-74. That the York test was an attempt to effectuate these policies is demonstrated by the fact that the opinion framed the inquiry in terms of “substantial” variations between state and federal litigation. 326 U. S., at 109. Not only are nonsubstantial, or trivial, variations not likely to raise the sort of equal protection problems which troubled the Court in Erie; they are also unlikely to influence the choice of a forum. The “outcome-determination” test therefore cannot be read without reference to the twin aims of the Erie rule: discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.
The difference between the conclusion that the Massachusetts rule is applicable, and the conclusion that it is not, is of course at this point “outcome-determinative” in the sense that if we hold the state rule to apply, respondent prevails, whereas if we hold that Rule 4(d)(1) governs, the litigation will continue. But in this sense every procedural variation is “outcome-determinative.” For example, having brought suit in a federal court, a plaintiff cannot then insist on the right to file subsequent pleadings in accord with the time limits applicable in the state courts, even though enforcement of the federal timetable will, if he continues to insist that he must meet only the state time limit, result in determination of the controversy against him. So it is here. Though choice of the federal or state rule will at this point have a marked effect upon the outcome of the litigation, the difference between the two rules would be of scant, if any, relevance to the choice of a forum. Petitioner, in choosing her forum, was not presented with a situation where application of the state rule would wholly bar recovery; rather, adherence to the state rule would have resulted only in altering the way in which process was served. Moreover, it is difficult to argue that permitting service of defendant’s wife to take the place of in-hand service of defendant himself alters the mode of enforcement of state-created rights in a fashion sufficiently “substantial” to raise the sort of equal protection problems to which the Eñe opinion alluded.
There is, however, a more fundamental flaw in respondent’s syllogism: the incorrect assumption that the rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins constitutes the appropriate test of the validity and therefore the applicability of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The Erie rule has never been invoked to void a Federal Rule. It is true that there have been cases where this Court has held applicable a state rule in the face of an argument that the situation was governed by one of the Federal Rules. But the holding of each such case was not that Erie commanded displacement of a Federal Rule by an inconsistent state rule, but rather that the scope of the Federal Rule was not as broad as the losing party urged, and therefore, there being no Federal Rule which covered the point in dispute, Erie commanded the enforcement of state law.
“Respondent contends, in the first place, that the charge was correct because of the fact that Rule 8 (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure makes contributory negligence an affirmative defense. We do not agree. Rule 8 (c) covers only the manner of pleading. The question of the burden of establishing contributory negligence is a question of local law which federal courts in diversity of citizenship cases (Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64) must apply.” Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109, 117.
(Here, of course, the clash is unavoidable; Rule 4 (d)(1) says — implicitly, but with unmistakable clarity — that in-hand service is not required in federal courts.) At the same time, in cases adjudicating the validity of Federal Rules, we have not applied the York rule or other refinements of Erie, but have to this day continued to decide questions concerning the scope of the Enabling Act and the constitutionality of specific Federal Rules in light of the distinction set forth in Sibbach. E. g., Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U. S. 104.
Nor has the development of two separate lines of cases been inadvertent. The line between “substance” and “procedure” shifts as the legal context changes. “Each implies different variables depending upon the particular problem for which it is used.” Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra, at 108; Cook, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws, pp. 154-183 (1942). It is true that both the Enabling Act and the Erie rule say, roughly, that federal courts are to apply state “substantive” law and federal “procedural” law, but from that it need not follow that the tests are identical. For they were designed to control very different sorts of decisions. When a situation is covered by one of the Federal Rules, the question facing the court is a far cry from the typical, relatively unguided Erie choice: the court has been instructed to apply the Federal Rule, and can refuse to do so only if the Advisory Committee, this Court, and Congress erred in their prima facie judgment that the Rule in question transgresses neither the terms of the Enabling Act nor constitutional restrictions.
We are reminded by the Erie opinion that neither Congress nor the federal courts can, under the guise of formulating rules of decision for federal courts, fashion rules which are not supported by a grant of federal authority contained in Article I or some other section of the- Constitution; in such areas state law must govern because there can be no other law. But the opinion in Erie, which involved no Federal Rule and dealt with a question which was “substantive” in every traditional sense (whether the railroad owed a duty of care to Tompkins as a trespasser or a licensee), surely neither said nor implied that measures like Rule 4 (d)(1) are unconstitutional. For the constitutional provision for a federal court system (augmented by the Necessary and Proper Clause) carries with it congressional power to make rules governing the practice and pleading in those courts, which in turn includes a power to regulate matters which, though falling within the uncertain area between substance and procedure, are rationally capable of classification as either. Cf. M‘Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421. Neither York nor the cases following it ever suggested that the rule there laid down for coping with situations where no Federal Rule applies is coextensive with the limitation on Congress to which Erie had adverted. Although this Court has never before been confronted with a case where the applicable Federal Rule is in direct collision with the law of the relevant State, courts of appeals faced with such clashes have rightly discerned the implications of our decisions.
“One of the shaping purposes of the Federal Rules is to bring about uniformity in the federal courts by getting away from local rules. This is especially true of matters which relate to the administration of legal proceedings, an area in which federal courts have traditionally exerted strong inherent power, completely aside from the powers Congress expressly conferred in the Rules. The purpose of the Erie doctrine, even as extended in York and Ragan, was never to bottle up federal courts with ‘outcome-determinative’ and ‘integral-relations’ stoppers— when there are ‘affirmative countervailing [federal] considerations’ and when there is a Congressional mandate (the Rules) supported by constitutional authority.” Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Wright, 322 F. 2d 759, 764 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1963).
Erie and its offspring cast no doubt on the long-recognized power of Congress to prescribe housekeeping rules for federal courts even though some of those rules will inevitably differ from comparable state rules. Cf. Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., 283 U. S. 91. “When, because the plaintiff happens to be a non-resident, such a right is enforceable in a federal as well as- in a State court, the forms and mode of enforcing the right may at times, naturally enough, vary because the two judicial systems are not identic.” Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra, at 108; Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 555. Thus, though a court, in measuring a Federal Rule against the standards contained in the Enabling Act and the Constitution, need not wholly blind itself to the degree to which the Rule makes the character and result of the federal litigation stray from the course it would follow in state courts, Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., supra, at 13-14, it cannot be forgotten that the Erie rule, and the guidelines suggested in York, were created to serve another purpose altogether. To hold that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure must cease to function whenever it alters the mode of enforcing state-created rights would be to disembowel either the Constitution's grant of power over federal procedure or Congress’ attempt to exercise that power in the Enabling Act. Rule 4 (d) (1) is valid and controls the instant case.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
Section 9 is in part a statute of limitations, providing that an executor need not “answer to an action . . . which is not commenced within one year from the time of his giving bond . . . .” This part of the statute, the purpose of which is to speed the settlement of estates, Spaulding v. McConnell, 307 Mass. 144, 146, 29 N. E. 2d 713, 715 (1940); Doyle v. Moylan, 141 F. Supp. 95 (D. C. D. Mass. 1956),-is not involved in this case, since the action clearly was timely commenced. (Respondent filed bond on March 1, 1962; the complaint was filed February 6, 1963; and the service — the propriety of which is in dispute — was made on February 8, 1963.) 331 F. 2d, at 159. Cf. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra; Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., supra.
Section 9 also provides for the manner of service. Generally, service of process must be made by “delivery in hand/’ although there are two alternatives: acceptance of service by the executor, or filing of a notice of claim, the components of which are set out in the statute, in the appropriate probate court. The purpose of this part of the statute, which is involved here, is, as the court below noted, to insure that executors will receive actual notice of claims. Parker v. Rich, 297 Mass. 111, 113-114, 8 N. E. 2d 345, 347 (1937). Actual notice is of course also the goal of Rule 4 (d)(1); however, the Federal Rule reflects a determination that this goal can be achieved by a method less cumbersome than that prescribed in § 9. In this ease the goal seems to have been achieved; although the affidavit filed by respondent in the District Court asserts that he had not been served in hand nor had he accepted service, it does not allege lack of actual notice.
There are a number of state service requirements which would not necessarily be satisfied by compliance with Rule 4 (d) (1). See, e. g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §4118; Idaho Code Ann. §5-507 7 (1948); Ill. Rev. Stat., e. 110, § 13.2 (1963); Ky. Rev. Stat., Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 4.04 (1962); Md. Ann. Code, Rules Proc., Rule 104 b (1963); Mich. Rev. Jud. Act §600.1912 (1961); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 1-94 (1953); S. D. Code § 33.0807 (8) (Supp. 1960); Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-214 (1955).
“These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81. . . .” Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 1.
This ease does not come within any of the exceptions noted in Rule 81.
See also Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U. S. 104, 112-114.
See also Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., supra; Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U. S. 535; Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U. S. 198, 203-204, 207-208; cf. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Cooperative, 356 U. S. 525.
See Iovino v. Waterson, 274 F. 2d 41, 46-47 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1959), cert. denied sub nom. Carlin v. Iovino, 362 U. S. 949.
See also Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co., 313 U. S. 487, 496; Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., supra, note 5, at 538.
Cf. Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab Co., 276 U. S. 518.
The Court of Appeals seemed to frame the inquiry in terms of how “important” § 9 is to the State. In support of its suggestion that § 9 serves some interest the State regards as vital to its citizens, the court noted that something like § 9 has been on the books in Massachusetts a long time, that § 9 has been amended a number of times, and that §9 is designed to make sure that executors receive actual notice. See note 1, supra. The apparent lack of relation among these three observations is not surprising, because it is not clear to what sort of question the Court of Appeals was addressing itself. One cannot meaningfully ask how important something is without first asking “important for what purpose?” Erie and its progeny make clear that when a federal court sitting in a diversity case is faced with a question of whether or not to apply state law, the importance of a state rule is indeed relevant, but only in the context of asking whether application of the rule would make so important a difference to the character or result of the litigation that failure to enforce it would unfairly discriminate against citizens of the forum State, or whether application of the rule would have so important an effect upon the fortunes of one or both of the litigants that failure to enforce it would be likely to cause a plaintiff to choose the federal court.
See Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra, at 108-109; Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., supra, at 532; Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., supra, note 5, at 538.
Similarly, a federal court’s refusal to enforce the New Jersey rule involved in Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, requiring the posting of security by plaintiffs in stockholders’ derivative actions, might well impel a stockholder to choose to bring suit in the federal, rather than the state, court.
Cf. Monarch Insurance Co. of Ohio v. Spach, 281 F. 2d 401, 412 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1960). We cannot seriously entertain the thought that one suing an estate would be led to choose the federal court because of a belief that adherence to Rule 4 (d)(1) is less likely to give the executor actual notice than § 9, and therefore more likely to produce a default judgment. Rule 4 (d)(1) is well designed to give actual notice, as it did in this case. See note 1, supra.
To the same effect, see Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., supra; Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., supra. note 10, at 556; id,., at 557 (Douglas, J., dissenting); cf. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., supra, note 5, at 201-202; see generally Iovino v. Waterson, supra, note 6, at 47-48.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., supra, at 13-15; see Appointment of Committee to Draft Unified System of Equity and Law Rules, 295 U. S. 774; Orders re Rules of Procedure, 302 U. S. 783; Letter of Submittal, 308 U. S. 649; 1A Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 0.501 [2], at 5027-5028 (2d ed. 1961).
Erie R. Co v. Tompkins, supra, at 77-79; cf. Bernhardt v. Polygraphia Co., supra, note 5, at 202; Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., supra, at 10; Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra, at 105.
In Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., supra, the law of the forum State (Illinois) forbade the sort of order authorized by Rule 35. However, Sibbach was decided before Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co., supra, note 7, and the Sibbach opinion makes clear that the Court was proceeding on the assumption that if the law of any State was relevant, it was the law of the State where the tort occurred (Indiana), which, like Rule 35, made provision for such orders. 312 U. S., at 6-7, 10-11.
To the same effect, see D’Onofrio Construction Co. v. Recon Co., 255 F. 2d 904, 909-910 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1958).
Mississippi Pub. Corp. v. Murphree, supra, at 445-446; Iovino v. Waterson, supra, note 6, at 46.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States filed this civil action in the District Court for the District of New Jersey to recover, in equity, from the beneficiary of life insurance policies the amount of federal income taxes owed by the insured at the time of his death.
Herman Bess died a resident of Monmouth County, New Jersey, on June 29, 1950. His wife, Molly G. Bess, was the beneficiary of eight insurance policies on his life from which she received $63,576.95 in proceeds. The cash surrender value of these policies at his death was $3,362.53. Seven of the policies were issued to Mr. Bess from 1934 to 1937 and the eighth, a group policy, in 1950. He retained the right until death to change the beneficiary, to draw down or borrow against the cash surrender value and to assign the policies, except that under the group insurance policy he retained only the right to change the beneficiary. Mr. Bess paid all premiums and it is conceded that none was paid in fraud of his creditors.
The federal income taxes were owing for the several years from 1945 to 1949. The assets of Mr. Bess’ estate were applied to payment of the amounts owing for 1948 and 1949, but a total of $8,874.57 remained owing for 1945, 1946 and 1947 when the estate was adjudged insolvent by the Monmouth County Court in 1952. The amounts owing were $4,159.31 for 1945, $3,789.32 for 1946, and $925.94 for 1947.
The District Court held Mrs. Bess liable for the total taxes owing of $8,874.57. 134 F. Supp. 467. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reduced the judgment to the amount of the total cash surrender value of the policies of $3,362.53. 243 F. 2d 675. We granted cer-tiorari on the Government’s petition and Mrs. Bess’ cross-petition, 355 U. S. 861, and set the case for argument with Commissioner v. Stern, ante, p. 39. The Government seeks in No. 395 the reinstatement of the District Court’s judgment in the full amount of the taxes owing. Mrs. Bess seeks in No. 410 the reversal of the Court of Appeals judgment in the amount of the cash surrender value.
I.
As in Commissioner v. Stern, the Government argues that Mrs. Bess, as beneficiary of her husband’s life-insurance policies, is liable for his unpaid federal income taxes. We held today in the Stern case that recovery of unpaid federal income taxes from a beneficiary of insurance, in the absence of a lien, can be sustained only to the extent that state law imposes such liability in favor of other creditors of the insured. Under New Jersey law the beneficiary of a policy of life insurance is entitled to its proceeds against all creditors except to the extent of the amount of any premiums for the insurance paid in fraud of creditors. N. J. Stat. Ann., 1939, § 17:34-29; Slurszberg v. Prudential Ins. Co., 15 N. J. Misc. 423, 192 A. 451; Middlesex County Welfare Board v. Motolinsky, 134 N. J. Eq. 323, 35 A. 2d 463. If in the instant case no lien were involved, our holding in Commissioner v. Stern would require an affirmance in No. 395 and a reversal in No. 410, since it is conceded that Mr. Bess did not pay any premiums in fraud of his creditors.
II.
However, the Government contends that it is also seeking in this action to enforce, as to the 1945 and 1946 deficiencies, liens perfected under § 3670 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 against the property of Mr. Bess in his lifetime. Section 3670 provides that “If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount . . . shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.” 53 Stat. 448. On July 30, 1948, and again on August 9, 1948, before Mr. Bess died, notice and demand were made upon him for payment of the deficiencies formally consented to by him as owing for 1945 and 1946. He made periodic payments on the amount owing for 1945, reducing that amount from $11,514 to $4,713.59 before his death. This balance was further reduced to $4,159.31 by a payment of $554.28 from his estate pursuant to an order of the Monmouth County Court. However, no payment on account of the $3,789.32 owing for 1946 was made either in his lifetime or after his death.
First. As to the tax lien theory, Mrs. Bess contends that the Government did not assert this basis for recovery before the District Court and therefore should not be heard to assert that theory in this Court. But the essential facts pertinent to a decision on the merits of the tax lien theory were stipulated in the District Court. Moreover, the issue was fully briefed and argued both in the Court of Appeals and in this Court. We therefore see no basis for any inference of prejudice in the circumstances, and accordingly proceed to a determination of the question.
Second. Mrs. Bess argues that in any event no lien attached to any property of Mr. Bess since a lien does not attach under § 3670 unless and until the delinquent taxpayer “neglects or refuses to .pay the same after demand.” She urges that the facts stipulated as to the payments on account of 1945 taxes made by Mr. Bess in his lifetime prove that he did not neglect or refuse to pay taxes after demand. Since, in the view we take of this case, the liability of Mrs. Bess is limited to the cash surrender value of $3,362.53, it suffices that whatever may be the case as to the 1945 taxes the requisite neglect or refusal was plainly established as to the 1946 delinquency of $3,789.32, for it is admitted that Mr. Bess neither paid nor attempted to pay anything on account of those taxes.
Third. We must now decide whether Mr. Bess possessed in his lifetime, within the meaning of § 3670, any “property” or “rights to property” in the insurance policies to which the perfected lien for the 1946 taxes might attach. Since § 3670 creates no property rights but merely attaches consequences, federally defined, to rights created under state law, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. New York City Housing Authority, 241 F. 2d 142, 144, we must look first to Mr. Bess’ right in the policies as defined by state law.
(a) It is not questioned that the rights of the insured are measured by the policy contract as enforced by New Jersey law. Manifestly the insured could not enjoy the possession of the proceeds in his lifetime. His right to change the beneficiary, even to designate his estate to receive the proceeds, gives him no right to receive the proceeds while he lives. Cf. Rowen v. Commissioner, 215 F. 2d 641, 644. It would be anomalous to view as “property” subject to lien proceeds never within the insured’s reach to enjoy, and which are reducible to possession by another only upon the insured’s death when his right to change the beneficiary comes to an end. We therefore do not believe that Mr. Bess had “property” or “rights to property” in the proceeds, within the meaning of § 3670, to which the federal tax lien might attach. Cannon v. Nicholas, 80 F. 2d 934; see United States v. Burgo, 175 F. 2d 196. This conclusion is in harmony with the decision in Everett v. Judson, 228 U. S. 474, that the cash surrender value of a policy on the life of a bankrupt is the extent of the property which is vested in the trustee under § 70 a of the Bankruptcy Act.
(b) The cash surrender value of the policy, however, stands on a different footing. The insured has the right under the policy contract to compel the insurer to pay him this sum upon surrender of the policy. This right may be borrowed against, assigned or pledged. Slurszberg v. Prudential Ins. Co., supra. Thus Mr. Bess “possessed just prior to his death, a chose in action in the amount stated [i. e., the cash surrender value] which he could have collected from the insurance companies in accordance with the terms of the policies.” 243 F. 2d 675, 678. It is therefore clear that Mr. Bess had “property” or “rights to property,” within the meaning of § 3670, in the cash surrender value. United States v. Hoper, 242 F. 2d 468; Knox v. Great West Life Assurance Co., 212 F. 2d 784; United States v. Royce Shoe Co., 137 F. Supp. 786; Smith v. Donnelly, 65 F. Supp. 415; United States v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F. Supp. 30.
But it is contended that under state law the insured’s property right represented by the cash surrender value is not subject to creditors’ liens, whether asserted by a private creditor, Slurszberg v. Prudential Ins. Co., supra, or by a state agency, Middlesex County Welfare Board v. Motolinsky, supra. However, once it has been determined that state law creates sufficient interests in the insured to satisfy the requirements of § 3670, state law is inoperative to prevent the attachment of liens created by federal statutes in favor of the United States. Such state laws “are not laws for the United States . . . unless they have been made such by Congress itself.” Fink v. O’Neil, 106 U. S. 272, 276; cf. Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U. S. 280. The provisions of the Internal Revenue Act creating liens upon taxpayer’s property for unpaid income taxes, unlike § 6 of the Bankruptcy Act, 30 Stat. 548, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 24, do not specifically provide for recognition of such state laws. The fact that in § 3691 Congress provided specific exemptions from distraint is evidence that Congress did not intend to recognize further exemptions which would prevent attachment of liens under § 3670. Knox v. Great West Life Assurance Co., supra; United States v. Heffron, 158 F. 2d 657; Shambaugh v. Scofield, 132 F. 2d 345; Smith v. Donnelly, supra.
Fourth. The transfer of property subsequent to the attachment of the lien does not affect the lien, for “it is of the very nature and essence of a lien, that no matter into whose hands the property goes, it passes cum onere ....’’ Burton v. Smith, 13 Pet. 464, 483; see Michigan v. United States, 317 U. S. 338, 340. The question therefore is whether the cash surrender values with the lien attached were transferred to Mrs. Bess as beneficiary when Mr. Bess died.
It is argued that the right to receive the cash surrender value expires with the death of the insured and that thus no property of his passes to the beneficiary. The contention is that the beneficiary receives the proceeds of the policies as performance by the insurance company of a separate promise to pay upon the death of the insured. It is said to follow that “there is no logical escape from holding that the ‘surrender value’ comes to an end on the insured’s death, if we dispose of the controversy in accordance with the ordinary rules governing contracts.” United States v. Behrens, 280 F. 2d 504, 506-507. This is to say that the cash surrender value is no part of the proceeds, but represents merely the right of the insured to cancel the policy and thereupon receive back from the insurer the amount accumulated from premiums paid in the past and held to cover the risk to be incurred in the future. Therefore it is said that the property represented by the cash surrender value disappears on the insured’s death and no lien can survive in any part of the proceeds.
But the courts have long recognized that the surplus of the paid premiums accumulated to make up the cash surrender value should be treated for some purposes as though in fact a “fund” held by the insurer for the benefit of the insured. Judge Addison Brown stated in In re McKinney, 15 F. 535, 537:
“Though this excess of premiums paid is legally the sole property of the company, still in practical effect, though not in law, it is moneys of the assured deposited with the company in advance to make up the deficiency in later premiums .... So long as the policy remains in force the company has not practically any beneficial interest in it, except as its custodian, with the obligation to maintain it unimpaired and suitably invested for the benefit of the insured. This is the practical, though not the legal, relation of the company to this fund.”
This view was approved in Hiscock v. Mertens, 205 U. S. 202, 211, and Burlingham v. Crouse, 228 U. S. 459, 469. See also United States v. Behrens, supra, at 507. Thus in economic reality the insurer pays the beneficiary the insured’s “fund,” plus another amount sufficient to perform the insurer’s promise to pay the proceeds on the insured’s death. Rowen v. Commissioner, supra, at 647. Therefore we hold that, for purposes of § 3670, there was a transfer of property from the insured to Mrs. Bess, and that the lien attached to the property before his death followed the property into her hands.
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Whittaker concur in the opinion of the Court insofar as it holds that the United States had a valid lien against the cash surrender value of the insurance policies involved here which was enforceable against the beneficiary, Mrs. Bess. They would also affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the basis of the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Black in Commissioner v. Stern, ante, p. 47.
The proceeding against Mrs. Bess was not by the summary method authorized by § 311 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 but by the alternative method of a proceeding in equity in the District Court, Leighton v. United States, 289 U. S. 506. The courts below erred in applying § 311 in this case. As we held in Commissioner v. Stern, ante, § 311 is a purely procedural statute and has no bearing upon the liability of Mrs. Bess.
Once a federal tax lien attaches to the insured’s interest, of course, the Government, in a proper action joining the appropriate parties, can enforce the lien in the insured’s lifetime and thereby recover the cash surrender value. Knox v. Great West Life Assurance. Co., 212 F. 2d 784; Kyle v. McGuirk, 82 F. 2d 212; Smith v. Donnelly, 65 F. Supp. 415. See also Cannon v. Nicholas, 80 F. 2d 934; United States v. Royce Shoe Co., 137 F. Supp. 786. Compare United States v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 130 F. 2d 149; United States v. Gilmore, 147 F. Supp. 902.
“In the level premium system of life insurance the net level premium must be higher than the monetary value of the annual risk during the early policy years, and the excess must be accumulated with interest to provide funds for payment of claims after the age is reached where the value of the annual risk exceeds the net level premium in the annual premium being paid. It is the necessary accumulation of these funds that makes possible nonforfeiture benefits. On surrender of a policy the insurer, being relieved of the obligation to provide death benefits during future years where the annual value of the risk exceeds the annual net level premium, no longer needs to retain the surrendering policyholder’s contributions to the funds previously accumulated for such purpose. Since the surrendering policyholder made a contribution to these funds during the period from date of issue to date of surrender, he is equitably entitled to a return equal to the prorata share of the funds actually accumulated from premiums paid by his group of policyholders and no longer needed to assure solvency of the company for the protection of continuing policyholders.” Krueger and Waggoner, The Life Insurance Policy Contract (1953 ed.), 194. (Footnote omitted; emphasis added.)
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In a complaint filed in the District Court, petitioner charged that respondent was violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay some of its employees time and one-half for statutory overtime, as required by § 7 (a) of the Act, and asked an injunction against continued violation. Respondent denied the charge, and separately alleged that any of its employees not compensated in accordance with the requirements of § 7 (a) were exempt from the Act by § 13 (a).
The Court, without a jury, heard witnesses for both parties with respect to the compensation and status of three engineers in respondent’s power plant. It made special findings of fact, concluded that these men were exempt employees, and entered judgment for respondent. The Circuit Court of Appeals thought the evidence did not sustain the District Court’s findings relative to the engineers’ exempt status. But it thought that the District Court had also found the engineers’ compensation to be in accordance with the Act. It decided that the evidence was adequate to this end, and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. We granted certiorari to determine whether the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals was not inconsistent with this Court’s decision on computation of overtime in Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U. S. 572. On argument here, however, respondent continued to urge that the District Court was warranted in its findings as to the engineers’ exempt status. Having heard the argument and examined the record, we agree that it was. Therefore, we need not consider further the question of computation of overtime, and proceed only to state the considerations relevant to the particular ground of our decision.
There is no dispute as to the applicable law. Section 13 (a) exempts from the overtime provisions of the Act any person employed in an “executive capacity” as defined in regulations issued by the Administrator. The Regulations prescribe six conjunctive conditions to an executive capacity, which are set forth in the margin. Respondent had the burden of proving the existence of these conditions, if it would rely on its defense that the engineers were exempt employees.
There was evidence to the following effect. Respondent operates at Elyria, Ohio, a plant engaged in the production of small motors and plastic products. Part of this plant consists of a powerhouse containing a boiler room and engine room. In the former are four boilers. These supply the steam required to drive three large electrical generators which are the source of power for the entire plant, and to create the high steam-pressures and air-pressures employed in molding plastics. In the engine room, besides the generators, are compressors, engines, and other equipment. All this machinery, in both rooms, constitutes an interrelated and interdependent system. It must be carefully and skillfully tended at all times in order to maintain the power and pressure required for continuous 24-hour operation of the plant, to avoid damage to the tremendous investment in the machinery itself, and to guard against the fearful consequences of an explosion.
During the period covered by the evidence, the powerhouse was manned by the following personnel. At the top was the chief engineer, who apparently adhered to no precise duty-hours, but was customarily present most of the morning and afternoon and subject to call, in the event of an emergency, twenty-four hours a day. Directly under and responsible to him were the three “operating engineers” whose status is in issue. They worked consecutive eight or eight and one-half hour shifts, one of them being present in the powerhouse at all times. Finally, there were an unspecified number of firemen and coal-passers, who, collectively, were also on twenty-four hour duty.
The engineers in question were paid regular monthly salaries of more than $200 per month, for which they regularly worked six-shift weeks. They received sick leave, vacations with pay, bonuses, insurance, and pension rights usually reserved for supervisory employees.
The engineers were in charge of the powerhouse and performed the duties generally incident to direct supervision of a highly mechanized operation. Respondent’s vice president and factory manager testified that they acted as foremen of the firemen and coal-passers. This testimony was corroborated by other facts. In July, 1944, two months before the complaint in this case was filed, the engineers signed agreements with respondent stating their desire “to be regarded as Foremen, as in the past, with Foremen privileges and continue on a salary basis.” Three weeks later the International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers and Helpers abandoned a long-contested claim of right to represent the engineers, thereby formally recognizing their supervisory status. Indeed, the nature of the operations in the powerhouse was such that the immediate and continuous supervision of trained persons was indispensable, and there were concededly no other employees to give such supervision. The engineers were required to maintain constant observation of all machinery in the powerhouse, and to make regular inspections and necessary repairs. In addition they were required to spend a small part of their time in oiling and cleaning the engines.
The District Court, having made findings substantially as stated above, proceeded to make additional findings of the existence of each of the facts on which an executive status, as defined by the Regulations, is made to depend.
We believe that the evidentiary facts afford an adequate basis for the inferences drawn by the Court in making such additional findings. At the least, we think that in drawing such inferences the Court was not clearly wrong, and conclude that the findings should therefore have been left undisturbed. The Circuit Court of Appeals’ rejection of those findings cannot rest on the conflicting testimony of petitioner’s witnesses. The District Court heard the witnesses, and was the proper judge of their credibility.
Affirmed.
52 Stat. 1060, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq.
Walling v. General Industries Co., 60 F. Supp. 549.
Walling v. General Industries Co., 155 F. 2d 711.
329 U. S. 704.
Respondent was entitled to make this contention here without filing a cross-petition for certiorari. Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 538; Public Service Commission of Puerto Rico v. Havemeyer, 296 U. S. 506, 509.
29 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. § 541.1, 5 Fed. Reg. 4077 (Regulations of the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Oct. 24, 1940, amended Jan. 16, 1942) provides as follows:
Ҥ 541.1 Executive.
“The term ‘employee employed in a bona fide executive . . . capacity’ in section 13 (a) (1) of the Act shall mean any employee
“(a) whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof, and
“(b) who customarily and regularly directs the work of other employees therein, and
“(c) who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring or firing and as to the advancement and promotion or any other change of status of other employees will be given particular weight, and
“(d) who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers, and
“(e) who is compensated for his services on a salary basis at not less than $30 per week (exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities), and
“(f) whose hours of work of the same nature as that performed by nonexempt employees do not exceed 20 percent of the number of hours worked in the workweek by the nonexempt employees under his direction; provided that this subsection (f) shall not apply in the case of an employee who is in sole charge of an independent establishment or a physically separated branch establishment.”
See Helliwell v. Haberman, 140 F. 2d 833, 834 (C. C. A. 2); Fletcher v. Grinnell Brothers, 150 F. 2d 337, 340-341 (C. C. A. 6) ; Smith v. Porter, 143 F. 2d 292, 294 (C. C. A. 8).
Rule 52 (a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Lawson v. United States Mining Co., 207 U. S. 1, 12; Butte & Superior Copper Co. v. Clark-Montana Realty Co., 249 U. S. 12, 30. See District of Columbia v. Pace, 320 U. S. 698, 701.
Rule 52 (a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Adamson v. Gilliland, 242 U. S. 350; United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U. S. 32, 37, 38, 41.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title 2 of the Texas Family Code was enacted in 1973 and first went into effect on January 1, 1974. It was amended substantially in the following year. The Title defines the contours of the parent-child relationship and the permissible areas and modes of state intervention. This suit presents the first broad constitutional challenge to interrelated parts of that statutory scheme. It raises novel constitutional questions of the correlative rights and duties of parents, children, and the State in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.
This litigation, involving suspected instances of child abuse, was initiated by state authorities in the Texas state courts in 1976. The state proceedings, however, were enjoined by the three-judge District Court below, which went on to find various parts of Title 2 unconstitutional on their face or as applied. We noted probable jurisdiction. 439 U. S. 925 (1978). This appeal first raises the question whether in light of the pending state proceedings, the Federal District Court should have exercised its jurisdiction. We conclude that it should not have done so and accordingly reverse and remand with instructions that the complaint be dismissed.
I
The appellees in this case, husband and wife and their three minor children, seek a declaration that parts of Title 2 of the Texas Family Code unconstitutionally infringe family integrity. The state-court litigation was precipitated by school authorities who reported to the Texas Department of Human Resources (formerly the State Department of Public Welfare) on March 25, 1976, that a child, Paul Sims, suffered from physical injuries apparently inflicted or aggravated by his father on a visit to the Osborne Elementary School in Houston, Tex. To protect the Sims children and to investigate the extent of any injuries, the Texas Department of Human Resources (hereinafter Department) on the same day took temporary custody of all three Sims children, who were in the school, and had them examined by a physician. The doctor found that the children were battered, and Paul was hospitalized for 11 days.
On the day that it took custody of the children, the Department decided to institute a suit for emergency protection of the children under § 17.02 of the Texas Family Code. The suit was filed in the Harris County Juvenile Court on March 26, 1976, the day after the children were removed from the school. Pursuant to § 17.04 of the Texas Code, the Juvenile Court Judge entered an emergency ex parte order which gave temporary custody of the children to the Department.
Five days later, the appellees appeared in court and moved to modify the ex parte order, the proper procedure for terminating the Department’s temporary custody. A hearing on such a motion is required under Texas law, but the Juvenile Court Judge was temporarily unavailable and the court clerk returned the motion to appellees’ attorney. Rather than renew the motion or appeal the emergency order, appellees filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the same Harris County court. A hearing on that petition was held on April 5, 1976, and on that date the Juvenile Court Judge concluded that venue was properly in neighboring Montgomery County, where the children were residents, and he transferred the proceedings to that county. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann., Tit. 2, § 11.04 (a) (1975). At the judge’s direction, see § 17.05 (b) (2) (Supp. 1978-1979), the Department filed a “Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship” as authorized by § 11.02, which was also transferred to Montgomery County. In addition, the judge issued a temporary restraining order continuing the Department’s temporary custody of the children.
The appellees then had actual knowledge that the action had been moved to Montgomery County. There is no indication that any effort was made to expedite the hearing in that county; the appellees did not request an early hearing from state trial or appellate courts. Nor did they appeal the temporary order. See In re Stuart, 544 S. W. 2d 821 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976). Instead, on April 19, 1976, they filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and thereby initiated two months of procedural maneuvers in both the state and federal courts.
On April 20, a temporary restraining order was denied appel-lees by the District Court. A hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction was ultimately set for May 5. When the Department received notice of the federal proceeding on April 22, the pending state proceedings were suspended.
On May 4, however, one day before the scheduled federal hearing, the Simses returned to the state-court system, moving to file an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Texas Court of Civil Appeals. The motion was denied for want of jurisdiction.
The next day, the Federal District Court held that the temporary orders issued by the state court had expired and that the children had to be returned to their parents, although the Department was not enjoined from pursuing a new action in state court. The court noted that it was requesting a three-judge court to consider appellees’ constitutional challenge to Title 2. On May 14, the Department did file a new § 11.02 suit in Montgomery County, and the state court issued a show-cause order and writ of attachment ordering that Paul Sims be delivered to the temporary custody of his grandparents. The court set the show-cause hearing for May 21, but the Simses could not be found for purposes of service and the hearing was reset for June 21. The Simses countered by filing in the United States District Court a second application for a temporary restraining order addressed to the Montgomery County Juvenile Court, which was granted on May 21. The three-judge court on June 7 entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the Department and other defendants from filing or prosecuting any state suit under the challenged state statutes until a final determination by the three-judge court. That determination was made on October 12, 1977, and is the subject of this appeal.
After concluding that abstention under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), was unwarranted because the litigation was “multifaceted,” involved custody of children, and was the product of procedural confusion in the state courts, the District Court addressed the merits of the due process challenges. It surveyed virtually every aspect of child-abuse proceedings in Texas. Sims v. State Dept. of Public Welfare, 438 F. Supp. 1179, 1189-1195. Since we conclude that it should never have embarked on this survey we do not recount it here.
II
Appellants argue that the Federal District Court should have abstained in this case under the principles of Younger v. Harris, supra. The Younger doctrine, which counsels federal-court abstention when there is a pending state proceeding, reflects a strong policy against federal intervention in state judicial processes in the absence of great and immediate irreparable injury to the federal plaintiff. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66, 69 (1971). That policy was first articulated with reference to state criminal proceedings, but as we recognized in Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975), the basic concern — that threat to our federal system posed by displacement of state courts by those of the National Government — is also fully applicable to civil proceedings in which important state interests are involved. As was the case in Huffman, the State here was a party to the state proceedings, and the temporary removal of a child in a child-abuse context is, like the public nuisance statute involved in Huffman, “in aid of and closely related to criminal statutes.” Id., at 604. The existence of these conditions, or the presence of such other vital concerns as enforcement of contempt proceedings, Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327 (1977), or the vindication of “important state policies such as safeguarding the fiscal integrity of [public assistance] programs,” Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 444 (1977), determines the applicability of Younger-Huffman principles as a bar to the institution of a later federal action.
In Huffman, we noted those well-established circumstances where the federal court need not stay its hand in the face of pending state proceedings.
“Younger, and its civil counterpart which we apply today, do of course allow intervention in those cases where the District Court properly finds that the state proceeding is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith, or where the challenged statute is ‘ “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.” ’ ” 420 U. S., at 611.
The District Court, however, did not rely expressly on these established exceptions to the Younger doctrine in finding that abstention was inappropriate in this case. Rather, it concluded that Younger abstention was not warranted because the action taken by the State of Texas in this case is “multifaceted”; “there is no single state proceeding to which the plaintiffs may look for relief on constitutional or any other grounds.” 438 F. Supp., at 1187.
“Many of the challenged actions taken by the state do not and will not involve any judicial proceeding. Certainly as to these, there is no pending state civil litigation about which even to consider abstention.” Ibid, (footnote omitted).
The court specifically alluded to the allegations regarding the Child Abuse and Neglect Report and Inquiry System (CANRIS), id., at 1187 n. 5, that is, the appellees’ challenge on constitutional grounds to the State’s computerized collection and dissemination of child-abuse information where that information is not the product of a judicial determination of abuse or neglect.
The meaning of the District Court’s reference to this litigation as “multifaceted” is unclear, but two possible interpretations suggest themselves. Under established principles of equity, the exercise of equitable powers is inappropriate if there is an adequate remedy at law. See Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 164 (1943). Restated in the abstention context, the federal court should not exert jurisdiction if the plaintiffs “had an opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceedings.” Juidice v. Vail, supra, at 337 (emphasis in original); see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 577 (1973). The pertinent issue is whether appellees’ constitutional claims could have been raised in the pending state proceedings. The District Court’s reference to the child-abuse reporting system reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of the inquiry. That the Department’s suit does not necessarily implicate CANRIS is not determinative. The question is whether that challenge can be raised in the pending state proceedings subject to conventional limits on justici-ability. On this point, Texas law is apparently as accommodating as the federal forum. Certainly, abstention is appropriate unless state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.
There are also intimations in the District Court’s opinion that its decision to exert jurisdiction was influenced by a broader and novel consideration — the breadth of appellees’ challenge to Title 2. Thus, the District Court suggests that the more sweeping the challenge the more inappropriate is abstention, and thereby inverts traditional abstention reasoning. The breadth of a challenge to a complex state statutory scheme has traditionally militated in favor of abstention, not against it. This is evident in a number of distinct but related lines of abstention cases which, although articulated in different ways, reflect the same sensitivity to the primacy of the State in the interpretation of its own laws and the-.cost to our federal system of government inherent in federal-court interpretation and subsequent invalidation of parts of an integrated statutory framework.
“The entire statutory scheme by which Texas attempts to deal with the problem of child abuse has been challenged and should be viewed as an integrated whole. This court will not consider part of the scheme and abstain from another part. To do so would seriously jeopardize any hope for an effective statutory scheme and, in the name of comity and federalism, do violence to the state functions those principles seek to protect.” 438 F. Supp., at 1187.
The earliest abstention cases were rooted in notions of equity. In Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 498 (1941), the Court observed that the dispute before it implicated “a sensitive area of social policy upon which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to its adjudication is open.” The Court found the “resources of equity” sufficient to accommodate an adjustment which would avoid “the friction of a premature constitutional adjudication” and obviate the need for a federal court to interpret state law without the benefit of an authoritative interpretation by a state court. Id., at 500. Thus evolved the doctrine of Pullman abstention: that a federal action should be stayed pending determination in state court of state-law issues central to the constitutional dispute. Mr. Justice Frankfurter in his opinion for the Court observed:
“The history of equity jurisdiction is the history of regard for public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of the injunction. There have been as many and as variegated applications of this supple principle, as the situations that have brought it into play.... New public interests have a higher claim on the discretion of a federal chancellor than the avoidance of needless friction with state policies, whether the policy relates to the enforcement of the criminal law, Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240; Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89; or the administration of a specialized scheme for liquidating embarrassed business enterprises, Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U. S. 176; or the final authority of a state court to interpret doubtful regulatory laws of the state, Gilchrist v. Interborough Co., 279 U. S. 159....” Ibid.
There are three distinct considerations that counsel abstention when broad-based challenges are made to state statutes, and it is common to see each figure in an abstention decision; for the broader the challenge, the more evident each consideration becomes. There is first the Pullman concern: that a federal court will be forced to interpret state law without the benefit of state-court consideration and therefore under circumstances where a constitutional determination is predicated on a reading of the statute that is not binding on state courts and may be discredited at any time — thus essentially rendering the federal-court decision advisory and the litigation underlying it meaningless. Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387, 401-402 (1941); and Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450, 459-461 (1945). These dangers increase with the breadth of the challenge.
The second consideration is the need for a concrete case or controversy — a concern also obviously enhanced by the scope of the challenge. That is demonstrated by the instant case. For example, appellees challenge § 11.15 of the Texas Family-Code which provides that the standard of proof in any suit affecting the parent-child relationship shall be the “preponderance of the evidence.” The District Court held that in any proceeding involving parental rights, the State must bear as a matter of federal constitutional law a burden of “clear and convincing” evidence. Yet no proceeding was pursued in this case to the point where the standard could be applied, and consequently appellees can point to no injury in fact. A second illustration is the challenge to statutorily authorized pre-seizure investigative procedures: there was apparently no preseizure investigation in this case. Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, supra, at 461; Public Service Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237, 245-246 (1952).
The final concern prompted by broad facial attacks on state statutes is the threat to our federal system of government posed by “the needless obstruction to the domestic policy of the states by forestalling state action in construing and applying its own statutes.” Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, supra, at 471.
“The seriousness of federal judicial interference with state civil functions has long been recognized by this Court. We have consistently required that when federal courts are confronted with requests for such relief, they should abide by standards of restraint that go well beyond those of private equity jurisprudence.” Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S., at 603.
State courts are the principal expositors of state law. Almost every constitutional challenge — and particularly one as far ranging as that involved in this case — offers the opportunity for narrowing constructions that might obviate the constitutional problem and intelligently mediate federal constitutional concerns and state interests. When federal courts disrupt that process of mediation while interjecting themselves in such disputes, they prevent the informed evolution of state policy by state tribunals. Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S., at 445. The price exacted in terms of comity would only be outweighed if state courts were not competent to adjudicate federal constitutional claims — a postulate we have repeatedly and emphatically rejected. Huffman, supra, at 610-611.
In sum, the only pertinent inquiry is whether the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims, and Texas law appears to raise no procedural barriers. Nor do appellees seriously argue to the contrary. Rather, they contend that because they were not granted a hearing at the time that they thought they were entitled to one, there was no practical opportunity to present their federal claims. Thus, the issue as posed by appellees is whether the conduct of the state judiciary was such that it in fact denied appellees an opportunity to be heard that was theirs in theory. That claim is related to the District Court’s second theory why Younger abstention was not warranted in this case.
The District Court framed this “second independent basis for the inapplicability of Younger principles” as follows:
“[W]e note that the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge is directed primarily at the legality of the children’s seizure and detention for a 42-day period without a hearing. It is clear that because this issue cannot be raised as a defense in the normal course of the pending judicial proceeding, abstention would be inappropriate. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 108 n. 9... (1975). The denial of custody of the children pending any hearing regardless of the result of the hearing, is in itself sufficient to prevent the application of Younger.” 438 F. Supp., at 1187.
The reliance on Gerstein is misplaced. That case involved a challenge to pretrial restraint on the basis of a prosecutor’s information alone, without the benefit of a determination of probable cause by a judicial officer. This Court held that the District Court properly found that the action was not barred by Younger because the injunction was not addressed to a state proceeding and therefore would not interfere with the criminal prosecutions themselves. “The order to hold prelim - inary hearings could not prejudice the conduct of the trial on the merits.” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 108 n. 9 (1975). Here the injunction did address the state proceeding and it was not necessary to obtain the release of the children, for they had already been placed in the custody of their parents pursuant to a federal-court order. This Court has addressed the Younger doctrine on a number of occasions since Gerstein. In Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S., at 336-337, we noted that the teaching of Gerstein was that the federal plaintiff must have an opportunity to press his claim in the state courts and, as noted above, the appellees have not shown that state procedural law barred presentation of their claims — in fact Texas' law seems clearly to the contrary.
As for the argument that the delay in affording the parents a hearing in state court made Younger abstention inappropriate, we cannot distinguish this argument from conventional claims of bad faith and other sources of great, immediate, and irreparable harm if the federal court does not intervene — traditional circumstances where a federal court need not stay its hand. We simply cannot agree that the conduct of the state authorities in this case evinces bad faith; and we do not read the District Court as expressly so finding. That there was confusion is undeniable. It is evident in the uncertainty regarding the effective period of a temporary order under § 11.11 and regarding the propriety of entering that order when venue was in Montgomery County. But confusion is not bad faith, and in this case confusion was the predictable byproduct of a new statutory scheme. The question would be a much closer one had appellees diligently sought a hearing in Montgomery County after the Harris County action was transferred or had they pursued their appellate remedies.
Once it is determined that there is no bad faith, there remain only limited grounds for not applying Younger. The District Court did not find, nor could it have found, “harassment.” Nor could it credibly be claimed that Title 2 is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.” Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S., at 402, quoted in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S., at 53-54.
The District Court placed some reliance on the observation in Younger that there may be other “extraordinary circumstances in which the necessary irreparable injury can be shown even in the absence of the usual prerequisites of bad faith and harassment.” Id., at 53. See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 85 (1971); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 230-231 (1972). The most extensive explanation of those “extraordinary circumstances” that might constitute great, immediate, and irreparable harm is that in Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U. S. 117 (1975). Although its discussion is with reference to state criminal proceedings, it is fully applicable in this context as well.
“Only if ‘extraordinary circumstances’ render the state court incapable of fairly and fully adjudicating the federal issues before it, can there be any relaxation of the deference to be accorded to the state criminal process. The very nature of ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ of course, makes it impossible to anticipate and define every situation that might create a sufficient threat of such great, immediate, and irreparable injury as to warrant intervention in state criminal proceedings. But whatever else is required, such circumstances must be ‘extraordinary’ in the sense of creating an extraordinarily pressing need for immediate federal equitable relief, not merely in the sense of presenting a highly unusual factual situation.” Id., at 124-125.
See Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S., at 442 n. 7.
To gauge whether such extraordinary circumstances exist in this case, we must view the situation at the time the state proceedings were enjoined. On May 21, when the District Court granted a temporary restraining order, and on June 7, when the three-judge court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining appellants from filing or prosecuting any state suit under the challenged state statutes until the District Court had finally determined the questions at issue, the two adult appellees had already successfully obtained possession of their minor children by means of the federal-court order of May 5. The District Court’s order of that date did not enjoin the Department from instituting a new suit in state court, and such a suit was instituted in Montgomery County on May 14., The Montgomery County action was entitled a “Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship,” and the Department’s petition related the documented child abuse and prayed that a writ of attachment issue to protect the minor child, Paul Sims. The state court issued a writ pursuant to § 11.11 directing that Paul Sims be placed in the temporary custody of his grandparents, appointing a guardian ad litem, and setting a hearing to show cause for May 21. The record indicates that appellees absented themselves from home, work, and school, thereby impeding the attachment and service of the show-cause order, and does not indicate that the actual physical custody of Paul Sims was ever surrendered by appellees pursuant to the Montgomery County court writ.
It is in this posture that one must consider the propriety of the District Court’s injunction barring further state proceedings. Paul Sims was within the custody of his parents, and a specific date had been set for the show-cause hearing regarding the writ of attachment, at which time the parents could press their objections. Unless we were to hold that every attachment issued to protect a child creates great, immediate, and irreparable harm warranting federal-court intervention, we are hard pressed to conclude that with the state proceedings in this posture federal intervention was warranted.
Perhaps anticipating this logic, the District Court in this case concluded that “[t]he denial of custody of the children pending any hearing regardless of the result of the hearing, is in itself sufficient to prevent the application of Younger,” 438 F. Supp., at 1187. Presumably, this conclusion was prompted by the District Court’s observation that “the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs reach the application of due process in an area of the greatest importance to our society, the family.” Ibid. But the District Court again inverts traditional abstention logic when it states that because the interests involved are important, abstention is inappropriate. Family relations are a traditional area of state concern. This was recognized by the District Court when it noted the “compelling state interest in quickly and effectively removing the victims of child abuse from their parents.” Id., at 1189. We are unwilling to conclude that state processes are unequal to the task of accommodating the various interests and deciding the constitutional questions that may arise in child-welfare litigation.
We reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand with instructions that the complaint be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Although it is not clear that the children were nominal parties in all of the proceedings in the state courts, for ease of reference all of those actions will be referred to as actions by the appellees.
Chapter 17 of Title 2 of the Texas Family Code provides for suits for protection of children in emergencies. Section 17.01 states:
“An authorized representative of the State Department of Public Welfare, a law-enforcement officer, or a juvenile probation officer may take possession of a child to protect him from an immediate danger to his health or physical safety and deliver him to any court having jurisdiction of suits under this subtitle, whether or not the court has continuing jurisdiction under Section 11.05 of this code. The child shall be delivered immediately to the court.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann., Tit. 2, § 17.01 (Supp. 1978-1979).
These emergency seizures are to be followed by hearings provided for in § 17.02 (1975):
“Unless the child is taken into possession pursuant to a temporary order entered by a court under Section 11.11 of this code, the officer or representative shall file a petition in the court immediately on delivery of the child to the court, and a hearing shall be held to provide for the temporary care or protection of the child.”
Tex. Fam. Code Ann., Tit. 2, § 1704 (1975):
“On a showing that the child is apparently without support and is dependent on society for protection, or that the child is in immediate danger of physical or emotional injury, the court may make any appropriate order for the care and protection of the child and may appoint a temporary managing conservator for the child.”
§ 17.05 (Supp. 1978-1979):
“(a) An order issued under Section 17.04 of this code expires at the end of the 10-day period following the date of the order, on the restoration of the child to the possession of its parent, guardian, or conservator, or on the issuance of ex parte temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship under this subtitle, whichever occurs first.
“(b) If the child is not restored to the possession of its parent, guardian, or conservator, the court shall:
“(1) order such restoration or possession; or
“(2) direct the filing of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in the appropriate court with regard to continuing jurisdiction.”
§ 17.06 (1975):
“On the motion of a parent, managing conservator, or guardian of the person of the child, and notice to those persons involved in the original emergency hearing, the court shall conduct a hearing and may modify any emergency order made under this chapter if found to be in the best interest of the child.”
Emergency orders are apparently appealable under Texas law. See § 17.07 (1975); In re R. E. W., 545 S. W. 2d 573 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976).
In issuing this temporary order, the Harris County Juvenile Court relied on Tex. Fam. Code Ann., Tit. 2, § 11.11 (1975 and Supp. 1978-1979), which authorizes a court in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to make “any temporary order for the safety and welfare of the child.” The parties in this litigation disagree whether the Juvenile Court Judge had jurisdiction to enter that order. This is one of a number of ambiguous state-law questions in this case. Another is the period for which such a temporary order may remain in effect.
Suits affecting the parent-child relationship are authorized by § 11.02 (1975). These suits are the vehicles by which the State brings about any change in the parent-child relationship.
There is testimony in the record that a hearing had been set in Montgomery County for May 8, 1976. Defendant’s Exhibit # 1A, Sworn Statement of Rex Downing 65-66.
Therefore, contrary to the suggestion of the dissent, we do not remotely-suggest “that every pending proceeding between a State and a federal plaintiff justifies abstention unless one of the exceptions to Younger applies.” Post, at 435-436.
Section 11.02 (b) of Title 2 provides:
“(b) One or more matters covered by this subtitle may be determined in the suit. The court, on its own motion, may require the parties to replead in order that any issue affecting the parent-child relationship may be determined in the suit.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann., Tit. 2, § 11.02 (b) (1975).
As one Texas commentator has noted, § 11.02 (b) vests “a broad range of powers and duties on district courts in cases in which minors appear before the court.” Smith, Draftmen’s Commentary to Title 2 of the Texas Family Code, 5 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 389, 393 (1974). He notes that this section adopts the liberal approach to joinder of claims and remedies found in Tex. Rule Civ. Proc. 51. Section 11.14, which describes the hearing in suits affecting the parent-child relationship, fortifies that view. It states: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, proceedings shall be as in civil cases generally.”
Texas Rule Civ. Proc. 51 is modeled on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 18 and provides in relevant part that “[t]he plaintiff in his petition or in a reply setting forth a counterclaim and the defendant in an answer setting forth a counterclaim 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.” Thus, Texas procedural law has long encouraged joinder of claims in civil actions. See, e. g., Texas Gauze Mills v. Goatley, 119 S. W. 2d 887, 888 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938); Blair v. Gay, 33 Tex. 157, 165 (1870).
In a very recent case, In re R. E. W., 545 S. W. 2d 573 (1976), the Texas Court of Civil Appeals has indicated that under Title 2 the full range of constitutional challenges is cognizable in the emergency-removal proceedings and in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. Id., at 575. Therefore, this is not a case like Hernandez v. Finley, 471 F. Supp. 516 (ND Ill. 1978), summarily aff’d sub nom. Quern v. Hernandez, 440 U. S. 951 (1979), where the three-judge court found, after our remand in Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434 (1977), that the applicable state procedures did not permit the defendant to raise a constitutional challenge.
Thus, we cannot agree with the dissenters’ characterization of the claims raised below as being as unrelated as child abuse and traffic violations. As the District Court properly perceived it, this action is a comprehensive attack on an integrated statutory structure best suited to resolution in one forum. Our disagreement with the District Court is with its choice of forum. Likewise, there is little in our case law or sound judicial administration to commend the suggestion that Younger should have been invoked with respect to some of the claims in this case and others should have been left to the federal forum. Post, at 443. Given the interrelated nature of the claims, such a bifurcation would result in the duplicative litigation and lack of state-court interpretation of an integrated statutory framework that this Court, in Trainor v. Hernandez, supra, at 445, identified as central concerns underlying the Younger doctrine.
The dissenters’ additional argument that a constitutional attack on state procedures automatically vitiates the adequacy of those procedures for purposes of the Younger-Huffman line of cases is reiteration of a theme sounded and rejected in prior cases. See Trainor v. Hernandez, supra, at 469-470 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327, 339-340 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).
The District Court focused on psychiatric examinations, although there is no evidence that there was any examination of this nature administered to the Sims children before or after the temporary removal. Sims v. State Dept. of Public Welfare, 438 F. Supp. 1179, 1191.
The proposition that claims must be cognizable “as a defense” in the ongoing state proceeding, as put forward by our dissenting Brethren, post, at 436-437, converts a doctrine with substantive content into a mere semantical joust. There is no magic in the term “defense” when used in connection with the Younger doctrine if the word “defense” is intended to be used as a term of art. We do not here deal with the long-past niceties which distinguished among “defense,” “counterclaims,” “setoffs,” “recoup-ments,” and the like. As we stated in Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S., at 337:
“Here it is abundantly clear that appellees had an opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceedings. No more is required to invoke Younger abstention.... Appellees need be accorded only an opportunity to fairly pursue their constitutional claims in the ongoing state proceedings... and their failure to avail themselves of such opportunities does not mean that the state procedures were inadequate.” (Footnotes omitted; emphasis in original.)
In their brief, appellees argue that there was no adequate remedy at state law because their “every effort, to obtain judicial relief in State court was either frustrated or denied.” Brief for Appellees 25. During oral argument, counsel for appellees responded to a request for justification of federal-court involvement in this case by stating that appellees did not believe
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner was convicted in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 146 F. Supp. 555, for transporting in interstate commerce a check obtained by the perpetration of a fraud to which he had been a party. 18 U. S. C. § 2314. That conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on the ground that Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657, which had been decided after conviction but before appeal, required production for petitioner’s inspection of certain statements in the prosecutor’s possession. 245 F. 2d 870. The second trial thus ordered also resulted in a conviction, 157 F. Supp. 654, which was sustained by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 257 F. 2d 760. We granted certiorari, 358 U. S. 904, limited to the questions of the application of the Jencks rule to this prosecution, the effect of the statute enacted establishing legislative rules concerning .the production of documents, 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 3600, and the propriety of the ruling of the Court of Appeals that if the trial judge had erred in failing to deliver to petitioner certain documents, the error was harmless and therefore not grounds for reversal.
In the second trial, upon a demand for production for inspection of Federal Bureau of Investigation files, the United States Attorney delivered to the trial judge, and the trial judge in turn gave to petitioner’s counsel, numerous documents from the Government’s files. Many of these would not have been required to be provided under either the .Jencks. decision or the statute enacted subsequent to it. Petitioner complains that the few documents withheld by the trial judge were required to be submitted for his inspection by our opinion in Jencks' and that the failure to give'him that opportunity requires a reversal. We have today held in Palermo v. United States, ante, p. 343, that since its enactment 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 3500 and not the Jencks decision governs the production of statements of government witnesses' for a defendant’s inspection at trial.
In accordance with 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 3500 (c), the material withheld was preserved in the record to permit review of the correctness of the trial judge’s rulings. As did the Court of Appeals, we have reviewed the documents withheld by the trial judge. • Two are reports by FBI investigators which in no sense complied with subsection (e) of the statute. They were neither signed nor otherwise adopted by any witness at the trial, nor were they reproductions as statutorily required .of any statement made by any witness at the trial. A third document did comply with such requirement. It is a typewritten copy of a statement given by Rosenberg’s confessed associate in the crime, Meierdiercks, to the FBI. It is signed -by Meierdiercks and its contents were pertinent to the trial of the case. However, the original handwritten statement, of which this was, as already stated, merely a copy, was itself given to petitioner’s attorney. No relévant purpose could have been served by giving petitioner’s counsel a typewritten copy of a document which he had already been given in its original form, no advantage to the petitioner was denied by withholding it.
The last group of documents in controversy is a series of letters written by the victim Florence Vossler to the FBI. They were signed by her and thus met'the requirement of subsection (e). However, of the six letters-withheld by the trial, judge, five clearly fail to meet the' statutory requirement that only that statement “which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified” need be produced. 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 3500 (b). These five were totally irrelevant to the proceedings. In the sixth of this group of letter^, Florence Vossler wrote to the Assistant United States Attorney, that ■her memory had. dimmed in the three years that had passed since the fraud had been perpetrated and-that to refresh her failing memory she would have to reread the original statement she had given before the first trial to the FBI.
A statement by a witness that she fears her memory as to the events at issue was poor certainly “relates to the subject matter as to which the witness hás testified” and should have been given to defendant. This was recognized as error by the Court of Appeals. 257 F. 2d 760, 763. That court, however, found that- the same ■information which was contained’in• the letter was re; vealed to defendant’s counsel by statements made by Florence Vossler under cross-examination and upon questioning by the trial judge. A review of the record, portions of which are reproduced in an Appendix, precludes us from rejecting the judgment on which the Court of Appeals based its conclusion that the .failure to require production of this letter was empty of consequence. Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.
An appellate court'should not confidently guess what defendant’s attorney might have found useful for impeachment purposes in withheld documents to which the defense is entitled. However, when the very same information was possessed by defendant’s counsel as would have been available were error not committed, it would offend common sense and the fair administration of justice to order a new trial. There is such a thing as harmless error and this clearly was .such. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is therefore
Affirmed.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas, see post, p. 373.]
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Mr. Singer. “Miss Vossler, it has been quite sometime since you have testified. Have you had an opportunity within the last six months or so to go over any previous testimony or statements which you might have given with reference to this matter? Have you spoken to anyone — ”
Miss Vossler. “You mean'testimony that I gave?” '
Mr. Singer. “That is correct.”
Miss Vossler. “The testimony that I gave in this court?”
The Court. “Yes, in June, 1956.”
Miss Vossler. “Yes. No, I haven’t seen anything.”
The Court. “You haven’t seen — ”
Miss Vossler. “Any testimony.”
The .Court. “ — the transcript of that testimony — ” Miss Vossler. “No, sir.”
The Court, “ — which was in books like this (indicating) ?” •
Miss Vossler. “No, no, Your Honor, nothing.”
The Court. “Well, have you seen any statement which you gave to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?”
Miss Vossler. “Yes, because I had a copy of'the first statement that I gave on January 24. That is the only statemént I had.”
The Court. “Have you got that with you?”'
Miss Vossler. “No, I haven’t, now.”
The Court. “When did you last see it?”'
Miss Vossler. “Well, Mr. Bechtle asked that I leave it with him upstairs.”
The Court. “When was that?”
Miss Vossler. “Monday when I arrived here.”
The Court. “In other words, you looked it over Monday?” ' .
Miss Vossler; “Well, I glanced at it Monday. I didn’t read it line for line.”
The Court. “Well, when did you last read it line for line?”
• Miss Vossler. “Well, last week, because I had it at my home.”
The Court. “Last week you read over the statement — ”
Miss Vossler. “Yes.”
The Court. “ — of January 24, you say, 1955?”
Miss Vossler. “Yes. That is when the FBI agents came • to my home.”
The Court. “I see. Last week. You have that statement, don’t you?”
Mr. Singer. “I have it here.”
Miss Vossler. “That is the only statement that I have seen at all, at any time.”
Record, pp. 330-332.
Further evidence of Florence Vossler’s loss of clear recollection came to defendant’s attorney during the course of the cross-examination.' He asked the witness to identify a Mr. McComb.
Miss Vossler. “Well, let me see if I can remember. Mr. McComb came to my house one time — you see, it is always possible to find the names of people who buy leases or purchase leases — ”
Mr. Singer. “May I interrupt you one moment, please. In all fairness to the witness, Your Honor, I feel that I should introduce this report and permit her to refresh . her recollection.”
The Court. “Yes, thank you. What number is it?”
Mr. Singer. “This is Court’s Exhibit No. 10, which is a summary of various statements given by Miss Vossler to the FBI. And I ask Miss Vossler to read Page 2 so that she may properly answer the questions.”
Record, pp. 345-346.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11 allows debtors and their creditors to negotiate a plan for dividing an estate’s value. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1128, 1129, 1141. But sometimes the parties cannot agree on a plan. If so, the bankruptcy court may decide to dismiss the case. § 1112(b). The Code then ordinarily provides for what is, in effect, a restoration of the prepetition financial status quo. § 349(b),
In the case before us, a Bankruptcy Court dismissed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. But the-court did not simply restore the prepetition status quo. Instead, the court ordered a distribution of estate assets that gave money to high-priority secured creditors and to low-priority general unsecured creditors but which skipped certain dissenting mid-priority creditors. The skipped creditors would have been entitled to payment ahead of the general unsecured creditors in a Chapter 11 plan (or in a Chapter 7 liquidation). See §§ 507, 725, 726, 1129. The question before us is whether a bankruptcy court has the legal power to order this priority-skipping kind of distribution scheme in connection with a Chapter 11 dismissal.
In our view, a bankruptcy court does not have such a power. A distribution scheme ordered in connection with the dismissal of a Chapter 11 case cannot, without the consent of the affected parties, deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the primary mechanisms the Code establishes for final distributions of estate value in business bankruptcies.
I
A
1
We begin with a few fundamentals: A business may file for bankruptcy under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 11. In Chapter 7, a trustee liquidates the debtor’s assets and distributes them to creditors. See § 701 et seq. In Chapter 11, debtor and creditors try to negotiate a plan that will govern the distribution of valuable assets from the debtor’s estate and often keep the business operating as a going concern. See, e.g., §§ 1121, 1123, 1129, 1141 (setting out the framework in which the parties negotiate).
Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy has several relevant legal consequences. First, an estate is created comprising all property of the debtor. § 541(a)(1). Second, a fiduciary is installed to manage the estate in the interest of the creditors. §§ 1106, 1107(a). This fiduciary, often the debtor’s existing management team, acts as “debtor in possession.” §§ 1101(1), 1104. It may operate the business, §§ 363(c)(1), 1108, and perform certain bankruptcy-related functions; such as seeking to recover for the estate preferential or fraudulent transfers made to other persons, § 547 (transfers made before bankruptcy that unfairly preferred particular creditors); § 548 (fraudulent transfers, including transfers made before bankruptcy for which the debtor did not receive fair value). Third, an “automatic stay” of all collection proceedings against the debtor takes effect. § 362(a).
It is important to keep in mind that Chapter 11 foresees three possible outcomes. The first is a bankruptcy-court-confirmed plan. Such a plan may keep the business operating but, at the same time, help creditors by providing for payments, perhaps over time. See §§ 1123, 1129, 1141. The second possible outcome is conversion of the case to a Chapter 7 proceeding for liquidation of the business and a distribution of its remaining assets. §§ 1112(a), (b), 726. That conversion in effect confesses an inability to find a plan. The third possible outcome is dismissal of the Chapter 11 case. § 1112(b). A dismissal typically “revests the property of the estate in the entity in which such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case” — in other words, it aims to return to.the prepetition financial status quo. § 349(b)(3).
Nonetheless, recognizing that conditions may have changed in ways that make a perfect restoration of the status quo difficult or impossible, the Code permits the bankruptcy court, “for cause,” to alter a Chapter 11 dismissal’s ordinary restorative consequences. § 349(b). A dismissal that does so (or which has other special conditions attached) is often referred to as a “structured dismissal,” defined by the American Bankruptcy Institute as a
“hybrid dismissal and confirmation order... that... typically dismisses the case while, among other things, approving certain distributions to creditors, granting certain third-party releases, enjoining certain conduct by creditors, and not necessarily vacating orders or unwinding transactions undertaken during the case.” American Bankruptcy Institute Commission To Study the Reform of Chapter 11, 2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations 270 (2014).
Although the Code does not expressly mention structured dismissals, they “appear to be increasingly common.” Ibid., n. 973.
2
The Code also sets forth a basic system of priority, which ordinarily determines the order in which the bankruptcy court will distribute assets of the estate. Secured creditors are highest on the priority list, for they must receive the proceeds of the collateral that secures their debts. 11 U.S.C. § 725. Special classes of creditors, such as those who hold certain claims for taxes or wages, come next in a listed order. §§ 507, 726(a)(1). Then come low-priority creditors, including general unsecured creditors. § 726(a)(2). The Code places equity holders at the bottom of the priority list. They receive nothing until all previously listed creditors have been paid in full. § 726(a)(6).
The Code makes clear that distributions of assets in a Chapter 7 liquidation must follow this prescribed order. §§ 725, 726. It provides somewhat more flexibility for distributions pursuant to Chapter 11 plans, which may impose a different ordering with the consent of the affected parties. But a bankruptcy court cannot confirm a plan that contains priority-violating distributions over the objection of an impaired creditor class. §§ 1129(a)(7), 1129(b)(2).
The question here concerns the interplay between the Code’s priority rules and a Chapter 11 dismissal. Here, the Bankruptcy Court neither liquidated the debtor under Chapter 1- nor confirmed a Chapter 11 plan. But the court, instead of reverting to the prebankruptcy status quo, ordered a distribution of the estate assets to creditors by attaching conditions to the dismissal (ie„ it ordered a structured dismissal). The Code does not explicitly state what priority rules — if any — apply to a distribution in these circumstances. May a court consequently provide for distributions that deviate from the ordinary priority rules that would apply to a Chapter 7 liquidation or a Chapter 11 plan? Can it approve conditions that give estate assets to members of a lower priority class while skipping objecting members of a higher priority class?
B
In 2006, Sun Capital Partners, a private equity firm, acquired Jevic Transportation Corporation with money borrowed from CIT Group in a “leveraged buyout.” In a leveraged buyout, the buyer (B) typically borrows from a third party (T) a large share of the funds needed to purchase a company (C). B then pays the money to C’s shareholders. Having bought the stock, B owns C. B then pledges C’s assets to T so that T will have security for its loan. Thus, if the selling price for C is $60 million, B might use $10 million of its own money, borrow $40 million from T, pay $50 million to C’s shareholders, and then pledge C assets worth $40 million (or more) to T as security for T’s $40 million loan. If B manages C well, it might make enough money to pay T back the $40 million and earn a handsome profit on its own $10 million investment. But, if the deal sours and C descends into bankruptcy, beware of what might happen: Instead of C’s $40 million in assets being distributed to its existing creditors, the money will go to T to pay back T’s loan— the loan that allowed B to buy C. (T will receive what remains of C’s assets because T is now a secured creditor, putting it at the top of the priority list). Since C’s shareholders receive money while C’s creditors lose their claim to C’s remaining assets, unsuccessful leveraged buyouts often lead to fraudulent conveyance suits alleging that the purchaser (B) transferred the company’s assets without receiving fair value in return. See Lipson & Vandermeuse, Stern, Seriously: The Article I Judicial Power, Fraudulent Transfers, and Leveraged Buyouts, 2013 Wis. L.Rev. 1161, 1220-1221.
This is precisely what happened here. Just two years after Sun’s buyout, Jevic (C in our leveraged buyout example) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At the time of filing, it owed $53 million to senior secured creditors Sun and CIT (B and T in our example), and over $20 million to tax and general unsecured creditors.
The circumstances surrounding Jevic’s bankruptcy led to two lawsuits. First, petitioners, a group of former Jevic truckdrivers, filed suit in bankruptcy court against Jevic and Sun. Petitioners pointed out that, just before entering bankruptcy, Jevic had halted almost all its operations and had told petitioners that they would be fired. Petitioners claimed that Jevic and Sun had thereby violated state and federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Acts — laws that require a company to give workers at least 60 days’ notice before their termination. See 29 U.S.C. § 2102; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:21-2 (West 2011). The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment for petitioners against Jevic, leaving them (and this is the point to remember) with a judgment that petitioners say is worth $12.4 million. See In re Jevic Holding Corp., 496 B.R. 151 (Bkrtcy.Ct.D.Del.2013), Some $8.3 million of that judgment counts as a priority wage claim under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4), and is therefore entitled to payment ahead of general unsecured claims against the Jevic estate.
Petitioners’ WARN suit against Sun continued throughout most of the litigation now before us. But eventually Sun prevailed on the ground that Sun was not the workers’ employer at the relevant times. See In re Jevic Holding Corp., 656 Fed.Appx. 617 (C.A.3 2016).
Second, the Bankruptcy Court authorized a committee representing Jevic’s unsecured creditors to sue Sun and CIT. The Bankruptcy Court and the parties were aware that any proceeds from such a suit would belong not to the unsecured creditors, but to the bankruptcy estate. See §§ 541(a)(1), (6); Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, 330 F.3d 548, 552-553 (C.A.3 2003) (en banc) (holding that a creditor’s committee can bring a derivative action on behalf of the estate). The committee alleged that Sun and CIT, in the course of their leveraged buyout, had “hastened Jevic’s bankruptcy by saddling it with debts that it couldn’t service.” In re Jevic Holding Corp., 787 F.3d 173, 176 (C.A.3 2015). In 2011, the Bankruptcy Court held that the committee had adequately pleaded claims of preferential transfer under § 547 and of fraudulent transfer under § 548. In re Jevic Holding Corp., 2011 WL 4345204 (Bkrtcy.Ct.D.Del., Sept. 15, 2011).
Sun, CIT, Jevic, and the committee then tried to negotiate a settlement of this “fraudulent-conveyance” lawsuit. By that point, the depleted Jevic estate’s only remaining assets were the fraudulent-conveyance claim itself and $1.7 million in cash, which was subject to a lien held by Sun.
The parties reached a settlement agreement. It provided (1) that the Bankruptcy Court would dismiss the fraudulent-conveyance action with prejudice; (2) that CIT would deposit $2 million into an account earmarked to pay the committee’s legal fees and administrative expenses; (3) that Sun would assign its lien on Jevic’s remaining $1.7 million to a trust, which would pay taxes and administrative expenses and distribute the remainder on a pro rata basis to the low-priority general unsecured creditors, but which wmld not distribute anything to petitioners (who, by virtue of their WARN judgment, held an $8.3 million mid-level-priority wage claim against the estate); and (4) that Jevic’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy would be dismissed.
Apparently Sun insisted on a distribution that would skip petitioners because petitioners’ WARN suit against Sun was still pending and Sun did not want to help finance that litigation. See 787 F.3d, at 177-178, n. 4 (Sun’s counsel acknowledging before the Bankruptcy Court that “‘Sun probably does care where the money goes because you can take judicial notice that there’s a pending WARN action against Sun by the WARN plaintiffs. And if the money goes to the WARN plaintiffs, then you’re funding someone who is suing you who otherwise doesn’t have funds and is doing it on a contingent fee basis’ ”). The essential point is that, regardless of the reason, the proposed settlement called for a structured dismissal that provided for distributions that did not follow ordinary priority rules.
Sun, CIT, Jevic, and the committee asked the Bankruptcy Court to approve the settlement and dismiss the case. Petitioners and the U.S. Trustee objected, arguing that the settlement’s distribution plan violated the Code’s priority scheme because it skipped petitioners — who, by virtue of their WARN judgment, had mid-level priority claims against estate assets — and distributed estate money to low-priority general unsecured creditors.
The Bankruptcy Court agreed with petitioners that the settlement’s distribution scheme failed to follow ordinary priority rules. App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a. But it held that this did not bar approval. Ibid. That, in the Bankruptcy Court’s view, was because the proposed payouts would occur pursuant to a structured dismissal of a Chapter 11 petition rather than an approval of a Chapter 11 plan. Ibid. The court accordingly decided to grant the motion in light of the “dire circumstances” facing the estate and its creditors. Id., at 57a. Specifically, the court predicted that without the settlement and dismissal, there was “no realistic prospect” of a meaningful distribution for anyone other than the secured creditors. Id., at 58a. A confirmable Chapter 11 plan was unattainable. And there would be no funds to operate, investigate, or litigate were the case converted to a proceeding in Chapter 7. Ibid.
The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court. It recognized that the settlement distribution violated ordinary priority rules. But those rules, it wrote, were “not a bar to the approval of the settlement as [the settlement] is not a reorganization plan.” In re Jevic Holding Corp., 2014 WL 268613, *3 (D.Del., Jan. 24, 2014).
The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court by a vote of 2 to 1. 787 F.3d, at 175; id., at 186 (Seirica, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The majority held that structured dismissals need not always respect priority. Congress, the court explained, had only “codified the absolute priority rule... in the specific context of plan confirmation.” Id., at 183. As a result, courts could, “in rare instances like this one, approve structured dismissals that do not strictly adhere to the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.” Id., at 180.
Petitioners <the workers with the WARN judgment) sought certiorari. We granted their petition.
II
Respondents initially argue that petitioners lack standing because they have suffered no injury, or at least no injury that will be remedied by a decision in their favor. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. -, -, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (explaining that, for Article III standing, a plaintiff must have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision”). Respondents concede that the structured dismissal approved by the Bankruptcy Court contained distribution conditions that skipped over petitioners, ensuring that petitioners received nothing on their multimillion-dollar WARN claim against the Jevie estate. But respondents still assert that petitioners suffered no loss.
The reason, respondents say, is that petitioners would have gotten nothing even if the Bankruptcy Court had never approved the structured dismissal in the first place, and will still get nothing if the structured dismissal is undone now. Reversal will eliminate the settlement of the committee’s fraudulent-conveyance lawsuit, which was conditioned on the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the priority-violating structured dismissal. If the Bankruptcy Court cannot approve that dismissal, respondents contend, Sun and CIT will no longer agree to settle. Nor will petitioners ever be able to obtain a litigation recovery. Hence there will be no lawsuit money to distribute. And in the absence of lawsuit money, Jevic’s assets amount to about $1.7 million, all pledged to Sun, leaving nothing for anyone else, let alone petitioners. Thus, even if petitioners are right that the structured dismissal was impermissible, it cost them nothing. And a judicial decision in their favor will gain them nothing. No loss. No redress.
This argument, however, rests upon respondents’ claims (1) that, without a violation of ordinary priority rules, there will be no settlement, and (2) that, without a settlement, the fraudulent-conveyance lawsuit has no value. In our view, the record does not support either of these propositions.
As to the first, the record indicates that a settlement that respects ordinary priorities remains a reasonable possibility. It makes clear (as counsel made clear before our Court, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 58) that Sun insisted upon a settlement that gave petitioners nothing only because it did not want to help fund petitioners’ WARN lawsuit against it. See 787 F.3d, at 177-178, n. 4. But, Sun has now won that lawsuit. See 656 Fed.Appx. 617. If Sun’s given reason for opposing distributions to petitioners has disappeared, why would Sun not settle while permitting some of the settlement money to go to petitioners?
As to the second, the record indicates that the fraudulent-conveyance claim could have litigation value. CIT and Sun, after all, settled the lawsuit for $3.7 million, which would make little sense if the action truly had no chance of success. The Bankruptcy Court could convert the case to Chapter 7, allowing a Chapter 7 trustee to pursue the suit against Sun and CIT. Or the court could simply dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy, thereby allowing petitioners to assert the fraudulent-conveyance claim themselves. Given these possibilities, there is no reason to believe that the claim could not be pursued with counsel obtained on a contingency basis. Of course, the lawsuit — like any lawsuit— might prove fruitless, but the mere possibility of failure does not eliminate the value of the claim or petitioners’ injury in being unable to bring it.
Consequently, the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the structured dismissal cost petitioners something. They lost a chance to obtain a settlement that respected their priority. Or, if not that, they lost the power to bring their own lawsuit on a claim that had a settlement value of $3.7 million. For standing purposes, a loss of even a small amount of money is ordinarily an “injury.” See, e.g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 430-431, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961) (finding that appellants fined $5 plus costs had standing to assert an Establishment Clause challenge). And the ruling before us could well have cost petitioners considerably more. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 430-431, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998) (imposition of a “substantial contingent liability” qualifies as an injury). A decision in petitioners’ favor is likely to redress that loss. We accordingly conclude that petitioners have standing.
' We turn to the basic question presented: Can a bankruptcy court approve a structured dismissal that provides for distributions that do not follow ordinary priority rules without, the affected creditors’ consent? Our simple answer to this complicated question is “no.”
The Code’s priority system constitutes a basic underpinning of business bankruptcy law. Distributions of estate assets at the termination of a business bankruptcy normally take place through a Chapter 7 liquidation or a Chapter 11 plan, and both are governed by priority. In Chapter 7 liquidations, priority is an absolute command — lower priority creditors cannot receive anything until higher priority creditors have been paid in full. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 725, 726. Chapter 11 plans provide somewhat more flexibility, but a priority-violating plan still cannot be confirmed over the objection of an impaired class of creditors. See § 1129(b).
The priority system applicable to those distributions has long been considered fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code’s operation. See H-R.Rep. No. 103-835, p. 33 (1994) (explaining that the Code is “designed to enforce a distribution of the debtor’s assets in an orderly manner... in accordance with established principles rather than on the basis of the inside influence or economic leverage of a particular creditor”); Roe & Tung, Breaking Bankruptcy Priority: How Rent-Seeking Upends The Creditors’ Bargain, 99 Va. L. Rev. 1235, 1243, 1236 (2013) (arguing that the first principle of bankruptcy is that “distribution conforms to pi’edetermined statutory and contractual priorities,” and that priority is, “quite appropriately, bankruptcy’s most important and famous rule”); Markell, Owners, Auctions, and Absolute Priority in Bankruptcy Reorganizations, 44 Stan. L. Rev. 69, 123 (1991) (stating that a fixed priority scheme is recognized as “the cornerstone of reorganization practice and theory”).
The importance of the priority system leads us to expect more than simple statutory silence if, and.when, Congress were to intend a major departure. See Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) (“Congress... does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes”). Put somewhat more directly, we would expect to see some affirmative indication of intent if Congress actually meant to make structured dismissals a backdoor means to achieve the exact kind of nonconsensual priority-violating final distributions that the Code prohibits in Chapter 7 liquidations and Chapter 11 plans.
We can find nothing in the statute that evinces this intent.. The Code gives a bankruptcy court the power to “dismiss” a Chapter 11 case. § 1112(b). But the word “dismiss” itself says nothing about the power to make nonconsensual priority-violating distributions of estate value. Neither the word “structured,” nor the word “conditions,” nor anything else about distributing estate value to creditors pursuant to a dismissal appears in any relevant part of the Code.
Insofar as the dismissal sections of Chapter 11 foresee any transfer of assets, they seek a restoration of the prepetition financial status quo. See § 349(b)(1) (dismissal ordinarily reinstates a variety of avoided transfers and voided liens); § 349(b)(2) (dismissal ordinarily vacates certain types of bankruptcy orders); § 349(b)(3) (dismissal ordinarily “revests the property of the estate in the entity in which such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case”); see also H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, p. 338 (1977) (dismissal’s “basic purpose... is to undo the bankruptcy case, as far as practicable, and to restore all property rights to the position in which they were found at the commencement of the case”).
Section 349(b), we concede, also says that a bankruptcy judge may, “for cause, orde[r] otherwise.” But, read in context, this provision appears designed to give courts the flexibility to “make the appropriate orders to protect rights acquired in reliance on the bankruptcy case.” H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, at 338; cf., e.g., Wiese v. Community Bank of Central Wis., 552 F.3d 584, 590 (C.A.7 2009) (upholding, under § 349(b), a Bankruptcy Court’s decision not to reinstate a debtor’s claim against a bank that gave up a lien in reliance on the claim being released in the debtor’s reorganization plan). Nothing else in the Code authorizes a court ordering a dismissal to make general end-of-case distributions of estate assets to creditors of the kind that normally take place in a Chapter 7 liquidation or Chapter 11 plan — let alone final distributions that do not help to restore the status quo ante or protect reliance interests acquired in the bankruptcy, and that would be flatly impermissible in a Chapter 7 liquidation or a Chapter 11 plan because they violate priority without the impaired creditors’ consent. That being so, the word “cause” is too weak a reed upon which to rest so weighty a power. See United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988) (noting that “[statutory construction... is a holistic endeavor” and that a court should select a “meanin[g that] produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law”); Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 43, 107 S.Ct. 353, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986) (in interpreting a statute, a court “must not be 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. In re Sadler, 935 F.2d 918, 921 (C.A.7 1991) (“ ‘Cause’ under § 349(b) means an acceptable reason. Desire to make an end run around a statute is not an adequate reason”).
We have found no contrary precedent, either from this Court, or, for that matter, from lower court decisions reflecting common bankruptcy practice. The Third Circuit referred briefly to In re Buffet Partners, L.P., 2014 WL 3735804 (Bkrtcy.Ct. N.D.Tex., July 28, 2014). The court in that case approved a structured dismissal. (We express no view about the legality of structured dismissals in general.) But at the same time it pointed out “that not one party with an economic stake in the case has objected to the dismissal in this manner.” Id., at *4.
The Third Circuit also relied upon In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (C.A.2 2007). But Iridium did not involve a structured dismissal. It addressed an interim distribution of settlement proceeds to fund a litigation trust that would press claims on the estate’s behalf. See id., at 459-460. The Iridium court observed that, when evaluating this type of preplan settlement, “[i]t is difficult to employ the rule of priorities” because “the nature and extent of the Estate and the claims against it are not yet fully resolved.” Id., at 464 (emphasis added). The decision does not state or suggest that the Code authorizes nonconsensual departures from ordinary priority rules in the context of a dismissal — which is a final distribution of estate value — and in the absence of any further unresolved bankruptcy issues.
We recognize that Iridium is not the only case in which a court has approved interim distributions that violate ordinary priority rules. But in such instances one can generally find significant Code-related objectives that the priority-violating distributions serve. Courts, for example, have approved “first-day” wage orders that allow payment of employees’ prepetition wages, “critical vendor” orders that allow payment of essential suppliers’ prepetition invoices, and “roll-ups” that allow lenders who continue financing the debtor to be paid first on their prepetition claims. See Cybergenics, 330 F.3d, at 574, n. 8; D. Baird, Elements of Bankruptcy 232-234 (6th ed. 2014); Roe, 99 Va. L. Rev., at 1250-1264. In doing so, these courts have usually found that the distributions at issue would “enable a successful reorganization and make even the disfavored creditors better off.” In re Kmart Corp., 359 F.3d 866, 872 (C.A.7 2004) (discussing the justifications for critical-vendor orders); see also Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157, 163-164, 111 S.Ct. 2197, 115 L.Ed.2d 145 (1991) (recognizing “permitting business debtors to reorganize and restructure their debts in order to revive the debtors’ businesses” and “maximizing the value of the bankruptcy estate” as purposes of the Code). By way of contrast, in a structured dismissal like the one ordered below, the priority-violating distribution is attached to a final disposition; it does not preserve the debtor as a going concern; it does not make the disfavored creditors better off; it does not promote the possibility of a con-firmable plan; it does not help to restore the status quo ante; and it does not protect reliance interests. In short, we cannot find in the violation of ordinary priority rules that occurred here any significant offsetting bankruptcy-related justification.
Rather, the distributions at issue here more closely resemble proposed transactions that lower courts have refused to allow on the ground that they circumvent the Code’s procedural safeguards. See, e.g., In re Braniff Airways, Inc., 700 F.2d 935, 940 (C.A.5 1983) (prohibiting an attempt to “short circuit the requirements of Chapter 11 for confirmation of a reorganization plan by establishing the terms of the plan sub rosa in connection with a sale of assets”); In re Lionel Corp., 722 F.2d 1063, 1069 (C.A.2 1983) (reversing a Bankruptcy Court’s approval of an asset sale after holding that § 363 does not “gran[t] the bankruptcy judge carte blanche” or “swallo[w] up Chapter ll’s safeguards”); In re Biolitec, Inc., 528 B.R. 261, 269 (Bkrtcy.Ct.N.J.2014) (rejecting a structured dismissal because it “seeks to alter parties’ rights without their consent and lacks many of the Code’s most important safeguards”); cf. In re Chrysler LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 118 (C.A.2 2009) (approving a § 363 asset sale because the bankruptcy court demonstrated “proper solicitude for the priority between creditors and deemed it essential that the [s]ale in no way upset that priority”), vacated as moot, 592 F.3d 370 (C.A.2 2010) (per curiam).
IV
We recognize that the Third Circuit did not approve nonconsensual priority-violating structured dismissals in general. To the contrary, the court held that they were permissible only in those “rare case[s]” in which courts could find “sufficient reasons” to disregard priority. 787 F.3d, at 175, 186. Despite the “rare case” limitation, we still cannot agree.
For one thing, it is difficult to give precise content to the concept “sufficient reasons.” That fact threatens to turn a “rare case” exception into a more general rule. Consider the present case. The Bankruptcy Court feared that (1) without the worker-skipping distribution, there would be no settlement, (2) without a settlement, all the unsecured creditors would receive nothing, and consequently (3) its distributions would make some creditors (high- and low-priority creditors) better off without making other (mid-priority) creditors worse off (for they would receive nothing regardless). But, as we have pointed out, the record provides equivocal support for the first two propositions. See supra, at 982 - 983. And, one can readily imagine other cases that turn on comparably dubious predictions. The result is uncertainty. And uncertainty will lead to similar claims being made in many, not just a few, cases. See Rudzik, A Priority Is a Priority Is a Priority — Except When It Isn’t, 34 Am. Bankr. Inst. J. 16, 79 (2015) (“[Ojnce the floodgates are opened, debtors and favored creditors can be expected to make every case that ‘rare case’ ”).
The consequences are potentially serious. They include departure from the protections Congress granted particular classes of creditors. See, e.g., United States v. Embassy Restaurant, Inc., 359 U.S. 29, 32, 79 S.Ct. 554, 3 L.Ed.2d 601 (1959) (Congress established employee wage priority “to alleviate in some degree the hardship that unemployment usually brings to workers and their families” when an employer files for bankruptcy); H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, at 187 (explaining the importance of ensuring that employees do not “abandon a failing business for fear of not being paid”). They include changes in the bargaining power of different classes of creditors even in bankruptcies that do not end in structured dismissals. See Warren, A Theory of Absolute Priority, 1991 Ann. Survey Am. L. 9, 30. They include risks of collusion, i.e., senior secured creditors and general unsecured creditors teaming up to squeeze out priority unsecured creditors. See Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Assn. v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 526 U.S. 434, 444, 119 S.Ct. 1411, 143 L.Ed.2d 607 (1999) (discussing how the absolute priority rule was developed in response to “concern with ‘the ability of a few insiders, whether representatives of management or major creditors, to use the reorganization process to gain an unfair advantage’” (quoting H.R. Doc. No. 93-137, pt. I, p. 255 (1973))). And they include making settlement more difficult to achieve. See Landes & Posner, Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, 19 J. Law & Econ. 249, 271 (1976) (arguing that “the ratio of lawsuits to settlements is mainly a function of the amount of uncertainty, which
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In November, and again in December 1981, the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare mailed a written notice to over 16,000 recipients advising them that a recent change in federal law might result in either a reduction or a termination of their food-stamp benefits. The notice did not purport to explain the precise impact of the change on each individual recipient. The question this case presents is whether that notice violated any federal statute or regulation, or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we conclude that there was no violation.
In an attempt to “permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade,” Congress created a federally subsidized food-stamp program. The Secretary of Agriculture prescribes the standards for eligibility for food stamps, but state agencies are authorized to make individual eligibility determinations and to distribute the food stamps to eligible households, which may use them to purchase food from approved, retail food stores. The eligibility of an individual household, and the amount of its food-stamp allotment, are based on several factors, including the size of the household and its income. Certifications of eligibility expire periodically and are renewed on the basis of applications submitted by the households.
Prior to 1981, federal law provided that 20 percent of the household’s earned income should be deducted, or disregarded, in computing eligibility. The purpose of the earned-income disregard was to maintain the recipients’ incentive to earn and to report income. In 1981 Congress amended the Food Stamp Act to reduce this deduction from 20 percent to 18 percent. That amendment had no effect on households with no income or with extremely low income, but caused a reduction of benefits in varying amounts, or a complete termination of benefits, for families whose income placed them close to the border between eligibility and ineligibility.
On September 4, 1981, the Department of Agriculture issued regulations providing for the implementation of the change in the earned-income disregard and directing the States to provide notice to food-stamp recipients. That directive indicated that the form of the notice might comply with the regulations dealing with so-called “mass changes,” rather than with the regulations dealing with individual “adverse actions.”
In November, the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare (Department) mailed a brief, ambiguously dated notice to all food-stamp recipients with earned income advising them that the earned-income deduction had been lowered from 20 percent to 18 percent and that the change would result in either a reduction or a termination of their benefits. The notice was printed on a card, in English on one side and Spanish on the other. The notice stated that the recipient had a right to request a hearing “if you disagree with this action,” and that benefits would be reinstated if a hearing was requested within 10 days of the notice.
On December 10, 1981, petitioners in No. 83-6381 commenced this action on behalf of all Massachusetts households that had received the notice. They alleged that the notice was inadequate as a matter of law and moved for a temporary restraining order. On December 16, 1981, after certifying the action as a class action, and after commenting that the “notice was deficient in that it failed to provide recipients with a date to determine the time in which they could appeal,” the District Court enjoined the Department from reducing or terminating any benefits on the basis of that notice.
The Department, in compliance with the District Court’s order, mailed supplemental benefits for the month of December to each of the 16,640 class members. It then sent out a second notice, in English and Spanish versions, dated December 26, which stated in part:
“ * * * IMPORTANT NOTICE — READ CAREFULLY * * *
“RECENT CHANGES IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM HAVE BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1981 FEDERAL LAW. UNDER THIS LAW, THE EARNED INCOME DEDUCTION FOR FOOD STAMP BENEFITS HAS BEEN LOWERED FROM 20 TO 18 PERCENT. THIS REDUCTION MEANS THAT A HIGHER PORTION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD’S EARNED INCOME WILL BE COUNTED IN DETERMINING YOUR ELIGIBILITY AND BENEFIT AMOUNT FOR FOOD STAMPS. AS A RESULT OF THIS FEDERAL CHANGE, YOUR BENEFITS WILL EITHER BE REDUCED IF YOU REMAIN ELIGIBLE OR YOUR BENEFITS WILL BE TERMINATED. (FOOD STAMP MANUAL CITATION: 106 CMR:364.400).
“YOUR RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING:
“YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A FAIR HEARING IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS ACTION. IF YOU ARE REQUESTING A HEARING, YOUR FOOD STAMP BENEFITS WILL BE REINSTATED. ... IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CORRECTNESS OF YOUR BENEFITS COMPUTATION OR THE FAIR HEARING PROCESS, CONTACT YOUR LOCAL WELFARE OFFICE. YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL AT ANY TIME IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE NOT RECEIVING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF FOOD STAMPS.”
Petitioners filed a supplemental complaint attacking the adequacy of this notice, and again moved for a preliminary injunction. In October 1982, the District Court consolidated the hearing on that motion with the trial on the merits and again ruled in petitioners’ favor. The District Court found that there was a significant risk of error in the administration of the food-stamp program, particularly with the implementation of the change in the earned-income disregard, and that the failure to provide each recipient with an adequate notice increased the risk of error. In essence, the District Court concluded that the December notice was defective because it did not advise each household of the precise change in its benefits, or with the information necessary to enable the recipient to calculate the correct change; because it did not tell recipients whether their benefits were being reduced or terminated; and because the reading level and format of the notice made it difficult to comprehend. Based on the premise that the statutorily mandated reduction or termination of benefits was a deprivation of property subject to the full protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court held that the Due Process Clause had been violated.
As a remedy, the District Court ordered the Department “to return forthwith to each and every household in the plaintiff class all food stamp benefits lost as a result of the action taken pursuant to the December notice” between January 1, 1981, and the date the household received adequate notice, had its benefits terminated for a reason unrelated to the change in the earned-income disregard, or had its file re-certified. The District Court also ordered that all future food-stamp notices issued by the Department contain various data, including the old and new benefit amounts, and that the Department issue regulations, subject to court approval, governing the form of future food-stamp notices.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the District Court’s constitutional holding, indicated its belief that Congress could not have “intended a constitutionally deficient notice to satisfy the statutory notice requirement,” and thus affirmed the District Court’s holding that “the December notice failed to satisfy the notice requirements of 7 U. S. C. § 2020(e)(10) and 7 CFR §273.12(e)(2) (ii).” Foggs v. Block, 722 F. 2d 933, 939-940 (1983). The Court of Appeals held, however, that the District Court had erred in ordering a reinstatement of benefits and in specifying the form of future notices.
Petitioners in No. 83-6381 sought review of the Court of Appeals’ modification of the District Court’s remedy, and the Department, in No. 83-1660, cross-petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the holding on liability. We granted both the petition and the cross-petition, and invited the Solicitor General to participate in the argument. 467 U. S. 1250 (1984). We conclude that the notice was lawful, and therefore have no occasion to discuss the remedy issue that the petition in No. 83-6381 presents. Because there would be no need to decide the constitutional question if we found a violation of either the statute or the regulations, we first consider the statutory issue.
I
The only reference in the Food Stamp Act to a notice is contained in § 2020(e), which outlines the requirements of a state plan of operation. Subsection (10) of that section provides that a state plan must grant a fair hearing, and a prompt determination, to any household that is aggrieved by the action of a state agency. A proviso to that subsection states that any household “which timely requests such a fair hearing after receiving individual notice of agency action reducing or terminating its benefits” shall continue to receive the same level of benefits until the hearing is completed.
The language of the proviso does not itself command that any notice be given, but it does indicate that Congress assumed that individual notice would be an element of the fair-hearing requirement. Thus, whenever a household is entitled to a fair hearing, it is appropriate to read the statute as imposing a requirement of individual notice that would enable the household to request such a hearing. The hearing requirement, and the incidental reference to “individual notice,” however, are by their terms applicable only to “agency action reducing or terminating” a household's benefits. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Congress contemplated individual hearings for every household affected by a general change in the law.
The legislative history of §2020(e)(10) sheds light on its meaning. As originally enacted in 1964, the Food Stamp Act contained no fair-hearing requirement. See 78 Stat. 703-709. In 1971, however, in response to this Court’s decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), Congress amended the Act to include a fair-hearing provision, and in the Food Stamp Act of 1977, § 2020(e)(10) was enacted in its present form. The legislative history of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 contains a description of the then-existing regulations, which were promulgated after the 1971 amendment, and which drew a distinction between the requirement of notice in advance of an “adverse action” based on the particular facts of an individual case, on the one hand, and the absence of any requirement of individual notice of a “mass change,” on the other. That history contains no suggestion that Congress intended to eliminate that distinction; to the contrary, Congress expressly recognized during the period leading to the enactment of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 the distinction between the regulatory requirement regarding notice in the case of an adverse action and the lack of such a requirement in the case of a mass change. Read against this background, the relevant statutory language — which does not itself mandate any notice at all but merely assumes that a request for a hearing will be preceded by “individual notice of agency action” — cannot fairly be construed as a command to give notice of a general change in the law.
Nor can we find any basis for concluding that the December notice failed to comply with the applicable regulations. Title 7 CFR § 273.12(e)(2)(h) (1984) provides:
“(ii) A notice of adverse action is not required when a household’s food stamp benefits are reduced or terminated as a result of a mass change in the public assistance grant. However, State agencies shall send individual notices to households to inform them of the change. If a household requests a fair hearing, benefits shall be continued at the former level only if the issue being appealed is that food stamp eligibility or benefits were improperly computed.”
This regulation reflects the familiar distinction between an individual adverse action and a mass change. The statement that a notice of adverse action is not required when a change of benefits results from a mass change surely implies that individual computations are not required in such cases. The two requirements that are imposed when a mass change occurs are: (1) that “individual” notice be sent and (2) that it “inform them of the change.” In this case, a separate individual notice was sent to each individual household and it did “inform them of the change” in the program that Congress had mandated. Since the word “change” in the regulation plainly refers to the “mass change,” the notice complied with the regulation.
II
Since the notice of the change in the earned-income disregard was sufficient under the statute and under the regulations, we must consider petitioners’ claim that they had a constitutional right to advance notice of the amendment’s specific impact on their entitlement to food stamps before the statutory change could be implemented by reducing or terminating their benefits. They argue that an individualized calculation of the new benefit was necessary in order to avoid the risk of an erroneous reduction or termination.
The record in this case indicates that members of petitioners’ class had their benefits reduced or terminated for either or both of two reasons: (1) because Congress reduced the earned-income disregard from 20 percent to 18 percent; or (2) because inadvertent errors were made in calculating benefits. These inadvertent errors, however, did not necessarily result from the statutory change, but rather may have been attributable to a variety of factors that can occur in the administration of any large welfare program. For example, each of the named petitioners, presumably representative of the class, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a), appealed a reduction in benefits. None identified an error resulting from the legislative decision to change the earned-income disregard. But even if it is assumed that the mass change increased the risk of erroneous reductions in benefits, that assumption does not support the claim that the actual notice used in this case was inadequate. For that notice plainly informed each household of the opportunity to request a fair hearing and the right to have its benefit level frozen if a hearing was requested. As the testimony of the class representatives indicates, every class member who contacted the Department had his or her benefit level frozen, and received a fair hearing, before any loss of benefit occurred. Thus, the Department’s procedures provided adequate protection against any deprivation based on an unintended mistake. To determine whether the Constitution required a more detailed notice of the mass change, we therefore put the miscellaneous errors to one side and confine our attention to the reductions attributable to the statutory change.
Food-stamp benefits, like the welfare benefits at issue in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), “are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.” Id., at 262 (footnote omitted). Such entitlements are appropriately treated as a form of “property” protected by the Due Process Clause; accordingly, the procedures that are employed in determining whether an individual may continue to participate in the statutory program must comply with the commands of the Constitution. Id., at 262-263.
This case, however, does not concern the procedural fairness of individual eligibility determinations. Rather, it involves a legislatively mandated substantive change in the scope of the entire program. Such a change must, of course, comply with the substantive limitations on the power of Congress, but there is no suggestion in this case that the amendment at issue violated any such constraint. Thus, it must be assumed that Congress had plenary power to define the scope and the duration of the entitlement to food-stamp benefits, and to increase, to decrease, or to terminate those benefits based on its appraisal of the relative importance of the recipients’ needs and the resources available to fund the program. The procedural component of the Due Process Clause does not “impose a constitutional limitation on the power of Congress to make substantive changes in the law of entitlement to public benefits.” Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78, 81 (1971).
The congressional decision to lower the earned-income deduction from 20 percent to 18 percent gave many food-stamp households a less valuable entitlement in 1982 than they had received in 1981. But the 1981 entitlement did not include any right to have the program continue indefinitely at the same level, or to phrase it another way, did not include any right to the maintenance of the same level of property entitlement. Before the statutory change became effective, the existing property entitlement did not qualify the legislature’s power to substitute a different, less valuable entitlement at a later date. As we have frequently noted: “[A] welfare recipient is not deprived of due process when the legislature adjusts benefit levels. . . . [T]he legislative determination provides all the process that is due.”
The participants in the food-stamp program had no greater right to advance notice of the legislative change — in this case, the decision to change the earned-income disregard level— than did any other voters. They do not claim that there was any defect in the legislative process. Because the substantive reduction in the level of petitioners’ benefits was the direct consequence of the statutory amendment, they have no basis for challenging the procedure that caused them to receive a different, less valuable property interest after the amendment became effective.
The claim that petitioners had a constitutional right to better notice of the consequences of the statutory amendment is without merit. All citizens are presumptively charged with knowledge of the law, see, e. g., North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U. S. 276, 283 (1925). Arguably that presumption may be overcome in cases in which the statute does not allow a sufficient “grace period” to provide the persons affected by a change in the law with an adequate opportunity to become familiar with their obligations under it. See Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U. S. 516, 532 (1982). In this case, however, not only was there a grace period of over 90 days before the amendment became effective, but in addition, every person affected by the change was given individual notice of the substance of the amendment.
As a matter of constitutional law there can be no doubt concerning the sufficiency of the notice describing the effect of the amendment in general terms. Surely Congress can presume that such a notice relative to a matter as important as a change in a household’s food-stamp allotment would prompt an appropriate inquiry if it is not fully understood. The entire structure of our democratic government rests on the premise that the individual citizen is capable of informing himself about the particular policies that affect his destiny. To contend that this notice was constitutionally insufficient is to reject that premise.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
7 U. S. C. §2011.
§2014.
§§ 2013(a), 2020(a).
§ 2014.
§§ 2012(c), 2014(f), 2015(c).
§ 2014(e) (1976 ed., Supp. II).
See 95 Stat. 360, 7 U. S. C. § 2014(e).
The Government states that it is “advised that the reductions involved did not exceed $6 per month for a four-member household if the household remained eligible for benefits.” Brief for Federal Respondent 7. It does not indicate where in the record this information is located; nor does it indicate the source of the “advice.”
46 Fed. Reg. 44722 (1981). The regulation provided that the change should begin no later than 90 days from the date of implementation, with October 1,1981, as the last date for state agencies to begin implementation (absent a waiver).
Ibid. The portion of 7 CFR § 273.12(e) (1985), which discusses the notice required for mass changes, provides in relevant part:
“(e) Mass changes. Certain changes are initiated by the State or Federal government which may affect the entire caseload or significant portions of the caseload. These changes include adjustments to the income eligibility standards, the shelter and dependent care deductions, the Thrifty Food Plan, and the standard deduction; annual and seasonal adjustments to Social Security, SSI, and other Federal benefits, periodic adjustments to AFDC or GA payments; and other changes in the eligibility criteria based on legislative or regulatory actions.
“(2) . . . (ii) A notice of adverse action is not required when a household’s food stamp benefits are reduced or terminated as a result of a mass change in the public assistance grant. However, State agencies shall send individual notices to households to inform them of the change. If a household requests a fair hearing, benefits shall be continued at the former level only if the issue being appealed is that food stamp eligibility or benefits were improperly computed.”
The section on adverse actions, 7 CFR §273.13 (1985), provides in relevant part:
“(a) Use of notice. Prior to any action to reduce or terminate a household’s benefits within the certification period, the State agency shall, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, provide the household timely and adequate advance notice before the adverse action is taken.”
“(b) Exemptions from notice. Individual notices of adverse action are not required when:
“(1) The State initiates a mass change as described in § 273.12(e).”
App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 83-1660, pp. A. 44-A. 45; App. 3.
App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 83-1660, pp. A. 45-A. 46.
App. 5. Each recipient was provided with a card that he could mail to obtain a hearing; a recipient could also obtain a hearing by placing a telephone call or by asking for a hearing in person. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 83-1660, p. A. 48.
Id,., at A. 100. The District Court wrote:
“The risk of erroneous deprivation of benefits is increased in this case by the lack of adequate notice. The December notice did not inform the affected food stamp households of the exact action being taken, that is, whether their food stamp allotment was being reduced or terminated. There was no mention of the amount by which the benefits were being reduced. And finally, the December notice lacked the information necessary to enable the household to determine if an error had been made. Therefore, without the relevant information to determine whether an error had been made, the risk of an erroneous deprivation is increased.” Id., at A. 90-A. 91.
The District Court concluded:
“It is clear that the entitlement to food stamps benefits is a property interest subject to the full protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970). Therefore, given the existence of a constitutionally protected property interest, the question is what process is due.” Id., at A. 86.
The District Court also held that the December notice violated the timely notice requirements of 7 U. S. C. §2020(e)(10) and 7 CFR §273.12(e)(2)(ii) (1985), App. Pet. for Cert, in No. 83-1660, p. A. 98; that the notice required to implement the earned-income disregard had to comport with 7 CFR §273.13(a) (1985), App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 83-1660, p. A. 98, and that the notice violated multilingual notice requirements, id., at A. 104-A. 105.
Id., at A. 101.
Id., at A. 102-104.
However, the Court of Appeals disagreed that the December notice failed to satisfy the notice requirements of 7 CFR §273.13(a) (1985). Foggs v. Block, 722 F. 2d, at 940.
Id., at 941.
Escambia County, Florida v. McMillan, 466 U. S. 48, 51 (1984) (per curiam) (“normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case”); Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring).
Title 7 U. S. C. § 2020(e)(10) provides, in relevant part:
“The State plan of operation . . . shall provide . . .
“(10) for the granting of a fair hearing and a prompt determination thereafter to any household aggrieved by the action of the State agency under any provision of its plan of operation as it affects the participation of such household in the food stamp program or by a claim against the household for an overissuance: Provided, That any household which timely requests such a fair hearing after receiving individual notice of agency action reducing or terminating its benefits within the household’s certification period shall continue to participate and receive benefits on the basis authorized immediately prior to the notice of adverse action until such time as the fair hearing is completed and an adverse decision rendered or until such time as the household’s certification period terminates, whichever occurs earlier . . .
84 Stat. 2051; see H. R. Rep. No. 95-464, pp. 285-286 (1977); 7 U. S. C. § 2019(e)(8) (1976 ed.) (state agency must provide “for the granting of a fair hearing and a prompt determination thereafter to any household aggrieved by the action of a State agency”).
91 Stat. 972.
See H. R. Rep. No. 95-464, at 285-289 (summarizing the existing rules governing fair hearings).
Id., at 289 (“The Committee bill would retain the fair hearings provision of the law intact and would encourage the Department to enforce its excellent regulations and instructions on the subject. . . . The Department should also be certain that, although its regulations do not require individual notice of adverse action when mass changes in program benefits are proposed, they should require the states to send precisely such notices well in advance when the massive changes mandated by this bill are about to be implemented so that the individuals affected are fully aware of precisely why their benefits are being adversely affected. Hearings would, of course, be unnecessary in the absence of claims of factual error in individual benefit computation and calculation. All states should be overseen to be certain that their individual notices in non-mass change adverse action contexts recite the household’s fair hearing request rights”).
Prior to the enactment of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, although individual notices of adverse action were not required by the regulations when mass changes in benefits were instituted because of changes in the law affecting, among other items, income standards or other eligibility criteria, see 7 CFR § 271.1 (n)(2)(i) (1975), the States were required to “publicize the possibility of a change in benefits through the various news media or through a general notice mailed out with [food stamp allotment] cards and with notices placed in food stamp and welfare offices.” §271.1(n)(3); see also 39 Fed. Reg. 25996 (1974).
It may well be true, as petitioners argue, that the computerized data in the Department’s possession made it feasible for the agency to send an individualized computation to each recipient, and that such a particularized notice would have served the Commonwealth’s interest in minimizing or correcting predictable error. What judges may consider common sense, sound policy, or good administration, however, is not the standard by which we must evaluate the claim that the notice violated the applicable regulations.
Moreover, present regulations protect the food-stamp household by providing, upon request, the ongoing right to access to information and materials in its case file. 7 CFR § 272.1(c)(2) (1985). Further, upon request, specific materials are made available for determining whether a hearing should be requested, §273.15(i)(l). If a hearing is requested, access to information and materials concerning the case must be made available prior to the hearing and during the hearing, §273.15(p)(l).
See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 83-1660, pp. A. 50-A. 52 (Cecelia Johnson), A. 53 (Gill Parker), A. 55 (Stephanie Zades), A. 55-A. 56 (Madeline Jones). By hypothesis, an inadvertent error is one that the Department did not anticipate; for that reason, the Department could not give notice of a reduction that was simply the consequence of an unintended mistake.
Thus, in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 332 (1976), this Court wrote:
“Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary does not contend that procedural due process is inapplicable to terminations of Social Security disability benefits. He recognizes, as has been implicit in our prior decisions, e. g., Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78, 80-81 (1971); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U. S. 889, 401-402 (1971); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 611 (1960), that the interest of an individual in continued receipt of these benefits is a statutorily created ‘property’ interest protected by the Fifth Amendment.”
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422, 432-433 (1982); see also United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 174 (1980); Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S. 572, 575 (1979); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 608-611 (1960).
Cf. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U. S. 441, 445 (1915) (“Where a rule of conduct applies to more than a few people it is impracticable that every one should have a direct voice in its adoption. The Constitution does not require all public acts to be done in town meeting or an assembly of the whole. General statutes within the state power are passed that affect the person or property of individuals, sometimes to the point of ruin, without giving them a chance to be heard. Their rights are protected in the only way that they can be in a complex society, by their power, immediate or remote, over those who make the rule”).
Thus, even under the position espoused in dissent in Texaco, there would be no merit to the claim in this case. As Justice Brennan wrote: “As a practical matter, a State cannot afford notice to every person who is or may be affected by a change in the law. But an unfair and irrational exercise of state power cannot be transformed into a rational exercise merely by invoking a legal maxim or presumption. If it is to survive the scrutiny that the Constitution requires us to afford laws that deprive persons of substantial interests in property, an enactment that relies on that presumption of knowledge must evidence some rational accommodation between the interests of the State and fairness to those against whom the law is applied.” 454 U. S., at 544.
In the case before us, the constitutional claim is particularly weak because the relevant regulations provided that any recipient who claimed that his benefit had been improperly computed as a result of the change in the income deduction was entitled to a reinstatement of the earlier benefit level pending a full individual hearing. 7 CFR §273.12(e)(2)(h) (1985). Petitioners do not contend that there was a failure to comply with this regulation. This, of course, would be a different case if the reductions were based on changes in individual circumstances, or if the reductions were based on individual factual determinations, and notice and an opportunity to be heard had been denied.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Samuels registered under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, and thereafter claimed exemption from military service under § 5 (d) of the Act. That exemption includes not only regular or duly ordained ministers of religion but also “students who are preparing for the ministry in theological or divinity schools recognized as such for more than one year prior” to the Act. He was classified I-A and inducted into the Army. Thereafter he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, seeking release from military custody on the ground that he was entitled to an exemption under § 5 (d) of the Act and that his classification as I-A was unlawful. There was a return and a hearing, and the District Court ordered the writ dismissed. On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals, in reliance on United States v. Cain, 149 F. 2d 338, reversed and remanded the cause to the District Court with directions to “discharge” Samuels “from military custody, without prejudice to further lawful proceedings under the Selective Service Act.” 151 F. 2d 801, 802.
The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted in order to resolve the conflict between the decision below and United States v. Hearn, 153 F. 2d 186, in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
First. A question of mootness lies at the threshold of the case presented here. We are advised that after remand of the cause the District Court ordered the release of Samuels and that he was thereupon unconditionally released from military custody. Samuels contends that the case is moot since he'is no longer in custody of the military or of any one else but is free to come and go as he pleases.
Under our decisions the case would be moot if the writ of habeas corpus had been denied below and, pending disposition of the petition here, Samuels had received a discharge from the army. Zimmerman v. Walker, 319 U. S. 744. And see Weber v. Squier, 315 U. S. 810; Tornello v. Hudspeth, 318 U. S. 792. That situation, like the case of a prisoner who, pending an appeal from denial of a writ of habeas corpus, is granted bail, Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245; Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564, 572-574, would present no existing controversy. Habeas corpus is the means of making a judicial “inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty.” R. S. § 752, 28 U. S. C. § 452. As stated in McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131, 137, “There is no warrant in either the statute or the writ for its use to invoke judicial determination of questions which could not affect the lawfulness of the custody and detention.” If the custody or restraint of liberty is terminated without use of the writ, the case is finished. Different considerations are brought into play if custody is ended through the writ itself.
Our rules recognize the beneficent function of the writ, Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U. S. 19, 26-27; People v. Jennings, 246 N. Y. 258, 158 N. E. 613, by providing that a prisoner to whom the writ has been granted may, pending appeal, be enlarged on a recognizance. Rule 45. The fact that he has been so enlarged does not render the appeal of the custodian moot. Carr v. Zaja, 283 U. S. 52, 53. In such a case the release is obtained through the assertion of judicial power. It is the propriety of the exercise of that power which is in issue in the appellate court, whether the prisoner is discharged or remanded to custody. Though the writ has been granted and the prisoner released, the appellate court by what it does is not rendering an opinion and issuing an order which cannot affect the litigants in the case before it. Cf. St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41, 42, and cases cited. Affirmance makes the prisoner’s release final and unconditional. Reversal undoes what the habeas corpus court did and makes lawful a resumption of the custody. Knewel v. Egan, 268 U. S. 442, 448; Haddox v. Richardson, 168 F. 635; James v. Amrine, 157 Kan. 397, 140 P. 2d 362; State v. Langum, 135 Minn. 320, 160 N. W. 858.
Second. On the merits the case involves primarily the use by the Selective Service System in New York City of advisory panels on theological classifications. Under the Act the President is authorized to establish “civilian local boards, civilian appeal boards, and such other agencies, including agencies of appeal, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.” Section 10 (a) (2), 57 Stat. 597, 598, 50 U. S. C. App. Supp. III, § 310 (a) (2). With exceptions not material here, the President is authorized to delegate to the Director of Selective Service any authority vested in him under the Act. Section 10 (b), 57 Stat. 597, 598, 50 U. S. C. App. Supp. III, §310 (b). And the Director may redelegate that authority. Id. The administration of the system in each State is delegated under the regulations to a state director. Sections 603.11, 603.12, 6 Fed. Reg. 6827. In New York City, however, a city director has been appointed who performs within that area the functions of the state director. Section 603.12-1, 8 Fed. Reg. 3514. The city director supervises the local boards and boards of appeal in New York City. He may require a local board to reopen and consider anew the classification of a registrant. Section 626.2 (b), 9 Fed. Reg. 11619, § 626.2-1, 10 Fed. Reg. 9210. He may appeal to a board of appeal any determination of a local board. Section 627.1, 8 Fed. Reg. 16720,10 Fed. Reg. 9210. He may require a board of appeal to reconsider its decision, § 627.61, 8 Fed. Reg. 6017, or appeal from it to the President. Section 628.1,7 Fed. Reg. 10521.
It appears that the city director, in aid of these functions, established theological panels. It was thought desirable to give the selective service personnel the benefit of the advice of those familiar with the educational practices of various religious groups so that Selective Service might exercise a more informed judgment in evaluating claims to classifications in IV-D. Accordingly, theological panels were constituted, one of which consisted of prominent laymen and rabbis of the Jewish faith who gave advisory opinions on those who sought a IV-D classification on the grounds that they were either rabbis or students preparing for the ministry in the Jewish religion. The members of the panel were volunteers, as permitted by the regulations. Section 602.2, 6 Fed. Reg. 6826. And pursuant to the regulations each took the oath of office. Section 602.4 (a), 6 Fed. Reg. 6826.
Samuels registered under the Act in February, 1942. In May and July, 1942, he filed with his local board questionnaires stating that he had had two years of high school education; that he was a student at the Mesifta Theological Seminary preparing for the rabbinate; that since 1940 his regular occupation was that of a clerk; that for the past two years he had been employed by a textile company; and that the job for which he was best fitted was that of a spiritual leader and a teacher of Hebrew or rabbinical duties. The local board was advised by the seminary that Samuels had attended there since he was six years old, that he had finished the eight-year elementary course and the four-year pre-rabbinical course, that he had been admitted to the rabbinical division in 1937, that he left the school in 1939 to seek employment, that he returned to the evening school in September, 1941, and that he was transferred to the day session in July, 1942, which, as later appeared, was a few days before the school closed for the summer.
In August, 1942, the local board classified him IV-D. Section 622.44 (a), 6 Fed. Reg. 6607, 6610. In May, 1944, he was given a physical examination and found acceptable for military service. Thereafter the city director requested that he appear before the theological panel in respect to his claim to a IV-D classification. He appeared before the panel in June, 1944, stating, inter alia, that he expected to graduate from the seminary in 1945, that ill health caused him to leave the school in 1939, that between 1940 and 1942 he worked as a clerk, and that he returned to the seminary as a full-time student at about the time he filed his selective service questionnaire.
The panel reported that the seminary which Samuels attended was not preparing men exclusively for the rabbinate, that orthodox tradition encouraged advanced study of the subjects in which students for the ministry were trained, and that students ultimately intending to enter business or a profession or some non-rabbinic activity in the field of religion may be enrolled in the same classes as those preparing for the rabbinate. The panel stated that it therefore seemed essential to determine in each case what the registrant had in mind in pursuing his course of study; that to make that determination the character of the seminary, the sincerity of the registrant’s declared purpose, his demeanor, and the impression as to his candor and honesty should be considered. It concluded that Samuels was not “preparing in good faith for a career of service in the practicing rabbinate.” Its recommendation and the transcript of the hearing before it were sent to the city director who forwarded them to the local board with a request that Samuels’ classification be reopened and with the statement that “while the Local Board should give careful consideration to the recommendation of the advisory panel, the responsibility of determining the registrant’s classification must rest with the Local Board itself, or the appropriate agency of appeal.”
The local board reclassified Samuels I-A in August, 1944. He submitted additional evidence and requested a hearing. One was had in September, 1944 and another in October, 1944. There is no showing that the recommendation of the panel or the transcript of the hearing before it was kept from Samuels. They were not marked confidential in the file. The local board, indeed, allowed Samuels to correct alleged inaccuracies in the transcript. The local board ordered him continued in I-A and, on appeal, the board of appeal also classified him as I-A. A few days later Samuels filed additional information with the local board and requested that his classification be reopened. Another hearing was held, Samuels being present. He advised the board that he had appeared of his own volition before a committee representing the Union of Orthodox Rabbis (but not connected with the selective service system) and that the committee concluded he was a student preparing in good faith for the ministry. What facts that committee may have acted upon do not appear. In any event, the local board denied Samuels’ request to reopen the classification by a divided vote; and shortly thereafter he was inducted into the army.
Congress made the decisions of the local boards and of the boards of appeal “final,” except as appeals from them may be authorized, § 10 (a) (2), withholding from the courts the customary power of review of administrative action. See Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114.
It is elementary that habeas corpus may not be used as a writ of error. Tisi v. Tod, 264 U. S. 131; Woolsey v. Best, 299 U. S. 1. The function of habeas corpus is exhausted when it is ascertained that the agency under whose order the petitioner is being held had jurisdiction to act. If the writ is to issue, mere error in the proceeding which resulted in the detention is not sufficient. Tisi v. Tod, supra. Deprivation of petitioner of basic and fundamental procedural safeguards, an assertion of power to act beyond the authority granted the agency, and action without evidence to support its order, are familiar examples of the showing which is necessary. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458; Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 149. But it is not enough to show that the decision was wrong, Tisi v. Tod, supra, or that incompetent evidence was admitted and considered. Vajtauer v. Commissioner, 273 U. S. 103. If it cannot be said that there were procedural irregularities of such a nature or magnitude as to render the hearing unfair, Bridges v. Wixon, supra, p. 156, or that there was no evidence to support the order, Vajtauer v. Commissioner, supra, the inquiry is at an end.
We do not think that the use of the theological panel per se infected the whole administrative proceeding and rendered it so unfair as to be nugatory. The task of the local boards in evaluating claims to exemption is almost certain to raise perplexing problems, especially in large centers where the status and activities of registrants are not so well known in the community. The local boards will frequently have to make inquiries on their own. And when it comes to exemptions claimed under § 5 (d), the variety of religious faiths and the differing educational practices of the churches or of sects within one faith may create difficult questions for the boards.
We agree with the court in United States v. Hearn, supra, p. 188, that advice from well-informed members of the faith in question may “both help and speed just classification.” Congress wrote into the Act a comparable procedure for the handling of claims for exemtion by conscientious objectors. Where such claims are denied by the local board and appealed, they are referred to the Department of Justice for a hearing and an advisory report. Section 5 (g). But the fact that there is no specific statutory provision for the creation of theological panels does not make their use improper. Wise administration may call for the expert advice which they alone can offer. And we see no difference in principle if they are formally constituted and regularly used in lieu of inquiry to members of the particular faith as individual cases arise. The administrative function entrusted to the Selective Service is an enormous one. The Act contemplates an administrative organization highly decentralized so as to operate effectively at the local level. More than the director, local boards, and boards of appeal were authorized. For § 10 (a) (2), as we have noted, authorized the creation of “other agencies” as well. A theological advisory panel, serving solely in an advisory capacity, would seem to be included in that category. The information received by the board from the panel, like information from any other source, must be put in writing in the file so that the registrant may examine it, explain or correct it, or deny it. There is, moreover, no confidential information which can be kept from the registrant under the regulations. With those safeguards a truly expert panel might serve a most useful function without the administrative process being corrupted by any unfair procedure.
Distinct questions would be raised if a registrant of one faith were referred to a theological panel on which his faith was not represented. See United States v. Balogh, 157 F. 2d 939. But it has not been shown that such a condition obtained here.
The court in United States v. Cain, supra, p. 341, held that though the propriety of the use of a theological panel be assumed, it must be limited by two conditions: the names of the members of the panel must be disclosed to the registrant so that he may be in a position to challenge it; the advice or answers which it gives must be limited to ecclesiastical questions.
In the statement which the panel filed in this case the names are not disclosed. But we, do not think that fact rendered the administrative proceedings invalid per se. This is not a case of a registrant being passed upon by a secret group. He appeared before them, saw them face to face, and indeed recognized one of them. There is no showing that Samuels tried to ascertain who the panel members were, either at the time or subsequently, and was denied the information. Though we assume that the regulations require the file to disclose the names and affiliations of the panel members, the mere absence of a formal disclosure is not, without more, so grave an omission as to undermine the whole administrative proceeding.
The question is not whether the allegations of the petition are sufficient to justify the grant of the writ or the issuance of a rule to show cause, so that the facts can be ascertained in accord with the procedure outlined in Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275. In this case there was a return to the writ, a full hearing was had, and all evidence offered was received. Samuels had the burden of showing that he was unlawfully detained. Walker v. Johnston, supra. Not every procedural error, but only those so flagrant as to result in an unfair hearing render the proceedings vulnerable in a collateral attack. Tisi v. Tod, supra, p. 133; Bridges v. Wixon, supra, pp. 152-156. On the case Samuels has made out, the most that has been shown is that the use of the theological panel might result in a hearing so unfair as to deprive the administrative proceedings of vitality. Samuels has failed to show that in his case it had that effect. He has therefore failed to sustain the burden of proof which was on him.
Secrecy and anonymity are not congenial to our traditions of procedure, nor in keeping with the regulations under this Act. But as we have said, the range of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is limited. We are not sitting in review of action of federal agencies over which we have the power of supervision. Cf. McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332. The function of habeas corpus is not to correct a practice but only to ascertain whether the procedure complained of has resulted in an unlawful detention. It is the impact of the procedure on the person seeking the writ that is crucial. Whatever potentialities of abuse a particular procedure may have, the case is at an end if the challenged proceeding cannot be said to have been so corrupted as to have made it unfair. Samuels points to possibilities of abuse. But he fails to establish prejudice in his case.
If, as was held in United States v. Cain, supra, the panel must be restricted to answering ecclesiastical questions, Samuels should prevail. For the panel in question not only gave the board information concerning the seminary which Samuels-attended but also rendered an advisory opinion on the bona fides of his claim. The argument for restricting the panel to ecclesiastical questions is based on the thought that it is only on such subjects that the board needs specialized information, while if the board relies on a general advisory opinion of the panel, it is devolving its administrative responsibility. See United States v. Cain, supra, pp. 341-342.
It is plain that the local boards and the boards of appeal may not abdicate their duty by delegating to others the responsibility for making classifications. That is their statutory function. Section 10 (a) (2). But no such case is made out in this record. The city director submitted the panel’s report with the admonition that it was advisory only and that it was the board’s responsibility to make the classification. The recommendation of the panel was followed. But Samuels was subsequently given not only one but two hearings before the local board and a hearing before the board of appeal. There is no indication that either board relied solely on the panel’s report or considered itself bound by it. In fact both boards received additional evidence submitted by Samuels and considered it. The record does not bear out the suggestion that either board was a rubber stamp for the panel.
Nor do we think that the range of inquiry and recommendation of the panel was too broad. If a panel is truly expert in the field, its expertness is not necessarily limited to knowledge of the theological schools, the course of training, and the educational practices and traditions. Its acquaintance with the ministry of that faith and with the norms of the profession may well give it special insight into the claims of those seeking exemption. To draw the line at questions technically ecclesiastical is to make a distinction which may be wholly arbitrary in terms of the panel’s expertness. A panel might act on irrelevancies; it might usurp the functions of a board. We discover nothing of the kind here. The fact that the board follows the advice of the panel does not necessarily mean that it functions in a subservient way. The fact is that the local board and the board of appeal gave Samuels further hearings and received and considered all evidence submitted. We find no procedural error of such magnitude as to warrant an uprooting of the entire administrative proceeding in this collateral attack upon it.
Nor can we say there was no evidence to support the final classification made by the board of appeal. Samuels’ statement that he was best fitted to be a Hebrew school teacher and spiritual leader, the two-year interruption in his education, his return to the day session of the seminary in the month when his selective service questionnaire was returned, and the fact that the seminary in question was apparently not preparing men exclusively for the rabbinate make questionable his claim that he was preparing in good faith for the rabbinate. A registrant might seek a theological school as a refuge for the duration of the war. Congress did not create the exemption in § 5 (d) for him. There was some evidence that this was Samuels’ plan; and that evidence, coupled with his demeanor and attitude, might have seemed more persuasive to the boards than it does in the cold record. Our inquiry is ended when we are unable to say that the board flouted the command of Congress in denying Samuels the exemption.
Reversed.
54 Stat. 885, 55 Stat. 211, 621, 845, 56 Stat. 386, 50 U. S. C. App., 50 U. S. C. App. Supp. I, and 50 U. S. C. App. Supp. II, § 301 et seq.
Our citations of the Act and the regulations throughout the opinion refer to the provisions applicable at the times relevant here.
In that case Mr. Justice Cardozo, then Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, said, “It would be intolerable that a custodian adjudged to be at fault, placed by the judgment of the court in the position of a wrongdoer, should automatically, by a mere notice of appeal, prolong the term of imprisonment, and frustrate the operation of the historic writ of liberty.” 246 N. Y. p. 260, 158 N. E. 613.
It appears from the briefs in that case that after the writ had issued in the lower court the petitioner had been discharged, pending appeal, on a recognizance.
The regulations provide that in classifying a registrant, “Oral information should not be considered unless it is summarized in writing and the summary placed in the registrant’s file. Under no circumstances should the local board rely upon information received by a member personally unless such information is reduced to writing and placed in the registrant’s file.” Section 623.2, 9 Fed. Reg. 437, 10 Fed. Reg. 8541.
See § 605.32 (a), 9 Fed. Reg. 9190.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in the case ultimately comes down to whether respondent National Right to Work Committee (NRWC or respondent) limited its solicitation of funds to “members” within the meaning of 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(4)(C).
In April 1977, petitioner Federal Election Commission (Commission) determined that there was probable cause to believe that NRWC had violated the above-cited provisions of the Act by soliciting contributions from persons who were not its “members.” Shortly thereafter, respondent filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the Commission. One month later, the Commission filed an enforcement proceeding against respondent in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to establish respondent’s violation of 2 U. S. C. §441b. The actions were consolidated in the latter court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission on the basis of stipulated facts. 501 F. Supp. 422 (1980). The judgment of the District Court was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 214 U. S. App. D. C. 215, 665 F. 2d 371 (1981), and we granted certiorari. 456 U. S. 914 (1982).
Respondent NRWC is a nonprofit corporation without capital stock organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Given the central role of the congressional use of the word “member” in this litigation, it is useful to set forth respondent’s organizational history in some detail. In 1975, respondent’s predecessor and another corporation merged; the articles of merger filed in the District of Columbia by the successor corporation stated that NRWC “shall not have members.” A similar statement is contained in the articles of incorporation of NRWC that are presently filed in Virginia. Likewise, respondent’s bylaws make no reference to members or to membership in the corporation. The stated purpose of NRWC, according to its Virginia articles of incorporation, is “[t]o help make the public aware of the fact that American citizens are being required, against their will, to join and pay dues to labor organizations in order to earn a living.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a. In pursuance of this objective, NRWC regularly mails messages to millions of individuals and businesses whose names have found their way onto commercially available mailing lists that the organization has purchased or rented. The letters do not mention membership in NRWC, but seek donations to help NRWC publicize its opposition to compulsory unionism and frequently contain a questionnaire that the recipient is requested to answer and return.
In late 1975, in order to comply with § 441b, NRWC established a separate segregated fund, see §441b(b)(4)(C), “to receive and make contributions on behalf of federal candidates.” The fund was denominated the “Employees Rights Campaign Committee” (ERCC); its operation was completely subsidized from the NRWC treasury, which paid all the expenses of establishing and administering the fund, and of soliciting contributions. During part of 1976, NRWC sent letters to some 267,000 individuals, who had at one time contributed to it, soliciting contributions to ERCC. As a result of these solicitations, the fund received some $77,000 in contributions.
In October 1976, another lobbying group, the Committee for an Effective Congress, filed a complaint against ERCC with the Commission, alleging violation of 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(4). The complaint asserted that NRWC had violated this section of the Act by using corporate funds to solicit contributions to ERCC from persons who were not NRWC’s stockholders, executive or administrative personnel, or their families. NRWC did not deny these assertions, but took the position that the recipients of its solicitation letters were “members” of NRWC within the proviso set forth in § 441b(b)(4)(C). The Commission found probable cause to believe that a violation had occurred, and after completing the investigative procedures set out in the statute and unsuccessfully attempting to resolve the matter through conciliation, see 2 U. S. C. §437g (1976 ed., Supp. V), it authorized the filing of a civil enforcement suit. This litigation followed.
Essential to the proper resolution of the case is the interpretation of § 441b(b)(4)(C)’s statement that the prohibition against corporate solicitation contained in § 441b(b)(4)(A) shall not prevent “a . . . corporation without capital stock . . . from soliciting contributions to [a separate segregated fund established by a corporation without capital stock] from members of such. . . corporation . . . .” (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals rejected the Commission’s contentions regarding the meaning of “member,” and went on to hold that the term “embraces at least those individuals whom NRWC describes as its active and supporting members.” 214 U. S. App. D. C., at 220, 665 F. 2d, at 376. The opinion of the Court of Appeals indicates that this construction was reached at least in part because of concern for the constitutional implications of any narrower construction. Id., at 218-220, 665 F. 2d, at 374-376. As explained below, we reject this construction.
The statutory purpose of §441b, as outlined above, is to prohibit contributions or expenditures by corporations or labor organizations in connection with federal elections. 2 U. S. C. §441b(a). The section, however, permits some participation of unions and corporations in the federal electoral process by allowing them to establish and pay the administrative expenses of “separate segregated fund[s],” which may be “utilized for political purposes.” 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2)(C). The Act restricts the operations of such segregated funds, however, by making it unlawful for a corporation to solicit contributions to a fund established by it from persons other than its “stockholders and their families and its executive or administrative personnel and their families.” 2 U. S. C. § 441b(b)(4)(A). Finally, and of most relevance here, the section just quoted has its own proviso, which states in pertinent part that “[t]his paragraph shall not prevent a . . . corporation without capital stock, or a separate segregated fund established by a . . . corporation without capital stock, from soliciting contributions to such a fund from members” of the sponsoring corporation. 2 U. S. C. § 441b(b)(4)(C). The effect of this proviso is to limit solicitation by nonprofit corporations to those persons attached in some way to it by its corporate structure. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals, as we have noted, construed the term “member” in § 441b to embrace “at least those individuals whom NRWC describes as its active and supporting members.” 214 U. S. App. D. C., at 220, 665 F. 2d, at 376. The two categories of members recognized by NRWC were described in the following terms by the Court of Appeals:
“NRWC attracts members by publicizing its position on issues relating to compulsory unionism through advertisements, personal contacts, and, primarily, letters. These letters describe the purpose of NRWC, urge the recipient to assist NRWC (by, for example, writing to legislators), request financial support, and ask the recipient to respond to a questionnaire that will determine whether that person shares a similar political philosophy. A person who, through his response, evidences an intention to support NRWC in promoting voluntary unionism qualifies as a member. A person who responds without contributing financially is considered a supporting member; a person who responds and also contributes is considered an active member. NRWC sends an acknowledgement and a membership card to both classes. In the regular course of operations, NRWC’s members receive newsletters, action alerts, and responses to individual requests for information. They respond to issue surveys and are asked to communicate with their elected representatives when appropriate. See Joint App., vol. II, at 387 et seq.” Id., at 217, n. 1, 665 F. 2d, at 373, n. 1.
In respondent’s view, both categories satisfy the membership requirement of § 441b(b)(4)(C).
The Commission, however, insists that these standards of “membership” are too fluid and insubstantial to come within the statutory term “member,” and argues further that they do not comply with the Commission’s regulation defining the term:
“(e) ‘Members’ means all persons who are currently satisfying the requirements for membership in a membership organization, trade association, cooperative, or corporation without capital stock .... A person is not considered a member under this definition if the only requirement for membership is a contribution to a separate segregated fund.” Federal Election Commission Regulations, 11 CFR § 114.1(e) (1982).
The Commission also contends that NRWC’s Virginia articles of incorporation, filed by respondent, which state that respondent has no members, are dispositive. While we do not feel sufficiently informed at this time to attempt an exegesis of the statutory meaning of the word “members” beyond that necessary to decide this case, we find it relatively easy to dispose of these arguments that respondent’s solicitation was limited to its “members,” since in our view this would virtually excise from the statute the restriction of solicitation to “members.”
Section 441b(b)(4)(C) was one of several amendments to the Act enacted in 1976. The entire legislative history of the subsection appears to be the floor statement of Senator Allen who introduced the provision in the Senate and explained the purpose of his amendment in this language:
“Mr. President, all this amendment does is to cure an omission in the bill. It would allow corporations that do not have stock but have a membership organization, such as a cooperative or other corporations without capital stock and, hence, without stockholders, to set up separate segregated political funds as to which it can solicit contributions from its membership; since it does not have any stockholders to solicit, it should be allowed to solicit its members. That is all that the amendment provides. It does cover an omission in the bill that I believe all agree should be filled.” 122 Cong. Rec. 7198 (1976).
This statement suggests that “members” of nonstock corporations were to be defined, at least in part, by analogy to stockholders of business corporations and members of labor unions. The analogy to stockholders and union members suggests that some relatively enduring and independently significant financial or organizational attachment is required to be a “member” under § 441b(b)(4)(C). The Court of Appeals’ determination that NRWC’s “members” include anyone who has responded to one of the corporation’s essentially random mass mailings would, we think, open the door to all but unlimited corporate solicitation and thereby render meaningless the statutory limitation to “members.”
We also assume, since there is no body of federal law of corporations, see Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S. 471, 477 (1979), that Congress intended at least some reference to the laws of the various States dealing with nonprofit corporations. In an analogous situation, where Congress had authorized state taxation of “real property” of subsidiaries of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Court said:
“We think the congressional purpose can best be accomplished by application of settled state rules as to what constitutes ‘real property,’ so long as it is plain, as it is here, that the state rules do not effect a discrimination against the Government, or patently run counter to the terms of the Act.” RFC v. Beaver County, 328 U. S. 204, 210 (1946).
Like property, the structure and powers of nonprofit corporations are defined principally by state law; as in the case of property, state law provides some guidance in deciding whether NRWC’s solicitation was confined to its “members.”
Most States apparently permit nonprofit corporations to have “members” similar to shareholders in a business corporation, although state statutes generally do not seem to require this form of organization, see, e. g., ALI-ABA, Model Nonprofit Corporation Act §11 (1964); in many States the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation may be an autonomous, self-perpetuating body. Given the wide variety of treatment of the subject of membership in state incorporation laws, and the focus of the Commission’s regulation on the corporation’s own standards, we think it was entirely permissible for the Commission in this case to look to NRWC’s corporate charter under the laws of Virginia and the bylaws adopted in accordance with that charter.
Applying the statutory language as we interpret it to the facts of this case, we think Congress did not intend to allow the 267,000 individuals solicited by NRWC during 1976 to come within the exclusion for “members” in 2 U. S. C. § 441b(b)(4)(C). Although membership cards are ultimately sent to those who either contribute or respond in some other way to respondent’s mailings, the solicitation letters themselves make no reference to members. Members play no part in the operation or administration of the corporation; they elect no corporate officials, and indeed there are apparently no membership meetings. There is no indication that NRWC’s asserted members exercise any control over the expenditure of their contributions. Moreover, as previously noted, NRWC’s own articles of incorporation and other publicly filed documents explicitly disclaimed the existence of members. We think that under these circumstances, those solicited were insufficiently attached to the corporate structure of NRWC to qualify as “members” under the statutory proviso.
Unlike the Court of Appeals, we do not think this construction of the statute raises any insurmountable constitutional difficulties. The Court of Appeals expressed the view that the sort of solicitations involved here would neither corrupt officials nor coerce members of the corporation holding minority political views, the two goals which it believed Congress had in mind in enacting the statutory provisions at issue. That being so, the Court of Appeals apparently thought, and respondent argues here, that the term “members” must be given an elastic definition in order to prevent impermissible interference with the constitutional rights enunciated in cases such as NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 (1963), and Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620 (1980). Similarly, respondent places considerable reliance on our statement in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 25 (1976):
“The Court’s decisions involving associational freedoms establish that the right of association is a ‘basic constitutional freedom,’ Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S., at 57, that is ‘closely allied to freedom of speech and a right which, like free speech, lies at the foundation of a free society.’ Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 486 (1960). See, e. g., Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 522-523 (1960); NAACP v. Alabama, [357 U. S.], at 460-461; NAACP v. Button, supra, at 452 (Harlan, J., dissenting). In view of the fundamental nature of the right to associate, governmental ‘action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.’ NAACP v. Alabama, supra, at 460-461.”
Under this standard, respondent asserts, the Act’s restriction of its solicitation cannot be upheld.
While we fully subscribe to the views stated in Buckley, in the very next sentence to the passage quoted by the respondent, the Court went on to say:
“Yet, it is clear that ‘[n]either the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute.’ CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 567 (1973).” Ibid.
In this case, we conclude that the associational rights asserted by respondent may be and are overborne by the interests Congress has sought to protect in enacting § 441b.
To place respondent’s constitutional claims in proper perspective, we repeat language used in Buckley v. Valeo, supra, at 13:
“The constitutional power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established and is not questioned by any of the parties in this case.”
The first purpose of §441b, petitioners state, is to ensure that substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form of organization should not be converted into political “war chests” which could be used to incur political debts from legislators who are aided by the contributions. See United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567, 579 (1957). The second purpose of the provisions, petitioners argue, is to protect the individuals who have paid money into a corporation or union for purposes other than the support of candidates from having that money used to support political candidates to whom they may be opposed. See United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106, 113 (1948).
We agree with petitioners that these purposes are sufficient to justify the regulation at issue. Speaking of corporate involvement in electoral politics, we recently said:
“The overriding concern behind the enactment of statutes such as the Federal Corrupt Practices Act was the problem of corruption of elected representatives through the creation of political debts. The importance of the governmental interest in preventing this occurrence has never been doubted.” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 788, n. 26 (1978) (citations omitted).
Likewise, in Buckley v. Valeo, supra, at 26-27, we specifically affirmed the importance of preventing both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and the eroding of public confidence in the electoral process through the appearance of corruption. These interests directly implicate “the integrity of our electoral process, and, not less, the responsibility of the individual citizen for the successful functioning of that process.” United States v. Automobile Workers, supra, at 570.
We are also convinced that the statutory prohibitions and exceptions we have considered are sufficiently tailored to these purposes to avoid undue restriction on the associational interests asserted by respondent. The history of the movement to regulate the political contributions and expenditures of corporations and labor unions is set forth in great detail in United States v. Automobile Workers, supra, at 570-584, and we need only summarize the development here. Seventy-five years ago Congress first made financial contributions to federal candidates by corporations illegal by enacting the Tillman Act, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. Within the next few years Congress went further and required financial disclosure by federal candidates following election, Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 392, 36 Stat. 822, and the following year required pre-election disclosure as well. Act of Aug. 19, 1911, ch. 33, 37 Stat. 25. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, passed in 1925, extended the prohibition against corporate contributions to include “anything of value,” and made acceptance of a corporate contribution as well as the giving of such a contribution a crime. 43 Stat. 1070.
The first restrictions on union contributions were contained in the second Hatch Act, 54 Stat. 767, and later, in the War Labor Disputes Act of 1943, § 9, 57 Stat. 167, union contributions in connection with federal elections were prohibited altogether. These prohibitions on union political activity were extended and strengthened in the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 136, which broadened the earlier prohibition against contributions to “expenditures” as well. Congress codified most of these provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 86 Stat. 3, and enacted later amendments in 1974, 88 Stat. 1263, in 1976, 90 Stat. 475, and in 1980, 93 Stat. 1339. Section 441b(b)(4)(C) is, as its legislative history indicates, merely a refinement of this gradual development of the federal election statute.
This careful legislative adjustment of the federal electoral laws, in a “cautious advance, step by step,” NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 46 (1937), to account for the particular legal and economic attributes of corporations and labor organizations warrants considerable deference, see Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 64, 67 (1981). As we discuss below, it also reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process.
In order to prevent both actual and apparent corruption, Congress aimed a part of its regulatory scheme at corporations. The statute reflects a legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation. See United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632, 652 (1950). While §441b restricts the solicitation of corporations and labor unions without great financial resources, as well as those more fortunately situated, we accept Congress’ judgment that it is the potential for such influence that demands regulation. Nor will we second-guess a legislative determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where corruption is the evil feared. As we said in California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182, 201 (1981), the “differing structures and purposes” of different entities “may require different forms of regulation in order to protect the integrity of the electoral process.”
To accept the view that a solicitation limited only to those who have in the past proved “philosophically compatible” to the views of the corporation must be permitted under the statute in order for the prohibition to be constitutional would ignore the teachings of our earlier decisions. The governmental interest in preventing both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption of elected representatives has long been recognized, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, at 788, n. 26, and there is no reason why it may not in this case be accomplished by treating unions, corporations, and similar organizations differently from individuals. California Medical Assn. v. FEC, supra, at 201.
Respondent also asserts a claim of unconstitutional vagueness, relying on such additional cases as Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385 (1926); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 (1972); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958); and Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 (1959). We think the vagueness claim is adequately answered by the language quoted earlier from CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 567 (1973). There may be more than one way under the statute to go about determining who are “members” of a nonprofit corporation, and the statute may leave room for uncertainty at the periphery of its exception for solicitation of “members.” However, on this record we are satisfied that NRWC’s activities extended in large part, if not in toto, to people who would not be members under any reasonable interpretation of the statute. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 (1973).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
As will appear from the following discussion, the phrasing of this question is but the tip of the statutory iceberg. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (Act) makes it “unlawful for . . . any corporation ... to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with” certain federal elections. 90 Stat. 490, 2 U. S. C. § 441b(a). The term “contribution” is defined broadly, 2 U. S. C. § 441b(b)(2)(C), to include any sort of transfer of money or services to various political entities, but excluded from that definition is “the establishment, administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate segregated fund to be utilized for political purposes by a . . . corporation without capital stock.” The Act goes on to make it unlawful, except as thereinafter provided, “for a corporation, or a separate segregated fund established by a corporation, to solicit contributions to such a fund from any person other than its stockholders and their families and its executive or administrative personnel and their families . . . .” 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(4)(A). Finally, 2 U. S. C. § 441b(b)(4)(C) states that the prohibition just quoted “shall not prevent a . . . corporation without capital stock, or a separate segregated fund established by a . . . corporation without capital stock, from soliciting contributions to such a fund from members of such . . . corporation without capital stock.”
The Commission is an independent administrative agency vested with exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the Act. See 2 U. S. C. §§437c(b)(l) and 437d(a) and (e) (1976 ed., Supp. V).
The relief awarded the Commission by the District Court included a declaratory judgment that 2 U. S. C. § 441b(b)(4) is not unconstitutional, an order that NRWC refund to contributors the funds it had obtained from unlawful solicitations, and an order that the corporation pay a $10,000 civil penalty. App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a.
The separate segregated fund may be completely controlled by the sponsoring corporation or union, whose officers may decide which political candidates contributions to the fund will be spent to assist. The “fund must be separate from the sponsoring union [or corporation] only in the sense that there must be a strict segregation of its monies” from the corporation’s other assets. Pipefitters v. United States, 407 U. S. 385, 414-417 (1972). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 28, n. 31 (1976).
One commentator has stated:
“The license provided by the statutes in this respect is further enhanced by their loose use of the term ‘member.’ The New York statute and the Model Act, for example, offer no meaningful definition of ‘member’ at all, but instead provide that a corporation’s articles or bylaws may designate anybody or nobody as members, or may designate different classes of members, and may freely specify the rights, if any, of the corporation’s members or classes of members. The California Act is a bit more carefully drawn in this regard, defining a member, essentially, as anyone entitled to vote in elections either for the corporation’s board of directors or for certain fundamental corporate changes.” Hansmann, Reforming Nonprofit Corporation Law, 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 497, 578 (1981) (footnote omitted).
We assume, as have the parties and courts below, that ERCC satisfies the statutory requirements of a “separate segregated fund” and that NRWC is a corporation covered by §441b.
Our decision in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 (1978), is entirely consistent with our conclusion here. Bellotti struck down a prohibition against corporate expenditures and contributions in connection with state referenda. Id., at 768. The Court explicitly stated that its decision did not involve “the constitutionality of laws prohibiting or limiting corporate contributions to political candidates or committees, or other means of influencing candidate elections.” Id., at 788, n. 26 (emphasis added). In addition, following its citation of Pipefitters v. United States, 407 U. S. 385 (1972); United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567 (1957); and United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106 (1948), the Court specifically pointed out that in elections of candidates to public office, unlike in referenda on issues of general public interest, there may well be a threat of real or apparent corruption. As discussed in text, Congress has relied on just this threat in enacting § 441b.
We also reject as meritless NRWC’s claim that the Commission’s actions prior to and during conciliation were so misleading and arbitrary as to constitute a deprivation of due process. We leave open for consideration upon remand, inter alia, the propriety of the Commission’s imposition of a $10,000 civil penalty against respondent.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue here is whether the State of Mississippi, when it entered the Union in 1817, took title to lands lying under waters that were influenced by the tide running in the Gulf of Mexico, but were not navigable in fact.
> — 1
As the Mississippi Supreme Court eloquently put it: “Though great public interests and neither insignificant nor illegitimate private interests are present and in conflict, this in the end is a title suit.” Cinque Bambini Partnership v. State, 491 So. 2d 508, 510 (1986). More specifically, in question here is ownership of 42 acres of land underlying the north branch of Bayou LaCroix and 11 small drainage streams in southwestern Mississippi; the disputed tracts range from under one-half acre to almost 10 acres in size. Although the waters over these lands lie several miles north of the Mississippi Gulf Coast and are not navigable, they are nonetheless influenced by the tide, because they are adjacent and tributary to the Jourdan River, a navigable stream flowing into the Gulf. The Jourdan, in the area involved here, is affected by the ebb and flow of the tide. Record title to these tracts of land is held by petitioners, who trace their claims back to prestatehood Spanish land grants.
The State of Mississippi, however, claiming that by virtue of the “equal-footing doctrine” it acquired at the time of statehood and held in public trust all land lying under any waters influenced by the tide, whether navigable or not, issued oil and gas leases that included the property at issue. This quiet title suit, brought by petitioners, ensued.
The Mississippi Supreme Court, affirming the Chancery Court with respect to the lands at issue here, held that by virtue of becoming a State, Mississippi acquired “fee simple title to all lands naturally subject to tidal influence, inland to today’s mean high water mark . . . Ibid. Petitioners’ submission that the State acquired title to only lands under navigable waters was rejected.
We granted certiorari to review the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision, 479 U. S. 1084 (1987), and now affirm the judgment below.
II
As petitioners recognize, the “seminal case in American public trust jurisprudence is Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1894).” Reply Brief for Petitioners 11. The issue in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1894), was whether the State of Oregon or a prestatehood grantee from the United States of riparian lands near the mouth of the Columbia River at Astoria, Oregon, owned the soil below the high-water mark. Following an extensive survey of this Court’s prior cases, the English common law, and various cases from the state courts, the Court concluded:
“At common law, the title and dominion in lands flowed by the tide water were in the King for the benefit of the nation. . . . Upon the American Revolution, these rights, charged with a like trust, were vested in the original States within their respective borders, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution of the United States.
“The new States admitted into the Union since the adoption of the Constitution have the same rights as the original States in the tide waters, and in the lands under them, within their respective jurisdictions.” Id., at 57.
Shively rested on prior decisions of this Court, which had included similar, sweeping statements of States’ dominion over lands beneath tidal waters. Knight v. United States Land Association, 142 U. S. 161, 183 (1891), for example, had stated that “[i]t is the settled rule of law in this court that absolute property in, and dominion and sovereignty over, the soils under the tide waters in the original States were reserved to the several States, and that the new States since admitted have the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction in that behalf as the original States possess within their respective borders.” On many occasions, before and since, this Court has stated or restated these words from Knight and Shively.
Against this array of cases, it is not surprising that Mississippi claims ownership of all of the tidelands in the State. Other States have done as much. The 13 original States, joined by the Coastal States Organization (representing all coastal States), have filed a brief in support of Mississippi, insisting that ownership of thousands of acres of tidelands under nonnavigable waters would not be disturbed if the judgment below were affirmed, as it would be if petitioners’ navigability-in-fact test were adopted. See Brief for 13 Original States as Amici Curiae 3-5, 26-27.
Petitioners rely on early state cases to indicate that the original States did not claim title to nonnavigable tidal waters. See Brief for Petitioners 23-29. But it has been long established that the individual States have the authority to define the limits of the lands held in public trust and to recognize private rights in such lands as they see fit. Shively v. Bowlby, supra, at 26. Some of the original States, for example, did recognize more private interests in tidelands than did others of the 13 — more private interests than were recognized at common law, or in the dictates of our public trusts cases. See n. 12, infra. Because some of the cases which petitioners cite come from such States (i. e., from States which abandoned the common law with respect to tidelands), they are of only limited value in understanding the public trust doctrine and its scope in those States which have not relinquished their claims to all lands beneath tidal waters.
Finally, we note that several of our prior decisions have recognized that the States have interests in lands beneath tidal waters which have nothing to do with navigation. For example, this Court has previously observed that public trust lands may be used for fishing — for both “shell-fish [and] floating fish.” See, e. g., Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 75 (1855). On several occasions the Court has recognized that lands beneath tidal waters may be reclaimed to create land for urban expansion. E. g., Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 381-382 (1891); Den v. Jersey Co., 15 How. 426, 432 (1854). Because of the State’s ownership of tidelands, restrictions on the planting and harvesting of oysters there have been upheld. McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 395-397 (1877). It would be odd to acknowledge such diverse uses of public trust tidelands, and then suggest that the sole measure of the expanse of such lands is the navigability of the waters over them.
Consequently, we reaffirm our longstanding precedents which hold that the States, upon entry into the Union, received ownership of all lands under waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Under the well-established principles of our cases, the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court is clearly correct: the lands at issue here are “under tidewaters,” and therefore passed to the State of Mississippi upon its entrance into the Union.
1 — 1 l-H I — I
Petitioners do not deny that broad statements of public trust dominion over tidelands have been included in this Court’s opinions since the early 19th century. Rather, they advance two reasons why these previous statements of the public trust doctrine should not be given their apparent application in this case.
A
First, petitioners contend that these sweeping statements of state dominion over tidelands arise from an oddity of the common law, or more specifically, of English geography. Petitioners submit that in England practically all navigable rivers are influenced by the tide. Brief for Petitioners 19. See The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443, 454 (1852). Thus, “tidewater” and “navigability” were synonyms at common law. See Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 436 (1892). Consequently, in petitioners’ view, the Crown’s ownership of lands beneath tidewaters actually rested on the navigability of those waters rather than the ebb and flow of the tide. Cf. ibid. English authority and commentators are cited to show that the Crown did not own the soil under any nonnavigable waters. Petitioners also cite for support statements from this Court’s opinions, such as The Genesee Chief, supra, and Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 413-414 (1842), which observed that it was “the navigable waters of England, and the soils under them, [which were] held by the Crown” at common law (emphasis added).
The cases relied on by petitioners, however, did not deal with tidal, nonnavigable waters. And we will not now enter the debate on what the English law was with respect to the land under such waters, for it is perfectly clear how this Court understood the common law of royal ownership, and what the Court considered the rights of the original and the later entering States to be. As we discuss above, this Court has consistently interpreted the common law as providing that the lands beneath waters under tidal influence were given States upon their admission into the Union. See Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S., at 57. See also cases cited in n. 2, swpra. It is true that none of these cases actually dealt with lands such as those involved in this case, but it has never been suggested in any of this Court’s prior decisions that the many statements included therein — to the effect that the States owned all the soil beneath waters affected by the tide — were anything less than an accurate description of the governing law.
B
Petitioners, in a related argument, contend that even if the common law does not support their position, subsequent cases from this Court developing the American public trust doctrine make it clear that navigability — and not tidal influence — has become the sine qua non of the public trust interest in tidelands in this country.
It is true that The Genesee Chief, supra, at 456-457, overruled prior cases of this Court which had limited admiralty jurisdiction to waters subject to tidal influence. Cf. The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428, 429 (1825). The Court did sharply criticize the “ebb and flow” measure of admiralty inherited from England in The Genesee Chief, and instead insisted quite emphatically that the different topography of America — in particular, our “thousands of miles of public navigable water[s] ... in which there is no tide” — required that “jurisdiction [be] made to depend upon the navigable character of the water, and not upon the ebb and flow of the tide.” 12 How., at 457. Later, it came to be recognized as the “settled law of this country” that the lands under navigable freshwater lakes and rivers were within the public trust given the new States upon their entry into the Union, subject to the federal navigation easement and the power of Congress to control navigation on those streams under the Commerce Clause. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338 (1877). See also Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, supra, at 435-436.
That States own freshwater river bottoms as far as the rivers are navigable, however, does not indicate that navigability is or was the prevailing test for state dominion over tidelands. Rather, this rule represents the American decision to depart from what it understood to be the English rule limiting Crown ownership to the soil under tidal waters. In Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U. S. 363, 374 (1977), after recognizing the accepted doctrine that States coming into the Union had title to all lands under the tidewaters, the Court stated that Barney v. Keokuk, supra, had “extended the doctrine to waters which were nontidal but nevertheless navigable, consistent with [the Court’s] earlier extension of admiralty jurisdiction.”
This Court’s decisions in The Genesee Chief and Barney v. Keokuk extended admiralty jurisdiction and public trust doctrine to navigable freshwaters and the lands beneath them. But we do not read those cases as simultaneously withdrawing from public trust coverage those lands which had been consistently recognized in this Court’s cases as being within that doctrine’s scope: all lands beneath waters influenced by the ebb and flow of the tide. See Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U. S. 273 (1894).
C
Finally, we observe that not the least of the difficulties with petitioners’ position is their concession that the States own the tidelands bordering the oceans, bays, and estuaries — even where these areas by no means could be considered navigable, as is always the case near the shore. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. It is obvious that these waters are part of the sea, and the lands beneath them are state property; ultimately, though, the only proof of this fact can be that the waters are influenced by the ebb and flow of the tide. This is undoubtedly why the ebb-and-flow test has been the measure of public ownership of tidelands for so long.
Admittedly, there is a difference in degree between the waters in this case, and nonnavigable waters on the seashore that are affected by the tide. But there is no difference in kind. For in the end, all tidewaters are connected to the sea: the waters in this case, for example, by a navigable, tidal river. Perhaps the lands at issue here differ in some ways from tidelands directly adjacent to the sea; nonetheless, they still share those “geographical, chemical and environmental” qualities that make lands beneath tidal waters unique. Cf. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 183 (1979) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Indeed, we find the various alternatives for delineating the boundaries of public trust tidelands offered by petitioners and their supporting amici to be unpersuasive and unsatisfactory. As the State suggested at argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 22-23, and as recognized on several previous occasions, the ebb-and-flow rule has the benefit of “uniformity and certainty, and . . . eas[e] of application.” See, e. g., Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369, 379 (1867). We are unwilling, after its lengthy history at common law, in this Court, and in many state courts, to abandon the ebb-and-flow rule now, and seek to fashion a new test to govern the limits of public trust tidelands. Consequently, we hold that the lands at issue in this case were within those given to Mississippi when the State was admitted to the Union.
IV
Petitioners in passing, and amici in somewhat greater detail, complain that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision is “inequitable” and would upset “various . . . kinds of property expectations and interests [which] have matured since Mississippi joined the Union in 1817.” They claim that they have developed reasonable expectations based on their record title for these lands, and that they (and their predecessors-in-interest) have paid taxes on these lands for more than a century.
We have recognized the importance of honoring reasonable expectations in property interests. Cf. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, supra, at 175. But such expectations can only be of consequence where they are “reasonable” ones. Here, Mississippi law appears to have consistently held that the public trust in lands under water includes “title to all the land under tidewater.” Rouse v. Saucier’s Heirs, 166 Miss. 704, 713, 146 So. 291, 291-292 (1933). Although the Mississippi Supreme Court acknowledged that this case may be the first where it faced the question of the public trust interest in nonnavigable tidelands, 491 So. 2d, at 516, the clear and unequivocal statements in its earlier opinions should have been ample indication of the State’s claim to tidelands. Moreover, cases which have discussed the State’s public trust interest in these lands have described uses of them not related to navigability, such as bathing, swimming, recreation, fishing, and mineral development. See, e. g., Treuting v. Bridge and Park Comm’n of City of Biloxi, 199 So. 2d 627, 632-633 (Miss. 1967). These statements, too, should have made clear that the State’s claims were not limited to lands under navigable waterways. Any contrary expectations cannot be considered reasonable.
We are skeptical of the suggestions by the dissent, post, at 485, 493, that a decision affirming the judgment below will have sweeping implications, either within Mississippi or outside that State. The State points out that only one other case is pending in its courts which raises this same issue. Tr. of Oral Arg. 19. And as for the effect of our decision today in other States, we are doubtful that this ruling will do more than confirm the prevailing understanding — which in some States is the same as Mississippi’s, and in others, is quite different. As this Court wrote in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S., at 26, “there is no universal and uniform law upon the subject; but. . . each State has dealt with the lands under the tide waters within its borders according to its own views of justice and policy.”
Consequently, our ruling today will not upset titles in all coastal States, as petitioners intimated at argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 32. As we have discussed supra, at 475, many coastal States, as a matter of state law, granted all or a portion of their tidelands to adjacent upland property owners long ago. Our decision today does nothing to change ownership rights in States which previously relinquished a public trust claim to tidelands such as those at issue here.
Indeed, we believe that it would be far more upsetting to settled expectations to reverse the Mississippi Supreme Court decision. As amici note, see, e. g., Brief for State of California et al. as Amici Curiae 19, many land titles have been adjudicated based on the ebb-and-flow rule for tidelands —we cannot know how many titles would have to be adjusted if the scope of the public trust was now found to be limited to lands beneath navigable tidal waters only. If States do not own lands under nonnavigable tidal waters, many state land grants based on our earlier decisions might now be invalid. Cf. Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S., at 381-382. Finally, even where States have given dominion over tidelands to private property owners, some States have retained for the general public the right to fish, hunt, or bathe on these lands. See n. 12, supra. These long-established rights may be lost with respect to nonnavigable tidal waters if we adopt the rule urged by petitioners.
The fact that petitioners have long been the record title holders, or long paid taxes on these lands does not change the outcome here. How such facts would transfer ownership of these lands from the State to petitioners is a question of state law. Here, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that under Mississippi law, the State’s ownership of these lands could not be lost via adverse possession, laches, or any other equitable doctrine. 491 So. 2d, at 521. See Miss. Const., Art. 4, § 104; Gibson v. State Land Comm’r, 374 So. 2d 212, 216-217 (1979); City of Bay St. Louis v. Board of Supervisors of Hancock County, 80 Miss. 364, 371-372, 32 So. 54 (1902). We see no reason to disturb the “general proposition [that] the law of real property is, under our Constitution, left to the individual States to develop and administer.” Hughes v. Washington, 389 U. S. 290, 295 (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring). See Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 144, 155 (1944); Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U. S. 10, 22 (1935). Consequently, we do not believe that the equitable considerations petitioners advance divest the State of its ownership in the disputed tidelands.
V
Because we believe that our cases firmly establish that the States, upon entering the Union, were given ownership over all lands beneath waters subject to the tide’s influence, we affirm the Mississippi Supreme Court’s determination that the lands at issue here became property of the State upon its admission to the Union in 1817. Furthermore, because we find no reason to set aside that court’s state-law determination that subsequent developments did not divest the State of its ownership of these public trust lands, the judgment below is
Affirmed.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Chancery Court had held that 140 acres of the lands claimed by petitioners were public trust lands. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed with respect to 98 of these 140 acres, finding that these tracts were artificially created tidelands (caused by road construction), and therefore were not part of the public trust created in 1817. Since these lands were neither tidelands in 1817, nor were they added to the tidelands by virtue of natural forces of accretion, they belonged to their record titleholders. 491 So. 2d, at 520.
Because the State did not cross-petition, this portion of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision is not before us. The only issue presented here is title to the 42 acres which the Mississippi Supreme Court found to be public trust lands.
E. g., Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U. S. 10, 15 (1935); Appleby v. City of New York, 271 U. S. 364, 381 (1926); Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 435 (1892); Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 381 (1891); McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 394 (1877); Weber v. Harbor Comm’rs, 18 Wall. 57, 65 (1873); Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471, 477-478 (1850).
See, e. g., Wright v. Seymour, 69 Cal. 122, 123-127, 10 P. 323, 324-326 (1886), which held that the State of California owned the bottom of the Russian River as far as the tide affected it, even where the River was not navigable in fact.
Earlier, the Connecticut Supreme Court had held that the tidal flats adjoining an arm of the sea were in public ownership. Simons v. French, 25 Conn. 346, 352-353 (1856). The South Carolina Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion concerning “salt marshes.” State v. Pinckney, 22 S. C. 484, 507-509 (1885). Both of these cases, and many others like them, recognize state dominion over lands beneath nonnavigable tidal waters.
See, e. g., Rowe v. Granite Bridge Corp., 38 Mass. 344, 347 (1838); Commonwealth v. Charlestown, 18 Mass. 180, 185-186 (1822). Massachusetts abrogated the common law for tidelands in 1641. See Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 18-19 (1894); Storer v. Freeman, 6 Mass. 435, 437-439 (1810).
Petitioners also rely quite heavily on two Connecticut cases, Groton v. Hurlburt, 22 Conn. 178, 185 (1852), and Wethersfield v. Humphrey, 20 Conn. 218, 227 (1850). See Brief for Petitioners 27. However, we think these cases are inapposite. Groton merely held that the erection of a highway over a tidally influenced, but not commercially navigable, creek did not offend federal control over navigable waterways (and did not require a special grant of power under state law). 22 Conn., at 185-189. The decision’s interest in the navigability of the creek, therefore, is unremarkable. Moreover, the Groton decision noted that construction of the highway put the lands to a publicly beneficial use, and that any navigation of the creek (by small boats or skiffs) was not impaired by the construction. Id., at 187-189. The decision in Wethersfield involved similar considerations. 20 Conn., at 227.
These cases lead us to reject the dissent’s assertion that “the fundamental purpose of the public trust is to protect commerce,” post, at 488.
We reject petitioners’ contention that our cases concerning “tidelands” are not applicable here because the term “tidelands” includes only shore-lands or those lands beneath tidal waters which are immediately adjacent to the sea. Reply Brief for Petitioners 14-17. We find no basis for petitioners’ restriction of this term from its more common meaning, i. e., that “tidelands” are lands “over which the tide ebbs and flows . . . land as is affected by the tide.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1329 (5th ed. 1979).
Furthermore, we note that this Court previously rejected a similar contention almost a century ago. See Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U. S. 273, 278, 283 (1894).
See Brief for Petitioners 19-22 (citing, e. g., Mayor of Lynn v. Turner, 1 Cowp. 86, 98 Eng. Rep. 980, 981 (K. B. 1774); M. Hale, De Jure Maris et Brachiorum ejusdem, cap. iii (1667), reprinted in R. Hall, Essay on the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Subject in the Sea Shores of the Realm, App. v (2d ed. 1875).
As we note in the text, infra, at 478, we do not intend to get involved in the historical debate over what the English common law was with respect to nonnavigable tidal streams, if any such law existed — our concern is with how that law was understood and applied by this Court in its eases.
Mann appears to be the only previous case from this Court concerning lands beneath nonnavigable, tidal waters. In Mann, the lands at issue were “tide-flats” or “mud flats” located about one mile from the shore of Commencement Bay “covered to a uniform depth of from two to four feet (according to the run of the tides) at high water, and . . . entirely bare at low water.” See Appellant’s Motion to Advance in Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., O. T. 1893, No. 375, pp. 1-2.
Appellant contended in Mann, much as petitioners argue here, that while the ebb-and-flow test may have been the measure of sovereign ownership at English common law, “the [American] courts have, by the adoption of the rule of ‘navigability in fact’ as the test of ‘navigability in law,’ discarded the common law. . . [and held that w]here there is no navigation in fact, there is no State ownership by virtue of sovereignty.” Supplementary Brief for Appellant 41. See also Mann, 153 U. S., at 277-279. Appellee, like respondents here, argued that cases such as Barney v. Keokuk extended the public trust doctrine to cover navigable-in-fact freshwaters, without reducing the scope of the public trust in tidelands. Brief for Appellee 2-4.
The Court, without commenting on the fact that the lands in question were beneath nonnavigable tidal waters, held the lands to be within the public trust, and within the scope of its earlier decision in Shively. Mann, supra, at 283. Thus, the Court implicitly rejected the argument being advanced by petitioners here: that navigability in fact determined the scope of public trust tidelands.
See, e. g., Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-7; Brief for American Land Title Association as Amicus Curiae 6-7, and n. 4.
Brief for Petitioners 37. See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 31-32; Brief for City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, et al. as Amici Curiae 17-20; Brief for American Land Title Association as Amicus Curiae 1-3.
See also State ex rel. Rice v. Stewart, 184 Miss. 202, 230, 184 So. 44, 49 (1938); Martin v. O’Brien, 34 Miss. 21, 36 (1857).
See, e. g., Bradford v. The Nature Conservancy, 224 Va. 181, 195-198 (1982); Tinicum Fishing Co. v. Carter, 61 Pa. 21, 30-31 (1869); Bickel v. Polk, 5 Del. 325, 326 (1851); Storer v. Freeman, 6 Mass., at 437-439.
It is worth noting, however, that even in some of these States— i. e., even where tidelands are privately held — public rights to use the tidelands for the purposes of fishing, hunting, bathing, etc., have long been recognized. See, e. g., Bradford, supra, at 191, 197; Bickel, supra, at 326. Limiting the public trust doctrine to only tidelands under navigable waters might well result in a loss to the public of some of these traditional privileges.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | M | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a member of the New York City Police Department, was summarily discharged on July 15, 1964. On June 26 he had been subpoenaed before a New York County grand jury, known as the First June 1964 Grand Jury. Before appearing in the grand jury room, an Assistant District Attorney advised him to sign a waiver of immunity, saying that otherwise he would be subject to removal from public office. He signed the waiver. Thereupon he was an unsworn witness before the grand jury:
“Q. Lieutenant . . . Stevens, as was pointed out to you earlier, this grand jury is inquiring into the crimes of conspiracy to commit the crime of bribery of a public officer and the crime of bribery of a public officer; do you understand that?
“A. I do.
“Q. Do you understand further that you have been called here as a potential defendant, not as a witness; do you understand that?
“A. I do.
“Q. Do you understand that under the Constitution of the United States you have the right to refuse to answer any questions that might tend to incriminate you; do you understand that?
“A. I do.
“Q. Do you understand further that under the New York State Constitution, and New York City Charter, a public officer is required, if he desires to continue to hold his public position, to sign a limited waiver of immunity; do you understand that?
“A. I do.
“Q. Do you understand that that means that if you sign a limited waiver of immunity which requires you to answer questions concerning the conduct of your public office, that what you say will be taken down and recorded, and that should this grand jury vote a true bill against you, that is an indictment — to indict you for a crime, the testimony you give can and will be used against you. Do you understand that?
“A. I do.
“Q. Are you prepared to sign a waiver of immunity?
“A. I am.”
That petitioner’s waiver of “all benefits, privileges, rights and immunity which I would otherwise obtain from indictment, prosecution and punishment” covered both the privilege against self-incrimination and immunity from prosecution is evidenced by the foregoing colloquy.
Then petitioner was sworn, asked a few questions, given a questionnaire to fill out, and asked to return with it completed.
At these stages petitioner had no counsel. On July 15, he returned to a different grand jury — the Third July 1964 Grand Jury. Now he had counsel and refused to sign a waiver of immunity. He was examined, as before, concerning his knowledge that to save his job he had to waive his immunity. He acknowledged that he knew the consequences of his refusal to waive his immunity and was excused.
That same day, as a consequence of his refusal to waive immunity before the Third July 1964 Grand Jury, petitioner was discharged as a police officer.
On July 22 he was again summoned before the First June 1964 Grand Jury and put a certain question which he refused to answer on the basis of his state and federal constitutional rights. He was brought before a judge who directed him to answer the questions. He refused to answer “on the grounds stated in the State and Federal Constitution” and the judge found him in contempt. On July 28, a hearing was held, at which petitioner, through his counsel, contended that the waiver was invalid or, alternatively, had been effectively withdrawn. In either event his Fifth Amendment claim was valid under Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1. For it was agreed that “there is no claim that this witness has been given immunity.” At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner was fined $250 and given 30 days in the civil jail in New York City for that contempt. Petitioner promptly appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. While this appeal was pending, he sought and was denied federal habeas corpus. Application of Stevens, 234 F. Supp. 25. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, stating its belief that Regan v. New York, 349 U. S. 58, was controlling. 22 App. Div. 2d 683, 253 N. Y. S. 2d 401. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. 15 N. Y. 2d 483, 205 N. E. 2d 315. This is the conviction which is the basis of the petition in No. 210.
Thereafter, on September 28, petitioner was summoned again before the First June 1964 Grand Jury. Once again a question was put him and once more he refused to answer, claiming his privilege which, as we have said, was available to him under Malloy v. Hogan, supra, if the waiver was invalid or had been effectively withdrawn. He was brought before another judge who directed him to answer the question. On refusal, petitioner was held in contempt and fined $250 and sentenced to 30 days in jail. On January 11,1965, petitioner was once more summoned before the First June 1964 Grand Jury and refused again to answer a question on the ground that it was incriminating. He was taken before a judge and directed to answer. On his refusal he was fined $250 and sentenced to 30 days. While serving that jail term, petitioner once again sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court. The court denied relief, indicating that it regarded Regan v. New York, supra, binding authority. United States ex rel. Stevens v. McCloskey, 239 F. Supp. 419. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 345 F. 2d 305. It is this last conviction that is the basis of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus in No. 290.
Both cases are here on writs of certiorari. 382 U. S. 809.
Not once in any of the hearings was petitioner told that if he responded with incriminating answers, the state immunity statute might preclude a prosecution based on such answers. On the contrary, the Assistant District Attorney made it clear that the view of the prosecution was that petitioner had waived any rights he might have had under the immunity statute:
“Q. And was it further told to you that it meant that if you signed a limited waiver of immunity, which required you to answer questions concerning your conduct in public office, that what you said would be taken down and recorded and that should this grand jury vote a true bill against you, that is an indictment, the testimony you gave could be and will be used against you? Was that explained to you?
“A. I believe it was, yes, sir.
“Q. And did you tell this grand jury you understood that?
“A. That’s right.”
The Assistant District Attorney went on to say:
“Q. And do you understand further that regardless of what your lawyer may say or what anyone else may say, that it is the contention of the People that this is a valid waiver of immunity and that you do not have immunity? Do you understand that?
“A. Yes, sir.”
As we read this record, petitioner was led to believe that he could invoke his federal privilege against self-incrimination only on pain of losing his public employment; that to retain his job he was obliged to sign a waiver; and that should he sign a waiver he would have no immunity in answering incriminating questions. Throughout the various appearances petitioner made before the grand juries and in the New York courts which held him in contempt, the prosecution consistently maintained that petitioner’s waiver was valid. And there was never any suggestion that if, as petitioner contended, the waiver were invalid or effectively withdrawn, he might obtain a valid immunity from subsequent prosecution.
Here lies the difference between this case and Regan v. New York. For after that case arose, New York amended its immunity statute. Instead of conferring automatic immunity on all witnesses who testify before the grand jury, immunity is now conferred “only by strict compliance with the procedural requirements of • our immunity statutes properly enacted . . . People v. Laino, 10 N. Y. 2d 161, 173, 176 N. E. 2d 571, 579. Section 381 of the Penal Law, as amended in 1953, provides that in any bribery investigation “the court, magistrate or grand jury, or the committee may confer immunity in accordance with the provisions” of § 2447. The latter section provides that an investigating grand jury is among those “authorized to confer immunity” in a proceeding relating to bribery, provided that certain procedural steps are taken: (a) the witness must refuse to answer on the ground of self-incrimination; (b) the grand jury must then be “expressly requested by the prosecuting attorney to order such person to . . . answer” ; (c) the grand jury must then order the person to answer; (d) the witness must then comply with the order to answer; and (e) thereupon “immunity shall be conferred.” Under these laws, immunity is not automatically conferred “merely by testifying.” People v. Laino, supra, at 172, 176 N. E. 2d, at 578. “Complete immunity from prosecution may be obtained by a prospective defendant, or any witness, only by strict compliance with the procedural requirements of our immunity statutes properly enacted ... or by virtue of immunity provisions in' our State Constitution . . . .” Id., at 173, 176 N. E. 2d, at 579.
In the present case neither the prosecutor nor the grand jury had any thought of conferring immunity on petitioner. They tried to hold petitioner to his waiver. Yet if he had gone ahead and testified and it were established in a later prosecution that his waiver was invalid, it seems that he would have been bereft of any immunity under the New York law, since the requirements of “strict compliance” had not been met. Accordingly, only if the petitioner’s waiver was valid and binding was he bound to testify — at least until the affirmative steps necessary to confer immunity were taken. Whether or not petitioner could validly assert the privilege against self-incrimination depends on whether the waiver was, as he contends, invalid or effectively withdrawn. Although the trial judge which first found him in contempt ruled that the waiver was valid, the Appellate Division considered that question irrelevant in light of Regan v. New York.
Since, as we have seen, Regan is inapposite, we conclude that at the time petitioner was held to be in contempt, he had — -as a matter of federal constitutional law — effectively withdrawn the waiver. When petitioner was asked to waive his federally secured right to refuse to answer the questions, he was informed that failure to execute the waiver would result in the loss of his public employment. Although it put petitioner to “a choice between the rock and the whirlpool” (Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 271 U. S. 583, 593), New York says that, having “voluntarily” waived his constitutional rights, petitioner may not thereafter claim his privilege. At petitioner’s first appearance before a grand jury after having consulted with counsel, petitioner attempted to do just that: he announced his intention to withdraw his waiver.
Even were we to assume, without deciding, that a State may constitutionally exact, on pain of loss of employment and in the absence of counsel, the waiver of a constitutional right, we would be unable to find any justification for denying the right to withdraw it. We hold that petitioner’s effort to withdraw the waiver was effective, and that in the absence of an immunity provision clearly made applicable to him, petitioner could properly stand on his privilege and refuse to answer potentially incriminating questions.
One final point remains. Although the courts below did not consider the possibility, the briefs suggest that petitioner might, quite apart from the statutory immunity conferred by § 2447, have been given immunity by operation of law. It is said that, as the New York courts have interpreted the state constitution, a potential defendant may not be compelled to appear before a grand jury; any testimony given by him during such an appearance may not thereafter be used against him. People v. Steuding, 6 N. Y. 2d 214, 160 N. E. 2d 468; People v. Laino, 10 N. Y. 2d 161, 176 N. E. 2d 571. Thus it might be thought that this “automatic” immunity resulting from petitioner’s appearance before the grand jury makes this case precisely identical with Regan. We cannot agree. We need not stop to determine whether the immunity said to be conferred here — which merely prevents the use of the defendant’s testimony or its fruits in any subsequent prosecution but, apparently, does not preclude prosecution based on “independent” evidence (People v. Laino, supra; People v. Ryan, 11 App. Div. 2d 155, 204 N. Y. S. 2d 1) — constitutes that “absolute immunity against further prosecution” about which the Court spoke in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 586, and which the Court said was necessary if the privilege were to be constitutionally supplanted. And see Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U. S. 70, 79-81. For even if the Steuding-Laino immunity were available to petitioner, he was led to believe — as we have already seen — that no immunity provisions were applicable to his case.
In this sense the case is very close to Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, where the existence of immunity was never suggested to the witnesses, later held in contempt. In that case the State Supreme Court held that the immunity under the statute was automatically available to the witnesses and advice of the investigating agency was not necessary. But we reversed those judgments of conviction since what the State was doing was “convicting a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State clearly had told him was available to him” (id., at 438), and we went on to say:
“A State may not issue commands to its citizens, under criminal sanctions, in language so vague and undefined as to afford no fair warning of what conduct might transgress them. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451. Inexplicably contradictory commands in statutes ordaining criminal penalties have, in the same fashion, judicially been denied the force of criminal sanctions. United States v. Cardiff, 344 U. S. 174. Here there were more than commands simply vague or even contradictory. There was active misleading. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 318 U. S. 189, 197. The State Supreme Court dismissed the statements of the Commission as legally erroneous, but the fact remains that at the inquiry they were the voice of the State most presently speaking to the appellants. We cannot hold that the Due Process Clause permits convictions to be obtained under such circumstances.” Id., at 438-439.
Raley demonstrates that the State may not substitute for the privilege against self-incrimination an intricate scheme for conferring immunity and thereafter hold in contempt those who fail fully to perceive its subtleties. A witness has, we think, a constitutional right to stand on the privilege against self-incrimination until it has been fairly demonstrated to him that an immunity, as broad in scope as the privilege it replaces, is available and applicable to him. This, it seems to us, is the teaching of Raley, and accordingly the Steuding-Laino immunity — if otherwise applicable- — cannot now be invoked to validate these contempt convictions.
Reversed.
Article I, §6, of the New York Constitution provides in part: “No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal ease to be a witness against himself, providing, that any public officer who, upon being called before a grand jury to testify concerning the conduct of his present office or of any public office held by him within five years prior to such grand jury call to testify, or the performance of his official duties in any such present or prior offices, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, shall by virtue of such refusal, be disqualified from holding any other public office or public employment for a period of five years from the date of such refusal to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, and shall be removed from his present office by the appropriate authority or shall forfeit his present office at the suit of the attorney-general.”
The waiver read in part:
“. . .all benefits, privileges, rights and immunity which I would otherwise obtain from indictment, prosecution and punishment for or on account of, regarding or relating to any matter, transaction or thing, concerning the conduct of my office or the performance of my official duties, or the property, government or affairs of the State of New York or of any county included within its territorial limits, or the . . . official conduct of any officer of the city or of any such county, concerning any of which matters, transactions or things I may testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the 1st, 1964 Grand Jury in the County of New York, in the investigation being conducted by said Grand Jury.”
This was the view of the Appellate Division which, when affirming petitioner’s first contempt conviction, said: “[I]f the waiver of immunity is still valid, petitioner no longer has any privilege to refuse to testify.” 22 App. Div. 2d 683, 684, 253 N. Y. S. 2d 401, 402.
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed a witness the protection of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, was decided June 15,1964.
Petitioner’s counsel made the following statement: “May we also have the record clarified, Your Honor. It is my understanding, based on what was said here the last time in court before Your Honor, that there is no claim that this witness has been given immunity. The claim is that he has signed a valid waiver and that he refused to testify under it, and that is why Your Honor has found him guilty of criminal contempt, is that right?” The court replied, “That covers the situation.”
Began v. New York arose under an earlier version of the New York immunity law, which conferred automatic immunity from prosecution on anyone who testified before the grand jury. Regan had, like petitioner, executed a waiver of immunity and later sought to repudiate it. Unclear of his rights, Regan refused to testify though ordered to do so. This Court affirmed his contempt conviction, refusing to consider questions raised as to the validity of his waiver and the efficacy of his efforts to withdraw it. The Court’s theory was that regardless of the validity of the waiver, Regan was bound to answer the questions put to him: If the waiver was valid and binding, then of course he must answer since he had waived the right to refuse to do so. If the waiver was invalid, then petitioner would have immunity from prosecution, and thus could not rely on the privilege against self-incrimination.
This sentence was served.
See Regan v. New York, 349 U. S. 58, 59, note 2 and accompanying text, for a discussion of the earlier version of that section.
That immunity was never properly conferred on petitioner was, as we read this record, recognized by petitioner’s counsel and by the judge which first found him in contempt of court. See note 5, supra, and accompanying text.
As for the suggestion that withdrawal of the waiver in mid-hearing poses an administrative inconvenience, we only note that there was no such inconvenience here. Petitioner had answered only a few perfunctory questions at his first appearance before the grand jury. He asserted his desire to withdraw the waiver immediately upon returning before the grand jury.
The suggestion that we should remand the case to the New York courts for a finding of whether or not petitioner was misled is, we think, wide of the mark. A State must affirmatively demonstrate to the witness that a valid immunity from prosecution is his before it may hold him in contempt for refusing to answer questions that would otherwise be incriminating. Whether the State has met its burden must be measured at the time of the alleged contempt. A declaration that there was a valid immunity uttered for the first time on appeal would come too late.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the United States Government may compel testimony from an unwilling witness, who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, by conferring on the witness immunity from use of the compelled testimony in subsequent criminal proceedings, as well as immunity from use of evidence derived from the testimony.
Petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California on February 4, 1971. The Government believed that petitioners were likely to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege. Prior to the scheduled appearances, the Government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §§ 6002-6003. Petitioners opposed issuance of the order, contending primarily that the scope of the immunity provided by the statute was not coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore was not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel their testimony. The District Court rejected this contention, and ordered petitioners to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions under the grant of immunity.
Petitioners appeared but refused to answer questions, asserting their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. They were brought before the District Court, and each persisted in his refusal to answer the grand jury’s questions, notwithstanding the grant of immunity. The court found both in contempt, and committed them to the custody of the Attorney General until either they answered the grand jury’s questions or the term of the grand jury expired. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Stewart v. United States, 440 F. 2d 954 (CA9 1971). This Court granted certiorari to resolve the important question whether testimony may be compelled by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom (“use and derivative use” immunity), or whether it is necessary to grant immunity from prosecution for offenses to which compelled testimony relates (“transactional” immunity). 402 U. S. 971 (1971).
I
The power of government to compel persons to testify in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. The power with respect to courts was established by statute in England as early as 1562, and Lord Bacon observed in 1612 that all subjects owed the King their “knowledge and discovery.” While it is not clear when grand juries first resorted to compulsory process to secure, the attendance and testimony of witnesses, the general common-law principle that “the public has a right to every man’s evidence” was considered an “indubitable certainty” that “cannot be denied” by 1742. The power to compel testimony, and the corresponding duty to testify, are recognized in the Sixth Amendment requirements that an accused be confronted with the witnesses against him, and have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The first Congress recognized the testimonial duty in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which provided for compulsory attendance of witnesses in the federal courts. Mr. Justice White noted the importance of this essential power of government in his concurring opinion in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 93-94 (1964):
“Among the necessary and most important of the powers of the States as well as the Federal Government to assure the effective functioning of government in an ordered society is the broad power to compel residents to testify in court or before grand juries or agencies. See Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273. Such testimony constitutes one of the Government’s primary sources of information.”
But the power to compel testimony is not absolute. There are a number of exemptions from the testimonial duty, the most important of which is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. The privilege reflects a complex of our fundamental values and aspirations, and marks an important advance in the development of our liberty. It can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used. This Court has been zealous to safeguard the values that underlie the privilege.
Immunity statutes, which have historical roots deep in Anglo-American jurisprudence, are not incompatible with these values. Rather, they seek a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify. The existence of these statutes reflects the importance of testimony, and the fact that many offenses are of such a character that the only persons capable of giving useful testimony are those implicated in the crime. Indeed, their origins were in the context of such offenses, and their primary use has been to investigate such offenses. Congress included immunity statutes in many of the regulatory measures adopted in the first half of this century. Indeed, prior to the enactment of the statute under consideration in this case, there were in force over 50 federal immunity statutes. In addition, every State in the Union, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, has one or more such statutes. The commentators, and this Court on several occasions, have characterized immunity statutes as essential to the effective enforcement of various criminal statutes. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed, speaking for the Court in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422 (1956), such statutes have “become part of our constitutional fabric.” Id., at 438.
II
Petitioners contend, first, that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, which is that “[n]o person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," deprives Congress of power to enact laws that compel self-incrimination, even if complete immunity from prosecution is granted prior to the compulsion of the incriminatory testimony. In other words, petitioners assert that no immunity statute, however drawn, can afford a lawful basis for compelling incriminatory testimony. They ask us to reconsider and overrule Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 (1896), and Ullmann v. United States, supra, decisions that uphold the constitutionality of immunity statutes. We find no merit to this contention and reaffirm the decisions in Brown and Ullmann.
III
Petitioners' second contention is that the scope of immunity provided by the federal witness immunity statute, 18 U. S. C. § 6002, is not coextensive with the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and therefore is not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. The statute provides that when a witness is compelled by district court order to testify over a claim of the privilege:
“the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.” 18 U. S. C. § 6002.
The constitutional inquiry, rooted in logic and history, as well as in the decisions of this Court, is whether the immunity granted under this statute is coextensive with the scope of the privilege. If so, petitioners’ refusals to answer based on the privilege were unjustified, and the judgments of contempt were proper, for the grant of immunity has removed the dangers against which the privilege protects. Brown v. Walker, supra. If, on the other hand, the immunity granted is not as comprehensive as the protection afforded by the privilege, petitioners were justified in refusing to answer, and the judgments of contempt must be vacated. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 42 (1924).
Petitioners draw a distinction between statutes that provide transactional immunity and those that provide, as does the statute before us, immunity from use and derivative use. They contend that a statute must at a minimum grant full transactional immunity in order to be coextensive with the scope of the privilege. In support of this contention, they rely on Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892), the first case in which this Court considered a constitutional challenge to an immunity statute. The statute, a re-enactment of the Immunity Act of 1868, provided that no “evidence obtained from a party or witness by means of a judicial proceeding... shall be given in evidence, or in any manner used against him... in any court of the United States....” Notwithstanding a grant of immunity and order to testify under the revised 1868 Act, the witness, asserting his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, refused to testify before a federal grand jury. He was consequently adjudged in contempt of court. On appeal, this Court construed the statute as affording a witness protection only against the use of the specific testimony compelled from him under the grant of immunity. This construction meant that the statute “could not, and would not, prevent the use of his testimony to search out other testimony to be used in evidence against him.” Since the revised 1868 Act, as construed by the Court, would permit the use against the immunized witness of evidence derived from his compelled testimony, it did not protect the witness to the same extent that a claim of the privilege would protect him. Accordingly, under the principle that a grant of immunity cannot supplant the privilege, and is not sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege, unless the scope of the grant of immunity is coextensive with the scope of the privilege, the witness’ refusal to testify was held proper. In the course of its opinion, the Court made the following statement, on which petitioners heavily rely:
“We are clearly of opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness subject to prosecution after he answers the criminating question put to him, can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the Constitution of the United States. [The immunity statute under consideration] 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. In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory enactment, to be valid, must afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offence to which the question relates.” 142 U. S., at 585-586.
Sixteen days after the Counselman decision, a new immunity bill was introduced by Senator Cullom, who urged that enforcement of the Interstate Commerce Act would be impossible in the absence of an effective immunity statute. The bill, which became the Compulsory Testimony Act of 1893, was drafted specifically to meet the broad language in Counselman set forth above. The new Act removed the privilege against self-incrimination in hearings before the Interstate Commerce Commission and provided that:
“no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise -” Act of Feb. 11, 1893, 27 Stat. 444.
This transactional immunity statute became the basic form for the numerous federal immunity statutes until 1970, when, after re-examining applicable constitutional principles and the adequacy of existing law, Congress enacted the statute here under consideration. The new statute, which does not “afford [the] absolute immunity against future prosecution” referred to in Counselman, was drafted to meet what Congress judged to be the conceptual basis of Counselman, as elaborated in subsequent decisions of the Court, namely, that immunity from the use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom is coextensive with the scope of the privilege.
The statute’s explicit proscription of the use in any criminal case of “testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information)” is consonant with Fifth Amendment standards. We hold that such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. While a grant of immunity must afford protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege, it need not be broader. Transactional immunity, which accords full immunity from prosecution for the offense to which the compelled testimony relates, affords the witness considerably broader protection than does the Fifth Amendment privilege. The privilege has never been construed to mean that one who invokes it cannot subsequently be prosecuted. Its sole concern is to afford protection against being “forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of 'penalties affixed to... criminal acts.’ ” Immunity from the use of compelled testimony, as well as evidence derived directly and indirectly therefrom, affords this protection. It prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the compelled testimony in any respect, and it therefore insures that the testimony cannot lead to the infliction of criminal penalties on the witness.
Our holding is consistent with the conceptual basis of Counselman. The Counselman statute, as construed by the Court, was plainly deficient in its 'failure to prohibit the use against the immunized witness of evidence derived from his compelled testimony. The Court repeatedly emphasized this deficiency, noting that the statute:
“could not, and would not, prevent the use of his testimony to search out other testimony to be used in evidence against him or his property, in a criminal proceeding.. 142 U. S., at 564;
that it:
“could not prevent the obtaining and the use of witnesses and evidence which should be attributable directly to the testimony he might give under compulsion, and on which he might be convicted, when otherwise, and if he had refused to answer, he could not possibly have been convicted,” ibid.;
and that it:
“affords no protection against that use of compelled testimony which consists in gaining therefrom a knowledge of the details of a crime, and of sources of information which may supply other means of convicting the witness or party.” 142 U. S., at 586.
The basis of the Court's decision was recognized in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422 (1956), in which the Court reiterated that the Counselman statute was insufficient:
“because the immunity granted was incomplete, in that it merely forbade the use of the testimony given and failed to protect a witness from future prosecution based on knowledge and sources of information obtained from the compelled testimony Id., at 437. (Emphasis supplied.)
See also Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71, 73 (1920). The broad language in Counselman relied upon by petitioners was unnecessary to the Court’s decision, and cannot be considered binding authority.
In Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 (1964), the Court carefully considered immunity from use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom. The Murphy petitioners were subpoenaed to testify at a hearing conducted by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. After refusing to answer certain questions on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate them, petitioners were granted immunity from prosecution under the laws of New Jersey and New York. They continued to refuse to testify, however, on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them under federal law, to which the immunity did not purport to extend. They were adjudged in civil contempt, and that judgment was affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The issue before the Court in Murphy was whether New Jersey and New York could compel the witnesses, whom these States had immunized from prosecution under their laws, to give testimony that might then be used to convict them of a federal crime. Since New Jersey and New York had not purported to confer immunity from federal prosecution, the Court was faced with the question what limitations the Fifth Amendment privilege imposed on the prosecutorial powers of the Federal Government, a nonimmunizing sovereign. After undertaking an examination of the policies and purposes of the privilege, the Court overturned the rule that one jurisdiction within our federal structure may compel a witness to give testimony which could be used to convict him of a crime in another jurisdiction. The Court held that the privilege protects state witnesses against incrimination under federal as well as state law, and federal witnesses against incrimination under state as well as federal law. Applying this principle to the state immunity legislation before it, the Court held the constitutional rule to be that:
“[A] state witness may not be compelled to give testimony which may be incriminating under federal law unless the compelled testimony and its fruits cannot be used in any manner by federal officials in connection with a criminal prosecution against him. We conclude, moreover, that in order to implement this constitutional rule and accommodate the interests of the State and Federal Governments in investigating and prosecuting crime, the Federal Government must be prohibited from making any such use of compelled testimony and its fruits.” 378 U. S., at 79.
The Court emphasized that this rule left the state witness and the Federal Government, against which the witness had immunity only from the me of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom, “in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege in the absence of a state grant of immunity.” Ibid.
It is true that in Murphy the Court was not presented with the precise question presented by this case, whether a jurisdiction seeking to compel testimony may do so by granting only use and derivative-use immunity, for New Jersey and New York had granted petitioners transactional immunity. The Court heretofore has not squarely confronted this question, because post-Coun-selman immunity statutes reaching the Court either have followed the pattern of the 1893 Act in providing transactional immunity, or have been found deficient for failure to prohibit the use of all evidence derived from compelled testimony. But both the reasoning of the Court in Murphy and the result reached compel the conclusion that use and derivative-use immunity is constitutionally sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. Since the privilege is fully applicable and its scope is the same whether invoked in a state or in a federal jurisdiction, the Murphy conclusion that a prohibition on use and derivative use secures a witness’ Fifth Amendment privilege against infringement by the Federal Government demonstrates that immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege. As the Murphy Court noted, immunity from use and derivative use “leaves the witness and the Federal Government in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege” in the absence of a grant of immunity. The Murphy Court was concerned solely with the danger of incrimination under federal law, and held that immunity from use and derivative use was sufficient to displace the danger. This protection coextensive with the privilege is the degree of protection that the Constitution requires, and is all that the Constitution requires even against the jurisdiction compelling testimony by granting immunity.
IV
Although an analysis of prior decisions and the purpose of the Fifth Amendment privilege indicates that use and derivative-use immunity is coextensive with the privilege, we must consider additional arguments advanced by petitioners against the sufficiency of such immunity. We start from the premise, repeatedly affirmed by this Court, that an appropriately broad immunity grant is compatible with the Constitution.
Petitioners argue that use and derivative-use immunity will not adequately protect a witness from various possible incriminating uses of the compelled testimony: for example, the prosecutor or other law enforcement officials may obtain leads, names of witnesses, or other information not otherwise available that might result in a prosecution. It will be difficult and perhaps impossible, the argument goes, to identify, by testimony or cross-examination, the subtle ways in which the compelled testimony may disadvantage a witness, especially in the jurisdiction granting the immunity.
This argument presupposes that the statute’s prohibition will prove impossible to enforce. The statute provides a sweeping proscription of any use, direct or indirect, of the compelled testimony and any information derived therefrom:
“[N]o testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case... 18 U. S. C. § 6002.
This total prohibition on use provides a comprehensive safeguard, barring the use of compelled testimony as an “investigatory lead,” and also barring the use of any evidence obtained by focusing investigation on a witness as a result of his compelled disclosures.
A person accorded this immunity under 18 U. S. C. § 6002, and subsequently prosecuted, is not dependent for the preservation of his rights upon the integrity and good faith of the prosecuting authorities. As stated in Murphy:
“Once a defendant demonstrates that he has testified, under a state grant of immunity, to matters related to the federal prosecution, the federal authorities have the burden of showing that their evidence is not tainted by establishing that they had an independent, legitimate source for the disputed evidence.” 378 U. S., at 79 n. 18.
This burden of proof, which we reaffirm as appropriate, is not limited to a negation of taint; rather, it imposes on the prosecution the affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.
This is very substantial protection, commensurate with that resulting from invoking the privilege itself. The privilege assures that a citizen is not compelled to incriminate himself by his own testimony. It usually operates to allow a citizen to remain silent when asked a question requiring an incriminatory answer. This statute, which operates after a witness has given incriminatory testimony, affords the same protection by assuring that the compelled testimony can in no way lead to the infliction of criminal penalties. The statute, like the Fifth Amendment, grants neither pardon nor amnesty. Both the statute and the Fifth Amendment allow the government to prosecute using evidence from legitimate independent sources.
The statutory proscription is analogous to the Fifth Amendment requirement in cases of coerced confessions. A coerced confession, as revealing of leads as testimony given in exchange for immunity, is inadmissible in a criminal trial, but it does not bar prosecution. Moreover, a defendant against whom incriminating evidence has been obtained through a grant of immunity may be in a stronger position at trial than a defendant who asserts a Fifth Amendment coerced-confession claim. One raising a claim under this statute need only show that he testified under a grant of immunity in order to shift to the government the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sources. On the other hand, a defendant raising a eoerced-confession claim under the Fifth Amendment must first prevail in a voluntariness hearing before his confession and evidence derived from it become inadmissible.
There can be no justification in reason or policy for holding that the Constitution requires an amnesty grant where, acting pursuant to statute and accompanying safeguards, testimony is compelled in exchange for immunity from use and derivative use when no such amnesty is required where the government, acting without colorable right, coerces a defendant into incriminating himself.
We conclude that the immunity provided by 18 U. S. C. § 6002 leaves the witness and the prosecutorial authorities in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege. The immunity therefore is coextensive with the privilege and suffices to supplant it. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accordingly is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The contempt order was issued pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1826.
For a concise history of testimonial compulsion prior to the adoption of our Constitution, see 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2190 (J. McNaughton rev. 1961). See Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 439 n. 15 (1956); Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273 (1919).
Statute of Elizabeth, 5 Eliz. 1, c. 9, § 12 (1562).
Countess of Shrewsbury’s Case, 2 How. St. Tr. 769, 778 (1612).
See the parliamentary debate on the Bill to Indemnify Evidence, particularly the remarks of the Duke of Argyle and Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, reported in 12 T. Hansard, Parliamentary History of England 675, 693 (1812). See also Piemonte v. United States, 367 U. S. 556, 559 n. 2 (1961); Ullmann v. United States, supra, at 439 n. 15; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 600 (1896).
1 Stat. 73, 88-89.
See Blair v. United States, supra, at 281; 8 Wigmore, supra, n. 2, §§ 2192, 2197.
See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964).
See Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S., at 426; E. Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today 7 (1955).
Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, supra, at 94 (White, J., concurring); McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 40 (1924); United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100 (1828); cf. Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273 (1968).
Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951); Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159 (1950); Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 365 (1917).
See, e. g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 443-444 (1966); Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 635 (1886).
Soon after the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination became firmly established in law, it was recognized that the privilege did not apply when immunity, or “indemnity,” in the English usage, had been granted. See L. Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment 328, 495 (1968). Parliament enacted an immunity statute in 1710 directed against illegal gambling, 9 Anne, c. 14, §§ 3-4, which became the model for an identical immunity statute enacted in 1774 by the Colonial Legislature of New York. Law of Mar. 9, 1774, c. 1651, 5 Colonial Laws of New York 621, 623 (1894). These statutes provided that the loser could sue the winner, who was compelled to answer the loser’s charges. After the winner responded and returned his ill-gotten gains, he was “acquitted, indemnified [immunized] and discharged from any further or other Punishment, Forfeiture or Penalty, which he... may have incurred by the playing for, and winning such Money....” 9 Anne, c. 14, § 4 (1710); Law of Mar. 9, 1774, c. 1651, 5 Colonial Laws of New York, at 623.
Another notable instance of the early use of immunity legislation is the 1725 impeachment trial of Lord Chancellor Macclesfield. The Lord Chancellor was accused by the House of Commons of the sale of public offices and appointments. In order to compel the testimony of Masters in Chancery who had allegedly purchased their offices from the Lord Chancellor, and who could incriminate themselves by so testifying, Parliament enacted a statute granting immunity to persons then holding office as Masters in Chancery. Lord Chancellor Macclesfield’s Trial, 16 How. St. Tr. 767, 1147 (1725). See 8 Wigmore, supra, n. 2, § 2281, at 492. See also Bishop Atter-bury’s Trial, 16 How. St. Tr. 323, 604-605 (1723). The legislatures in colonial Pennsylvania and New York enacted immunity legislation in the 18th century. See, e. g., Resolution of Jan. 6, 1758, in Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the Province of Pennsylvania (1682-1776), 6 Pennsylvania Archives (8th series) 4679 (C. Hoban ed. 1935); Law of Mar. 24, 1772, c. 1542, 5 Colonial Laws of New York 351, 353-354; Law of Mar. 9, 1774, c. 1651, id., at 621, 623; Law of Mar. 9, 1774, c. 1655, id., at 639, 641-642. See generally L. Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment 359, 384-385, 389, 402-403 (1968). Federal immunity statutes have existed since 1857. Act of Jan. 24, 1857, 11 Stat. 155. For a history of the various federal immunity statutes, see Comment, The Federal Witness Immunity Acts in Theory and Practice: Treading the Constitutional Tightrope, 72 Yale L. J. 1568 (1963); Wendel, Compulsory Immunity Legislation and the Fifth Amendment Privilege: New Developments and New Confusion, 10 St. Louis U. L. Rev. 327 (1966); and National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Working Papers, 1406-1411 (1970).
See, e. g., Resolution of Jan. 6, 1758, n. 13, supra, 6 Pennsylvania Archives (8th series) 4679 (C. Hoban ed. 1935); Law of Mar. 24, 1772, c. 1542, 5 Colonial Laws of New York 351, 354; Law of Mar. 9, 1774, c. 1655, id., at 639, 642. Bishop Atter-bury’s Trial, supra, for which the House of Commons passed immunity legislation, was a prosecution for treasonable conspiracy. See id., at 604-605; 8 Wigmore, supra, n. 2, §2281, at 492 n. 2. Lord Chancellor Macclesfield’s Trial, supra, for which Parliament passed immunity legislation, was a prosecution for political bribery involving the sale of public offices and appointments. See id., at 1147. The first federal immunity statute was enacted to facilitate an investigation of charges of corruption and vote buying in the House of Representatives. See Comment, n. 13, supra, 72 Yale L. J., at 1571.
See 8 Wigmore, supra, n. 2, § 2281, at 492. Mr. Justice White noted in his concurring opinion in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S., at 92, that immunity statutes “have for more than a century been resorted to for the investigation of many offenses, chiefly those whose proof and punishment were otherwise impracticable, such as political bribery, extortion, gambling, consumer frauds, liquor violations, commercial larceny, and various forms of racketeering.” Id., at 94-95. See n. 14, supra.
See Comment, n. 13, supra, 72 Yale L. J., at 1576.
For a listing of these statutes, see National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Working Papers, 1444-1445 (1970).
For a listing of these statutes, see 8 Wigmore, supra, n. 2, § 2281, at 495 n. 11.
See, e. g., 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2281, at 501 (3d ed. 1940); 8 Wigmore, supra, n. 2, § 2281, at 496.
See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 70 (1906); Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S., at 610.
This statement was made with specific reference to the Compulsory Testimony Act of 1893, 27 Stat. 443, the model for almost all federal immunity statutes prior to the enactment of the statute under consideration in this case. See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S., at 95 (White, J., concurring).
Accord, Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S., at 276; Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, supra; McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S., at 42 (Brandéis, J.); Heilce v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 142 (1913) (Holmes, J.).
Eor other provisions of the 1970 Act relative to immunity of witnesses, see 18 U. S. C. §§ 6001-6005.
See, e. g., Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, supra, at 54, 78; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 585 (1892).
See Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U. S. 548 (1971).
15 Stat. 37.
See Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra, at 560.
In re Counselman, 44 F. 268 (CCND Ill. 1890).
Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra, at 564.
Precisely, the Court held “that legislation cannot abridge a constitutional privilege, and that it cannot replace or supply [sic] one, at least unless it is so broad as to have the same extent in scope and effect.” Id,., at 585. See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, supra, at 54, 78.
Counselman was decided Jan. 11, 1892. Senator Cullom introduced the new bill on Jan. 27, 1892. 23 Cong. Rec. 573.
23 Cong. Rec. 6333.
Act of Feb. 11, 1893, 27 Stat. 443, repealed by the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, § 245, 84 Stat. 931.
See the remarks of Senator Cullom, 23 Cong. Rec. 573, 6333, and Congressman Wise, who introduced the bill in the House. 24 Cong. Rec. 503. See Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, 28-29 and n. 36 (1948).
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S., at 438; Shapiro v. United States, supra, at 6. There was one minor exception. See Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U. S., at 571 and n. 11 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71, 73 (1920).
The statute is a product of careful study and consideration by the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, as well as by Congress. The Commission recommended legislation to reform the federal immunity laws. The recommendation served as the model for this statute. In commenting on its proposal in a special report to the President, the Commission said:
“We are satisfied that our substitution of immunity from use for immunity from prosecution meets constitutional requirements for overcoming the claim of privilege. Immunity from use is the only consequence flowing from a violation of the individual’s constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, his constitutional right to counsel
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980), we held unconstitutional a state statute that prohibited lesser included offense instructions in capital eases, when lesser included offenses to the charged crime existed under state law and such instructions were generally given in noncapital cases. In this ease, we consider whether Beck requires state trial courts to instruct juries on offenses that are not lesser included offenses of the charged crime under state law. We conclude that such instructions are not constitutionally required, and we therefore reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
In the early morning hours of March 29, 1980, police received an emergency call from the Religious Society of Friends meetinghouse in Lincoln, Nebraska. Responding to the call, they found Janet Mesner, the live-in caretaker, lying on the floor in the rear of the house with seven stab wounds in her chest. When an officer asked who had stabbed her, Mesner gave respondent’s name. The officers then went to an upstairs bedroom and found the partially clad dead body of 'Victoria Lamm, a friend of Mesner who had been visiting the meetinghouse. She had been stabbed twice, the first blow penetrating the main pulmonary artery of her heart and the second her liver. A billfold containing respondent’s identification was lying near Lamm’s body. The police found underwear, later identified as respondent’s, in the middle of the blood-soaked sheets of the bed; subsequent examination of the underwear revealed semen of respondent’s blood type. Near the bed, the police found a serrated kitchen knife with Mesner’s blood on it. Before dying, Mesner told an officer that respondent had raped her. Shortly thereafter, the police arrested respondent, who told them that although he could not remember much about the murders due to severe intoxication, he did recall stabbing and raping Mesner.
The State proceeded against respondent for both murders on a felony-murder theory. Under Nebraska law, felony murder is a form of first-degree murder and is defined as murder committed “in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate” certain enumerated felonies, including sexual assault or attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree. Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-303 (1995). When proceeding on such a theory, Nebraska prosecutors do not need to prove a culpable mental state with respect to the murder because intent to kill is conclusively presumed if the State proves intent to commit the underlying felony. State v. Reeves, 216 Neb. 206, 217, 344 N. W. 2d 433, 442 (1984). Although a conviction for felony murder renders a defendant eligible for the death penalty, see § 28-303, the jury is not charged with sentencing the defendant; under Nebraska law, capital sentencing is a judicial function, § 29-2520.
At trial, respondent requested that the jury be instructed on both murder in the second degree and manslaughter, which, he argued, were lesser included offenses of felony murder. App. 6-9. The trial court refused on the ground that the Nebraska Supreme Court consistently has held that second-degree murder and manslaughter are not lesser included offenses of that crime. Id., at 10. Respondent’s jury thus was presented with only the two felony-murder counts. Although respondent raised an insanity defense, the jury rejected it and convicted him on both counts. A three-judge sentencing panel then convened to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sentenced respondent to death on both convictions.
After the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences, State v. Reeves, 216 Neb. 206, 344 N. W. 2d 433, cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1028 (1984), respondent unsuccessfully pursued state collateral relief, State v. Reeves, 234 Neb. 711, 453 N. W. 2d 359 (1990). This Court then vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court’s judgment for further consideration in light of Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990), because respondent’s death sentence had been based in part on an invalid aggravating factor. See Reeves v. Nebraska, 498 U. S. 964 (1990). On remand, the Nebraska Supreme Court followed Clemons, independently reweighed the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and reaffirmed respondent’s sentences. State v. Reeves, 239 Neb. 419, 476 N. W. 2d 829 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 837 (1992).
Respondent then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. He raised 44 claims, including a claim that the trial court’s failure to give his requested instructions was unconstitutional under Beck. The District Court rejected the Beck claim but granted relief on an unrelated ground. 871 F. Supp. 1182, 1202, 1205-1206 (Neb. 1994). After the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the latter determination and remanded the ease, 76 F. 3d 1424, 1427-1431 (1996), the District Court again granted respondent’s petition, finding a due process violation arising out of the reaffirmance of his sentences by the Nebraska Supreme Court. See 928 F. Supp. 941, 959-965 (Neb. 1996).
On the State’s appeal, the Court of Appeals held that although respondent was not entitled to relief on his due process claim, the Nebraska trial court had committed constitutional error in failing to give the requested second-degree murder and manslaughter instructions. 102 F. 3d 977 (1997). The Court of Appeals reasoned that the constitutional error was the same as that in Beck, despite the fact that there are no lesser included homicide offenses to felony murder under Nebraska law: In both cases, state law “prohibited instructions on noncapital murder charges in cases where conviction made the defendant death-eligible.” 102 F. 3d, at 983 (emphasis in original). Because respondent “could have been convicted and sentenced for either second degree murder or manslaughter,” the Court of Appeals concluded that he was constitutionally entitled to his proposed instructions. See id., at 984. It further stated that denial of the instructions could not be justified by the fact that felony murder in Nebraska does not require a culpable mental state with respect to the killing, because in Enmund v. Flor ida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982), and Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137 (1987), this Court held that the death penalty could not be imposed in a felony-murder ease if the defendant was a minor participant in the crime and neither intended to kill nor had shown reckless indifference to human life. See 102 F. 3d, at 984-985. The Court of Appeals therefore granted respondent’s petition and, relying on Circuit precedent holding that Beck applies only where the defendant is in fact sentenced to death, gave the State the option of retrying respondent or agreeing to modify his sentence to life imprisonment. See 102 F. 3d, at 986.
Because the decision below conflicted with a prior decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, see Greenawalt v. Ricketts, 943 F. 2d 1020 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 888 (1992), we granted certiorari. 521 U. S. 1151 (1997).
HH HH
The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that its holding was compelled by Beck, as the two cases differ fundamentally. In Beck, the defendant was indicted and convicted of the capital offense of “ ‘[^Jobbery or attempts thereof when the victim is intentionally killed by the defendant.’” 447 U. S., at 627 (quoting Ala. Code § 13-ll-2(a)(2) (1975)). Although state law recognized the noncapital, lesser included offense of felony murder, see 447 U. S., at 628-630, and although lesser included offense instructions were generally available to noncapital defendants under state law, the Alabama death penalty statute prohibited such instructions in capital eases, id., at 628. As a result, Alabama juries had only two options: to convict the defendant of the capital crime, in which case they were required to impose the death penalty, or to acquit. Id., at 628-629. We found that the denial of the third option of convicting the defendant of a noncapital lesser included offense “diminish[ed] the reliability of the guilt determination.” Id., at 638. Without such an option, if the jury believed that the defendant had committed some other serious offense, it might convict him of the capital crime rather than acquit him altogether. See id., at 642-643. We therefore held that Alabama was “constitutionally prohibited from withdrawing that option from the jury in a capital ease.” See id., at 638.
bti Nebraska, instructions on offenses that have been determined to be lesser included offenses of the charged crime are available to defendants when the evidence supports them, in capital and noncapital cases alike. Respondent’s proposed instructions were refused because the Nebraska Supreme Court has held for over 100 years, in both capital and noncapital cases, that second-degree murder and manslaughter are not lesser included offenses of felony murder. See, e. g., State v. Price, 252 Neb. 365, 372, 562 N. W. 2d 340, 346 (1997); State v. Masters, 246 Neb. 1018, 1025, 524 N. W. 2d 342, 348 (1994); State v. Ruyle, 234 Neb. 760, 773, 452 N. W. 2d 734, 742-743 (1990); State v. McDonald, 195 Neb. 625, 636-637, 240 N. W. 2d 8, 15 (1976); Thompson v. State, 106 Neb. 395, 184 N. W. 68 (1921); Morgan v. State, 51 Neb. 672, 695, 71 N. W. 788, 794-795 (1897). If a Nebraska trial court gives instructions on those offenses, and the defendant is convicted only of second-degree murder or manslaughter, that conviction must be reversed on appeal. See Thompson v. State, supra, at 396, 184 N. W., at 68. Thus, as a matter of law, Nebraska prosecutors cannot obtain convictions for second-degree murder or manslaughter in a felony-murder trial.
Beck is therefore distinguishable from this case in two critical respects. The Alabama statute prohibited instructions on offenses that state law clearly recognized as lesser included offenses of the charged crime, and it did so only in capital cases. Alabama thus erected an “artificial barrier” that restricted its juries to a choice between conviction for a capital offense and acquittal. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20 (citing California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992, 1007 (1983)). Here, by contrast, the Nebraska trial court did not deny respondent instructions on any existing lesser included offense of felony murder; it merely declined to give instructions on crimes that are not lesser included offenses. In so doing, the trial court did not create an “artificial barrier” for the jury; nor did it treat capital eases differently from noncapital cases. Instead, it simply followed the Nebraska Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant offenses under state law.
By ignoring these distinctions, the Court of Appeals limited státé sovereignty in a manner more severe than the rule in Beck. Almost all States, including Nebraska, provide instructions only on those offenses that have been deemed to constitute lesser included offenses of the charged crime. See n. 5, supra. We have never suggested that the Constitution requires anything more. The Court of Appeals in this ease, however, required in effect that States create lesser included offenses to all capital crimes, by requiring that an instruction be given on some other offense — what could be called a “lesser related offense” — when no lesser included offense exists. Such a requirement is not only unprecedented, but also unworkable. Undér such a scheme, there would be no basis for determining the offenses for which instructions are warranted. The Court of Appeals apparently would recognize a constitutional right to an instruction on any offense that bears a resemblance to the charged crime and is supported by the evidence. Such an affirmative obligation is unquestionably a greater limitation on a State’s prerogative to structure its criminal law than is Beck’s rule that a State may not erect a capital-specific, artificial barrier to the provision of instructions on offenses that actually are lesser included offenses under state law.
The Court of Appeals justified its holding principally on the ground that respondent had been placed in the same position as the defendant in Beck — that there had been a distortion of the factfinding process because his jury had been “ Torced into an all-or-nothing choice between capital murder and innocence.'” 102 F. 3d, at 982 (quoting Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 455 (1984)). In so doing, the Court of Appeals again overlooked significant distinctions between this ease and Beck. In Beck, the death penalty was automatically tied to conviction, and Beck’s jury was told that if it convicted the defendant of the charged offense, it was required to impose the death penalty. See Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S., at 639, n. 15. This threatened to make the issue at trial whether the defendant should be executed or not, rather than “whether the State ha[d] proved each and every element of the capital crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 643, n. 19. In addition, the distortion of the trial process earned over directly to sentencing, because an Alabama jury unwilling to acquit had no choice but to impose the death penalty. There was thus a significant possibility that the death penalty would be imposed upon defendants whose conduct did not merit it, simply because their juries might be convinced that they had committed some serious crime and should not escape punishment entirely.
These factors are not present here. Respondent’s jury did not have the burden of imposing a sentence. Indeed, with respect to respondent’s insanity defense, it was specifically instructed that it had “no right to take into consideration what punishment or disposition he may or may not receive in the event of his conviction or . .. acquittal by reason of insanity.” App. 24. In addition, the three-judge panel that imposed the death penalty did not have to consider the dilemma faced by Beck’s jury; its alternative to death was not setting respondent free, but rather sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Moreover, respondent’s proposed instructions would have introduced another kind of distortion at trial. Nebraska proceeded against respondent only on a theory of felony murder, a crime that under state law has no lesser included homicide offenses. The State therefore assumed the obligation of proving only that crime, as well as any lesser included offenses that existed under state law and were supported by the evidence; its entire case focused solely on that obligation. To allow respondent to be convicted of homicide offenses that are not lesser included offenses of felony murder, therefore, would be to allow his jury .to find beyond a reasonable doubt elements that the State had not attempted to prove, and indeed that it had ignored during the course of trial. This can hardly be said to be a reliable result: iCWhere no lesser included offense exists, a lesser included offense instruction detracts from, rather than enhances, the rationality of the process.” Spaziano v. Florida, supra, at 455.
The Court of Appeals also erroneously relied upon our decisions in Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137 (1987), and Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982), to support its holding. It reasoned that because those cases require proof of a culpable mental state with respect to the killing before the death penalty may be imposed for felony murder, Nebraska could not refuse lesser included offense instructions on the ground that the only intent required for a felony-murder conviction is the intent to commit the underlying felony. See 102 F. 3d, at 984. In so doing, the Court of Appeals read Tison and Enmund as essentially requiring the States to alter their definitions of felony murder to include a mens rea requirement with respect to the killing. In Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U. S. 376 (1986), however, we rejected precisely such a reading and stated that “our ruling in Enmund does not concern the guilt or innocence of the defendant — it establishes no new elements of the crime of murder that must be found by the jury” and “does not affect the state’s definition of any substantive offense.” Id., at 385 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For this reason, we held that a State could comply with Enmund’s requirement at sentencing or even on appeal. See 474 U. S., at 392. Accordingly, Tison and Enmund do not affect the showing that a State must make at a defendant’s trial for felony murder, so long as their requirement is satisfied at some point thereafter. As such, these cases cannot override state-law determinations of when instructions on lesser included offenses are permissible and when they are not.
Finally, respondent argues that the Nebraska Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation that felony murder has no lesser included homicide offenses is arbitrary because, in his view, it is based only on recitations from prior cases, rather than on application of the lesser included offense tests in place since his conviction. See Brief for Respondent 40-43. This contention is certainly strained with respect to the crime of second-degree murder, which requires proof of intent to kill, while felony murder does not. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§28-303, 28-304 (1995). It appears that the Nebraska Supreme Court has not undertaken respondent’s suggested analysis with respect to unlawful act manslaughter— unintentional killing, committed in the perpetration of an unlawful act. See §28-305. On his direct appeal, however, respondent did not challenge the Nebraska Supreme Court’s interpretation on this ground, and the clearest statement in his briefs on why a manslaughter instruction should have been given referred to manslaughter generally, for the following reason: “As the Court ruled in State v. Ellis, 208 Neb. 379, 303 N. W. 2d 741 (1981), such an instruction is necessary Vhere there is no eye witness to the act, and the evidence is largely circumstantial.’” Reply Brief for Appellant in No. 81-706 (Neb. Sup. Ct.), p. 11. We will not second-guess the Nebraska Supreme Court’s 100-year-old interpretation of state law when respondent failed to present his challenge to that court in the first instance.
the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals’ judgment granting respondent a conditional writ of habeas corpus is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Under Nebraska law, second-degree murder is defined as “caus[ing] the death of a person intentionally, but without premeditation,” §28-304, and manslaughter as “kill[ing] another without malice, either upon a sudden quarrel, or caus[ing] the death of another unintentionally while in the commission of an unlawful act,” § 28-305.
Respondent did not request an instruction on sexual assault in the first degree.
One of the questions on which we granted certiorari was whether the Court of Appeals’ holding was a “new rule” under Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). See Pet. for Cert. i. Because the State raised this argument for the first time in its petition for a writ of certiorari, we choose to decide the case on the merits. Cf. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U. S. 389, 397, n. 8 (1993) (declining to address whether the Court of Appeals created a “new rule” because the petitioner did not raise a Teague defense in the lower courts or in its petition for certiorari).
If the jury imposed the death penalty, the trial judge had the authority to reduce the sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The jury, however, was not instructed to this effect; rather, it was told that it was required to impose the death penalty if it found the defendant guilty. See 447 U. S., at 639, n. 15.
We noted this fact in Beck in distinguishing Alabama’s scheme from the practices in the rest of the States. See 447 U. S., at 636, n. 12 (citing State v. Hegwood, 202 Neb. 379, 275 N. W. 2d 605 (1979)).
In determining whether an offense is a lesser included offense of a particular crime, the States have adopted a variety of approaches. See, e.g., State v. Berlin, 133 Wash. 2d 541, 550-551, 947 P. 2d 700, 704-705 (1997) (en banc) (comparing statutory elements of the lesser offense to determine whether all of them are contained in the greater offense); People v. Beach, 429 Mich. 450, 462, 418 N. W. 2d 861, 866-867 (1988) (applying the “cognate evidence” approach: a lesser included offense instruction may be given even though all of the statutory elements of the lesser offense are not contained in the greater offense, if the “overlapping elements relate to the common purpose of the statutes” and the specific evidence adduced would support an instruction on the eognate offense (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Curtis, 130 Idaho 522, 524, 944 P. 2d 119, 121-122 (1997) (court looks both to the statutory elements and to the information to determine whether it “charges the accused with a crime the proof of which necessarily includes proof of the acts that constitute the lesser included offense”). Cf. Schmuck v. United States, 489 U. S. 705 (1989) (adopting statutory elements test for federal criminal law).
Since the time of respondent’s conviction, Nebraska has alternated between use of the statutory elements test and the cognate evidence test; it currently employs the former. See State v. Williams, 243 Neb. 959, 963-965, 503 N. W. 2d 561, 564-565 (1993) (readopting statutory elements test), overruling State v. Garza, 236 Neb. 202, 207-208, 459 N. W. 2d 739, 743 (1990) (reaffirming cognate evidence test), disapproving State v. Lovelace, 212 Neb. 356, 359-360, 322 N. W. 2d 673, 674-675 (1982) (applying statutory elements test). It has nonetheless consistently reaffirmed its holding that felony murder has no lesser included homicide offenses.
We are not, of course, presented with a case that differs from Beck only in that the jury is not the sentencer, and we express no opinion here whether that difference alone would render Beck inapplicable. • The crucial distinction between Beck and this case, as noted, is the distinction between a State’s prohibiting instructions on offenses that state law recognizes as lesser included, and a State’s refusing to instruct on offenses that state law does not recognize as lesser included.
The dissent also appears to be of this view, contending that Nebraska’s justification for not providing an instruction on second-degree murder is inapplicable when the death penalty is sought. See post, at 101-102.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-B.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 require cable television systems to devote a portion of their channels to the transmission of local broadcast television stations. This case presents the question whether these provisions abridge the freedom of speech or of the press, in violation of the First Amendment.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment for the United States, holding that the challenged provisions are consistent with the First Amendment. Because issues of material fact remain unresolved in the record as developed thus far, we vacate the District Court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
I
A
The role of cable television in the Nation’s communications system has undergone dramatic change over the past 45 years. Given the pace of technological advancement and the increasing convergence between cable and other electronic media, the cable industry today stands at the center of an ongoing telecommunications revolution with still undefined potential to affect the way we communicate and develop our intellectual resources.
The earliest cable' systems were built in the late 1940’s to bring clear broadcast television signals to remote or mountainous communities. The purpose was not to replace broadcast television but to enhance it. See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157, 161-164 (1968); D. Brenner, M. Price, & M. Meyerson, Cable Television and Other Nonbroadcast Video §1.02 (1992); M. Hamburg, All About Cable, ch. 1 (1979). Modern cable systems do much more than enhance the reception of nearby broadcast television stations. With the capacity to carry dozens of channels and import distant programming signals via satellite or microwave relay, today’s cable systems are in direct competition with over-the-air broadcasters as an independent source of television programming.
Broadcast and cable television are distinguished by the different technologies through which they reach viewers. Broadcast stations radiate electromagnetic signals from a central transmitting antenna. These signals can be captured, in turn, by any television set within the antenna’s range. Cable systems, by contrast, rely upon a physical, point-to-point connection between a transmission facility and the television sets of individual subscribers. Cable systems make this connection much like telephone companies, using cable or optical fibers strung aboveground or buried in ducts to reach the homes or businesses of subscribers. The construction of this physical infrastructure entails the use of public rights-of-way and easements and often results in the disruption of traffic on streets and other public property. As a result, the cable medium may depend for its very existence upon express permission from local governing authorities. See generally Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, 660 F. 2d 1370, 1377-1378 (CA10 1981).
Cable technology affords two principal benefits over broadcast. First, it eliminates the signal interference sometimes encountered in over-the-air broadcasting and thus gives viewers undistorted reception of broadcast stations. Second, it is capable of transmitting many more channels than are available through broadcasting, giving subscribers access to far greater programming variety. More than half of the cable systems in operation today have a capacity to carry between 30 and 53 channels. Television and Cable Factbook, Services Vol. No. 62, p. 1-69 (1994). And about 40 percent of cable subscribers are served by systems with a capacity of more than 53 channels. Ibid. Newer systems can carry hundreds of channels, and many older systems are being upgraded with fiber optic rebuilds and digital compression technology to increase channel capacity. See, e.g., Cablevision Systems Adds to Rapid Fiber Growth in Cable Systems, Communications Daily 6-7 (Feb. 26,1993).
The cable television industry includes both cable operators (those who own the physical cable network and transmit the cable signal to the viewer) and cable programmers (those who produce television programs and sell or license them to cable operators). In some cases, cable operators have acquired ownership of cable programmers, and vice versa. Although cable operators may create some of their own programming, most of their programming is drawn from outside sources. These outside sources include not only local or distant broadcast stations, but also the many national and regional cable programming networks that have emerged in recent years, such as CNN, MTV, ESPN, TNT, C-SPAN,' The Family Channel, Nickelodeon, Arts and Entertainment, Black Entertainment Television, CourtTV, The Discovery Channel, American Movie Classics, Comedy Central, The Learning Channel, and The Weather Channel. Once the cable operator has selected the programming sources, the cable system functions, in essence, as a conduit for the speech of others, transmitting it on a continuous and unedited basis to subscribers. See Brenner, Cable Television and the Freedom of Expression, 1988 Duke L. J. 329, 339 (“For the most part, cable personnel do not review any of the material provided by cable networks.... [C]able systems have no conscious control over program services provided by others”).
In contrast to commercial broadcast stations, which transmit signals at no charge to viewers and generate revenues by selling time to advertisers, cable systems charge subscribers a monthly fee for the right to receive cable programming and rely to a lesser extent on advertising. In most instances, cable subscribers choose the stations they will receive by selecting among various plans, or “tiers,” of cable service. In a typical offering, the basic tier consists of local broadcast stations plus a number of cable programming networks selected by the cable operator. For an additional cost, subscribers can obtain channels devoted to particular subjects or interests, such as recent-release feature movies, sports, children’s programming, sexually explicit programming, and the like. Many cable systems also offer pay-per-view service, which allows an individual subscriber to order and pay a one-time fee to see a single movie or program at a set time of the day. See J. Goodale, All About Cable: Legal and Business Aspects of Cable and Pay Television § 5.05[2] (1989); Brenner, supra, at 334, n. 22.
B
On October 5,1992, Congress overrode a Presidential veto to enact the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992 Cable Act or Act). Among other things, the Act subjects the cable industry to rate regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and by municipal franchising authorities; prohibits municipalities from awarding exclusive franchises to cable operators; imposes various restrictions on cable programmers that are affiliated with cable operators; and directs the FCC to develop and promulgate regulations imposing minimum technical standards for cable operators. At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the so-called must-carry provisions, contained in §§4 and 5 of the Act, which require cable operators to carry the signals of a specified number of local broadcast television stations.
Section 4 requires carriage of “local commercial television stations,” defined to include all full power television broadcasters, other than those qualifying as “noncommercial educational” stations under §5, that operate within the same television market as the cable system. § 4, 47 U. S. C. §§ 534(b)(1)(B), (h)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. IV). Cable systems with more than 12 active channels, and more than 300 subscribers, are required to set aside up to one-third of their channels for commercial broadcast stations that request carriage. § 534(b)(1)(B). Cable systems with more than 300 subscribers, but only 12 or fewer active channels, must carry the signals of three commercial broadcast stations. § 534(b)(1)(A).
If there are fewer broadcasters requesting carriage than slots made available under the Act, the cable operator is obligated to carry only those broadcasters who make the request. If, however, there are more requesting broadcast stations than slots available, the cable operator is permitted to choose which of these stations it will carry. § 534(b)(2). The broadcast signals carried under this provision must be transmitted on a continuous, uninterrupted basis, § 534(b)(3), and must be placed in the same numerical channel position as when broadcast over the air, § 534(b)(6). Further, subject to a few exceptions, a cable operator may not charge a fee for carrying broadcast signals in fulfillment of its must-carry obligations. § 534(b)(10).
Section 5 of the Act imposes similar requirements regarding the carriage of local public broadcast television stations, referred to in the Act as local “noncommercial educational television stations.” 47 U. S. C. § 535(a) (1988 ed., Supp. IV). A cable system with 12 or fewer channels must carry one of these stations; a system of between 13 and 36 channels must carry between one and three; and a system with more than 36 channels must carry each local public broadcast station requesting carriage. §§ 535(b)(2)(A), (b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(D). The Act requires a cable operator to import distant signals in certain circumstances but provides protection against substantial duplication of local noncommercial educational stations. See §§ 535(b)(3)(B), (e). As with commercial broadcast stations, §5 requires cable system operators to carry the program schedule of the public broadcast station in its entirety and at its same over-the-air channel position. §§ 535(g)(1), (g)(5).
Taken together, therefore, §§4 and 5 subject all but the smallest cable systems nationwide to must-carry obligations, and confer must-carry privileges on all full power broadcasters operating within the same television market as a qualified cable system.
C
Congress enacted the 1992 Cable Act after conducting three years of hearings on the structure and operation of the cable television industry. See S. Rep. No. 102-92, pp. 3-4 (1991) (describing hearings); H. R. Rep. No. 102-628, p. 74 (1992) (same). The conclusions Congress drew from its fact-finding process are recited in the text of the Act itself. See §§ 2(a)(l)-(21). In brief, Congress found that the physical characteristics of cable transmission, compounded by the increasing concentration of economic power in the cable industry, are endangering the ability of over-the-air broadcast television stations to compete for a viewing audience and thus for necessary operating revenues, v Congress determined that regulation of the market for video programming was necessary to correct this competitive imbalance.
In particular, Congress found that over 60 percent of the households with television sets subscribe to cable, § 2(a)(3), and for these households cable has replaced over-the-air broadcast television as the primary provider of video programming, §2(a)(17). This is so, Congress found, because “[m]ost subscribers to cable television systems do not or cannot maintain antennas to receive broadcast television services, do not have input selector switches to convert from a cable to antenna reception system, or cannot otherwise receive broadcast television services.” Ibid. In addition, Congress concluded that due to “local franchising requirements and the extraordinary expense of constructing more than one cable television system to serve a particular geographic area,” the overwhelming majority of cable operators exercise a monopoly over cable service. § 2(a)(2). “The result,” Congress determined, “is undue market power for the cable operator as compared to that of consumers and video programmers.” Ibid.
According to Congress, this market position gives cable operators the power and the incentive to harm broadcast competitors. The power derives from the cable operator’s ability, as owner of the transmission facility, to “terminate the retransmission of the broadcast signal, refuse to carry new signals, or reposition a broadcast signal to a disadvantageous channel position.” §2(a)(15). The incentive derives from the economic reality that “[c]able television systems and broadcast television stations increasingly compete for television advertising revenues.” §2(a)(14). By refusing carriage of broadcasters’ signals, cable operators, as a practical matter, can reduce the number of households that have access to the broadcasters’ programming, and thereby capture advertising dollars that would otherwise go to broadcast stations. § 2(a)(15).
Congress found, in addition, that increased vertical integration in the cable industry is making it even harder for broadcasters to secure carriage on cable systems, because cable operators have a financial incentive to favor their affiliated programmers. § 2(a)(5). Congress also determined that the cable industry is characterized by horizontal concentration, with many cable operators sharing common ownership. This has resulted in greater “barriers to entry for new programmers and a reduction in the number of media voices available to consumers.” § 2(a)(4).
In light of these technological and economic conditions, Congress concluded that unless cable operators are required to carry local broadcast stations, “[t]here is a substantial likelihood that... additional local broadcast signals will be deleted, repositioned, or not carried,” §2(a)(15); the “marked shift in market share” from broadcast to cable will continue to erode the advertising revenue base which sustains free local broadcast television, §§ 2(a)(13)-(14); and that, as a consequence, “the economic viability of free local broadcast television and its ability to originate quality local programming will be seriously jeopardized,” §2(a)(16).
D
Soon after the Act became law, appellants filed these five consolidated actions in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States and the Federal Communications Commission (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Government), challenging the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions. Appellants, plaintiffs below, are numerous cable programmers and cable operators. After additional parties intervened, a three-judge District Court convened under 28 U. S. C. § 2284 to hear the actions. 1992 Cable Act §23, 47 U.S.C. § 555(c)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. IV). Each of the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment; several intervenor-defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment; and the Government filed a cross-motion to dismiss. Although the Government had not asked for summary judgment, the District Court, in a divided opinion, granted summary judgment in favor of the Government and the other intervenor-defendants, ruling that the must-carry provisions are consistent with the First Amendment. 819 F. Supp. 32 (1993).
The court found that in enacting the must-carry provisions, Congress employed “its regulatory powers over the economy to impose order upon a market in dysfunction.” Id., at 40. The court characterized the 1992 Cable Act as “simply industry-specific antitrust and fair trade practice regulatory legislation,” ibid., and said that the must-carry requirements “are essentially economic regulation designed to create competitive balance in the video industry as a whole, and to redress the effects of cable operators’ anti-competitive practices,” ibid. The court rejected appellants’ contention that the must-carry requirements warrant strict scrutiny as a content-based regulation, concluding that both the commercial and public broadcast provisions “are, in intent as well as form, unrelated (in all but the most recondite sense) to the content of any messages that [the] cable operators, broadcasters, and programmers have in contemplation to deliver.” Ibid. The court proceeded to sustain the must-carry provisions under the intermediate standard of scrutiny set forth in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968), concluding that the preservation of local broadcasting is an important governmental interest, and that the must-carry provisions are sufficiently tailored to serve that interest. 819 F. Supp., at 45-47.
Judge Williams dissented. He acknowledged the “very real problem” that “cable systems control access ‘bottlenecks’ to an important communications medium,” id., at 57, but concluded that Congress may not address that problem by extending access rights only to broadcast television stations. In his view, the must-carry rules are content based, and thus subject to strict scrutiny, because they require cable operators to carry speech they might otherwise choose to exclude, and because Congress’ decision to grant favorable access to broadcast programmers rested “in part, but quite explicitly, on a finding about their content.” Id., at 58. Applying strict scrutiny, Judge Williams determined that the interests advanced in support of the law are inadequate to justify it. While assuming “as an abstract matter” that the interest in preserving access to free television is compelling, he found “no evidence that this access is in jeopardy.” Id., at 62. Likewise, he concluded that the rules are insufficiently tailored to the asserted interest in programming diversity because cable operators “now carry the vast majority of local stations,” and thus to the extent the rules have any effect at all, “it will be only to replace the mix chosen by cablecasters — whose livelihoods depend largely on satisfying audience demand — with a mix derived from congressional dictate.” Id., at 61.
This direct appeal followed, see § 23, 47 U. S. C. § 555(c)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. IV), and we noted probable jurisdiction. 509 U. S. 952 (1993).
II
There can be no disagreement on an initial premise: Cable programmers and cable operators engage in and transmit speech, and they are entitled to the protection of the speech and press provisions of the First Amendment. Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U. S. 439, 444 (1991). Through “original programming or by exercising editorial discretion over which stations or programs to include in its repertoire,” cable programmers and operators “see[k] to communicate messages on a wide variety of topics and in a wide variety of formats.” Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U. S. 488, 494 (1986). By requiring cable systems to set aside a portion of their channels for local broadcasters, the must-carry rules regulate cable speech in two respects: The rules reduce the number of channels over which cable operators exercise unfettered control, and they render it more difficult for cable programmers to compete for carriage on the limited channels remaining. Nevertheless, because not every interference with speech triggers the same degree of scrutiny under the First Amendment, we must decide at the outset the level of scrutiny applicable to the must-carry provisions.
A
We address first the Government’s contention that regulation of cable television should be analyzed under the same First Amendment standard that applies to regulation of broadcast television. It is true that our cases have permitted more intrusive regulation of broadcast speakers than of speakers in other media. Compare Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969) (television), and National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190 (1943) (radio), with Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974) (print), and Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781 (1988) (personal solicitation). But the rationale for applying a less rigorous standard of First Amendment scrutiny to broadcast regulation, whatever its validity in the cases elaborating it, does not apply in the context of cable regulation.
The justification for our distinct approach to broadcast regulation rests upon the unique physical limitations of the broadcast medium. See FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364, 377 (1984); Red Lion, supra, at 388-389, 396-399; National Broadcasting Co., 319 U. S., at 226. As a general matter, there are more would-be broadcasters than frequencies available in the electromagnetic spectrum. And if two broadcasters were to attempt to transmit over the same frequency in the same locale, they would interfere with one another’s signals, so that neither could be heard at all. Id., at 212. The scarcity of broadcast frequencies thus required the establishment of some regulatory mechanism to divide the electromagnetic spectrum and assign specific frequencies to particular broadcasters. See FCC v. League of Women Voters, supra, at 377 (“The fundamental distinguishing characteristic of the new medium of broadcasting... is that [broadcast frequencies are a scarce resource [that] must be portioned out among applicants”) (internal quotation marks omitted); FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, 436 U. S. 775, 799 (1978). In addition, the inherent physical limitation on the number of speakers who may use the broadcast medium has been thought to require some adjustment in traditional First Amendment analysis to permit the Government to place limited content restraints, and impose certain affirmative obligations, on broadcast licensees. Red Lion, 395 U. S., at 390. As we said in Red Lion, “[w]here there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish.” Id., at 388; see also Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 101 (1973).
Although courts and commentators have criticized the scarcity rationale since its inception, we have declined to question its continuing validity as support for our broadcast jurisprudence, see FCC v. League of Women Voters, supra, at 376, n. 11, and see no reason to do so here. The broadcast cases are inapposite in the present context because cable television does not suffer from the inherent limitations that characterize the broadcast medium. Indeed, given the rapid advances in fiber optics and digital compression technology, soon there may be no practical limitation on the number of speakers who may use the cable medium. Nor is there any danger of physical interference between two cable speakers attempting to share the same channel. In light of these fundamental technological differences between broadcast and cable transmission, application of the more relaxed standard of scrutiny adopted in Red Lion and the other broadcast cases is inapt when determining the First Amendment validity of cable regulation. See Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 74 (1983) (“Our decisions have recognized that the special interest of the Federal Government in regulation of the broadcast media does not readily translate into a justification for regulation of other means of communication”) (footnote omitted).
This is not to say that the unique physical characteristics of cable transmission should be ignored when determining the constitutionality of regulations affecting cable speech. They should not. See infra, at 656. But whatever relevance these physical characteristics may have in the evaluation of particular cable regulations, they do not require the alteration of settled principles of our First Amendment jurisprudence.
Although the Government acknowledges the substantial technological differences between broadcast and cable, see Brief for Federal Appellees 22, it advances a second argument for application of the Red Lion framework to cable regulation. It asserts that the foundation of our broadcast jurisprudence is not the physical limitations of the electromagnetic spectrum, but rather the “market dysfunction” that characterizes the broadcast market. Because the cable market is beset by a similar dysfunction, the Government maintains, the Red Lion standard of review should also apply to cable. While we agree that the cable market suffers certain structural impediments, the Government’s argument is flawed in two respects. First, as discussed above, the special physical characteristics of broadcast transmission, not the economic characteristics of the broadcast market, are what underlies our broadcast jurisprudence. See League of Women Voters, 468 U. S., at 377; National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, supra, at 799; Red Lion, supra, at 390. Second, the mere assertion of dysfunction or failure in a speech market, without more, is not sufficient to shield a speech regulation from the First Amendment standards applicable to nonbroadcast media. See, e. g., Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 657-658 (1990); Federal Election Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238, 256-259 (1986); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S., at 248-258.
By a related course of reasoning, the Government and some appellees maintain that the must-carry provisions are nothing more than industry-specific antitrust legislation, and thus warrant rational-basis scrutiny under this Court’s “precedents governing legislative efforts to correct market failure in a market whose commodity is speech,” such as Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1 (1945), and Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U. S. 143 (1951). See Brief for Federal Appellees 17. This contention is unavailing. Associated Press and Lorain Journal both involved actions against members of the press brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act, a law of general application. But while the enforcement of a generally applicable law may or may not be subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment, compare Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U. S. 663, 670 (1991), with Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 566-567 (1991), laws that single out the press, or certain elements thereof, for special treatment “pose a particular danger of abuse by the State,” Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 228 (1987), and so are always subject to at least some degree of heightened First Amendment scrutiny. See Preferred Communications, 476 U. S., at 496 (“Where a law is subjected to a colorable First Amendment challenge, the rule of rationality which will sustain legislation against other constitutional challenges typically does not have the same controlling force”). Because the must-carry provisions impose special obligations upon cable operators and special burdens upon cable programmers, some measure of heightened First Amendment scrutiny is demanded. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575, 583 (1983).
B
At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal. See Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U. S., at 449 (citing Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 24 (1971)); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638, 640-642 (1943). Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right. Laws of this sort pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate'the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion. These restrictions “rais[e] the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 116 (1991).
For these reasons, the First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance governmental control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals. R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382-383 (1992); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Our precedents thus apply the most exacting scrutiny to regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S., at 115; id., at 125-126 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983). Laws that compel speakers to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny. See Riley v. National Federation for Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S., at 798; West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, supra. In contrast, regulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny, see Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984), because in most cases they pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.
Deciding whether a particular regulation is content based or content neutral is not always a simple task. We have said that the “principal inquiry in determining content neutrality... is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of [agreement or] disagreement with the message it conveys.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989). See R. A. V, supra, at 386 (“The government may not regulate [speech] based on hostility — or favoritism — towards the underlying message expressed”). The purpose, or justification, of a regulation will often be evident on its face. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 481 (1988). But while a content-based purpose may be sufficient in certain circumstances to show that a regulation is content based, it is not necessary to such a showing in all cases. Cf. Simon & Schuster, supra, at 117 (“‘[I]llicit legislative intent is not the sine qua non of a violation of the First Amendment’”) (quoting Minneapolis Star & Tribune, supra, at 592). Nor will the mere assertion of a content-neutral purpose be enough to save a law which, on its face, discriminates based on content. Arkansas Writers’ Project, 481 U. S., at 231-232; Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 464-469 (1980).
As a general rule, laws that by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content based. See, e. g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191, 197 (1992) (“Whether individuals may exercise their free-speech rights near polling places depends entirely on whether their speech is related to a political campaign”); Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 318-319 (1988) (plurality opinion) (whether municipal ordinance permits individuals to “picket in front of a foreign embassy depends entirely upon whether their picket signs are critical of the foreign government or not”). By contrast, laws that confer benefits or impose burdens on speech without reference to the ideas or views expressed are in most instances content neutral. See, e. g., Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 804 (1984) (ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public property “is neutral — indeed it is silent — concerning any speaker’s point of view”); Heffron v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640, 649 (1981) (State Fair regulation requiring that sales and solicitations take place at designated locations “applies evenhandedly to all who wish to distribute and sell written materials or to solicit funds”).
C
Insofar as they pertain to the carriage of full-power broadcasters, the must-carry rules, on their, face, impose burdens and confer benefits without reference to the content of speech. Although the provisions interfere with cable operators’ editorial discretion by compelling them to offer carriage to a certain minimum number of broadcast stations, the extent of the interference does not depend upon the content of the cable operators’ programming. The rules impose obligations upon all operators, save those with fewer than 300 subscribers, regardless of the programs or stations they now offer or have offered in the past. Nothing in the Act imposes a restriction, penalty, or burden by reason of the views, programs, or stations the cable operator has selected or will select. The number of channels a cable operator must set aside depends only on the operator’s channel capacity, see 47 U. S. C. §§ 534(b)(1), 535(b)(2)-(3) (1988 ed„ Supp. IV); hence, an operator cannot avoid or mitigate its obligations under the Act by altering the programming it offers to subscribers. Cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S., at 256-257 (newspaper may avoid access obligations by refraining from speech critical of political candidates).
The must-carry provisions also burden cable programmers by reducing the number of channels for which they can compete. But, again, this burden is unrelated to content, for it extends to all cable programmers irrespective of the programming they choose to offer viewers. Cf. Boos, supra, at 319 (individuals may picket in front of a foreign embassy so long as their picket signs are not critical of the foreign government). And finally, the privileges conferred by the must-carry provisions are also unrelated to content. The rules benefit all full power broadcasters who request carriage — be they commercial or noncommercial, independent or network affiliated, English or Spanish language, religious or secular. The aggregate effect of the rules is thus to make every full power commercial and noncommercial broadcaster eligible for must-carry, provided only that the broadcaster operates within the same television market as a cable system.
It is true that the must-carry provisions distinguish between speakers in the television programming market. But they do so based only upon the manner in which speakers transmit their messages to viewers, and not upon the messages they carry: Broadcasters, which transmit over the airwaves, are favored, while cable programmers, which do not, are disfavored. Cable operators, too, are burdened by the carriage obligations, but only because they control access to the cable conduit. So long as they are not a subtle means of exercising a content preference, speaker distinctions of this nature are not presumed invalid under the First Amendment.
That the must-carry provisions, on their face, do not burden or benefit speech of a particular content does not end the inquiry. Our cases have recognized that even a regulation neutral on its face may be content based if its manifest purpose is to regulate speech because of the message it conveys. United States v. Eichman, 496 U. S. 310, 315 (1990) (“Although the Flag Protection Act contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Government’s asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression”) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ward, 491 U. S., at 791-792; Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S., at 293; cf. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 534-535 (1993).
Appellants contend, in this regard, that the must-carry regulations are content based because Congress’ purpose in enacting them was to promote speech of a favored content. We do not agree. Our review of the Act and its various findings persuades us that Congress’ overriding objective in enacting must-carry was not to favor programming of a particular subject matter, viewpoint, or format, but rather to preserve access to free television programming for the 40 percent of Americans without cable.
In unusually detailed statutory findings, supra, at 632-634, Congress explained that because cable systems and broadcast stations compete for local advertising revenue, §§ 2(a)(14) — (15), and because cable operators have a vested financial interest in favoring their affiliated programmers over broadcast stations, § 2(a)(5), cable operators have a built-in “economic incentive... to delete, reposition, or not carry local broadcast signals,” §2(a)(16). Congress concluded that absent a requirement that cable systems carry the signals of local broadcast stations, the continued availability of free local broadcast television would be threatened. Ibid. 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: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the harmless-error standard of Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), applies to jury instructions that violate the principles of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979), and Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307 (1985).
—
On December 30, 1978, Charles Browning and Joy Faulk were shot to death while they sat in Browning’s pickup truck in a remote area of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Respondent Stanley Clark, Faulk’s former boyfriend, was charged with the murders.
The evidence introduced at trial showed that Browning, Faulk, and Faulk’s two young children (aged 6 and 3) had been driving in Rutherford County on the night of the murders. According to the older child, another vehicle followed Browning’s truck for about an hour. Browning pulled his truck into a private driveway, apparently to let the other ve-hide pass. The driver of the second vehide then pulled in behind Browning, thereby blocking any exit. The driver left his vehide, walked up to the cab of Browning’s truck, and fired four shots at point-blank range. One shot struck Browning in the head, two others struck Faulk in the head, and the fourth struck Faulk in the left shoulder. The killer left the scene in his vehicle. Both Browning and Faulk died.
Faulk’s children, who had not been shot, went for help, telling a local resident that “Clicker” (the nickname by which the children knew respondent) had shot Browning and their mother. Earlier that night, police had seen respondent following Browning’s truck. Police soon located respondent, but apprehended him only after a high-speed chase. Police found the murder weapon, a .25-caliber pistol that respondent had borrowed from a friend, near respondent’s home. At trial, the State relied on the foregoing evidence and on evidence showing that respondent and Joy Faulk had a stormy love affair that Faulk ended in the fall of 1978. Several times after their breakup, respondent threatened to kill Faulk if he ever found her with another man.
Respondent offered two lines of defense. First, he contended that Sam Faulk, Joy’s ex-husband, killed the victims because of a dispute concerning custody of the two Faulk children. The State rebutted this contention by introducing evidence that no such dispute existed, and that Sam Faulk was elsewhere when the murders were committed. Second, respondent argued that he was either insane or incapable of forming the requisite criminal intent. To support this argument, respondent introduced evidence that he was suffering from amnesia and could not remember the events of the night of the murders. In addition, some testimony suggested that respondent had been drinking heavily the entire day before the murders. Finally, two defense psychiatrists testified that respondent was legally insane at the time the murders were committed because his depression concerning his recent breakup with Joy Faulk made it impossible for him to conform his conduct to the law.
At the close of trial, the court instructed the jury on the elements of both first- and second-degree murder. Under Tennessee law, first-degree murder requires proof of premeditation and deliberation, while second-degree murder requires proof of malice. The court’s instructions defined malice as “an intent to do any injury to another, a design formed in the mind of doing mischief to another.” App. 186. Malice did not require proof of planning or premeditation; a killing “upon a sudden impulse of passion” sufficed if committed with intent to harm another. Id., at 187. The court then charged the jury:
“All homicides are presumed to be malicious in the absence of evidence which would rebut the implied presumption. Thus, if the State has proven beyond a reasonable . . . doubt that a killing has occurred, then it is presumed that the killing was done maliciously. But this presumption may be rebutted by either direct or circumstantial evidence, or by both, regardless of whether the same be offered by the Defendant, or exists in the evidence of the State.” Ibid.
The jury found respondent guilty of first-degree murder for killing Faulk and of second-degree murder for killing Browning.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, rejecting respondent’s argument that the jury instructions had impermissibly shifted the burden of proof as to malice. Respondent then sought habeas corpus relief in the Middle District of Tennessee. The District Court held that the malice instruction had violated respondent’s right to have his guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as that right was defined in Sandstrom v. Montana. The court went on to find that the error could not be deemed harmless because respondent had “relied upon a mens rea defense” in contesting his guilt. 611 F. Supp. 294, 302 (1983).
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court agreed that the malice instruction was unconstitutional under Sandstrom. Turning to the question whether the error was harmless, the court reasoned that because respondent contested malice at his trial, an erroneous burden-shifting instruction could not be harmless under governing precedent. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-5 (citing Engle v. Koehler, 707 F. 2d 241, 246 (CA6 1983), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 466 U. S. 1 (1984)). The court reached this conclusion “despite the substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt,” and added:
“Were we writing on a clean slate, we would direct our inquiry to that suggested by Justice Powell (dissenting) in Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S. at 97 n. 5:
“ ‘the inquiry is whether the evidence is so dispositive of intent that a reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found it unnecessary to rely on the presumption.’
“If that were the question in this case ... we might be able to respond in the affirmative.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-6.
The court nevertheless affirmed the order granting habeas corpus relief. We granted certiorari limited to the question whether the Court of Appeals’ harmless-error analysis was correct. 474 U. S. 816 (1985).
H-<
A
In Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), this Court rejected the argument that errors of constitutional dimension necessarily require reversal of criminal convictions. And since Chapman, “we have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 681 (1986). That principle has been applied to a wide variety of constitutional errors. E. g., id., at 684 (failure to permit cross-examination concerning witness bias); Rushen v. Spain, 464 U. S. 114, 118 (1983) (per curiam) (denial of right to be present at trial); United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 508-509 (1983) (improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify); Moore v. Illinois, 434 U. S. 220, 232 (1977) (admission of witness identification obtained in violation of right to counsel); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U. S. 371 (1972) (admission of confession obtained in violation of right to counsel); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 52-53 (1970) (admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment). See also Hopper v. Evans, 456 U. S. 605, 613-614 (1982) (citing Chapman and finding no prejudice from trial court’s failure to give lesser included offense instruction). Our application of harmless-error analysis in these cases has not reflected a denigration of the constitutional rights involved. Instead, as we emphasized earlier this Term:
“The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225, 230 (1975), and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error. Cf. R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 50 (1970) (‘Reversal for error, regardless of its effect on the judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it’).” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra, at 681.
Despite the strong interests that support the harmless-error doctrine, the Court in Chapman recognized that some constitutional errors require reversal without regard to the evidence in the particular case. 386 U. S., at 23, n. 8, citing Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560 (1958) (introduction of coerced confession); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963) (complete denial of right to counsel); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927) (adjudication by biased judge). This limitation recognizes that some errors necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair. The State of course must provide a trial before an impartial judge, Turney v. Ohio, supra, with counsel to help the accused defend against the State’s charge, Gideon v. Wainwright, supra. Compare Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475, 488-490 (1978), with Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 348-350 (1980). Without these basic protections, a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, see Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair. Harmless-error analysis thus presupposes a trial, at which the defendant, represented by counsel, may present evidence and argument before an impartial judge and jury. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra, at 681 (constitutional errors may be harmless “in terms of their effect on the factfinding process at trial”) (emphasis added); Chapman, supra, at 24 (error is harmless if, beyond a reasonable doubt, it “did not contribute to the verdict obtained”) (emphasis added).
Similarly, harmless-error analysis presumably would not apply if a court directed a verdict for the prosecution in a criminal trial by jury. We have stated that “a trial judge is prohibited from entering a judgment of conviction or directing the jury to come forward with such a verdict. . . regardless of how overwhelmingly the evidence may point in that direction.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 572-573 (1977) (citations omitted). Accord, Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S. 395, 408 (1947). This rule stems from the Sixth Amendment’s clear command to afford jury trials in serious criminal cases. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968). Where that right is altogether denied, the State cannot contend that the deprivation was harmless because the evidence established the defendant’s guilt; the error in such a case is that the wrong entity judged the defendant guilty.
We have emphasized, however, that while there are some errors to which Chapman does not apply, they are the exception and not the rule. United States v. Hasting, supra, at 509. Accordingly, if the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis. The thrust of the many constitutional rules governing the conduct of criminal trials is to ensure that those trials lead to fair and correct judgments. Where a reviewing court can find that the record developed at trial establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the interest in fairness has been satisfied and the judgment should be affirmed. As we have repeatedly stated, “the Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S., at 681; United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S., at 508-509.
B
Applying these principles to this case is not difficult. Respondent received a full opportunity to put on evidence and make argument to support his claim of innocence. He was tried by a fairly selected, impartial jury, supervised by an impartial judge. Apart from the challenged malice instruction, the jury in this case was clearly instructed that it had to find respondent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of both first- and second-degree murder. See also n. 2, supra. Placed in context, the erroneous malice instruction does not compare with the kinds of errors that automatically require reversal of an otherwise valid conviction. We therefore find that the error at issue here — an instruction that impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on malice — is not “so basic to a fair trial” that it can never be harmless. Cf. Chapman, 386 U. S., at 23.
The purpose behind the rule of Sandstrom v. Montana supports this conclusion. Sandstrom was a logical extension of the Court’s holding in In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), that the prosecution must prove “every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which [the defendant] is charged” beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 364; see Sandstrom, 442 U. S., at 520, 523; Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S., at 313. The purpose of that rule is to ensure that only the guilty are criminally punished. As the Court stated last Term in Francis v. Franklin, the rule “protects the ‘fundamental value determination of our society,’ given voice in Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Winship, that ‘it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.’ ” Ibid., quoting Winship, supra, at 372 (Harlan, J., concurring). When the verdict of guilty reached in a case in which Sandstrom error was committed is correct beyond a reasonable doubt, reversal of the conviction does nothing to promote the interest that the rule serves.
Nor is Sandstrom error equivalent to a directed verdict for the State. When a jury is instructed to presume malice from predicate facts, it still must find the existence of those facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S. 73, 96-97 (1983) (Powell, J., dissenting). In many cases, the predicate facts conclusively establish intent, so that no rational jury could find that the defendant committed the relevant criminal act but did not intend to cause injury. See, e. g., Lamb v. Jernigan, 683 F. 2d 1332, 1342-1343 (CA11 1982), cert. denied, 460 U. S. 1024 (1983). In that event the erroneous instruction is simply superfluous: the jury has found, in Winship’s words, “every fact necessary” to establish every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Connecticut v. Johnson, supra, at 97 (Powell, J., dissenting); Jeffries & Stephan, Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, 88 Yale L. J. 1325, 1388, n. 192 (1979).
No one doubts that the trial court properly could have instructed the jury that it could infer malice from respondent’s conduct. See Francis v. Franklin, supra, at 314-315; Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U. S. 140, 157-163 (1979). Indeed, in the many cases where there is no direct evidence of intent, that is exactly how intent is established. For purposes of deciding this case, it is enough to recognize that in some cases that inference is overpowering. See Hopper v. Evans, 456 U. S., at 613. It would further neither justice nor the purposes of the Sandstrom rule to reverse a conviction in such a case. We accordingly hold that Chapman’s harmless-error standard applies in cases such as this one.
I — I H-t 1 — 4
Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that Sand-strom error might in some cases be harmless, its analysis of the issue cannot square with Chapman. The court concluded that a Sandstrom error could never be harmless where a defendant contests intent. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-5. But our harmless-error cases do not turn on whether the defendant conceded the factual issue on which the error bore. Rather, we have held that “Chapman mandates consideration of the entire record prior to reversing a conviction for constitutional errors that may be harmless.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S., at 509, n. 7. The question is whether, “on the whole record . . . the error . . . [is] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 510. See also Chapman, 386 U. S., at 24 (“[BJefore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”); Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S., at 97, n. 5 (Powell, J., dissenting) (in cases of Sandstrom error, “the inquiry is whether the evidence was so dispositive of intent that a reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found it unnecessary to rely on the presumption”). Thus, the fact that respondent denied that he had “an intent to do any injury to another,” App. 186, does not dispose of the harmless-error question.
Although we “plainly have the authority” to decide whether, on the facts of a particular case, a constitutional error was harmless under the Chapman standard, we “do so sparingly.” United States v. Hasting, supra, at 510. The Court of Appeals has not yet applied Chapman to the facts of this case. We therefore remand to that court for determination of whether the error committed in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV
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.
In Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S. 73 (1983), the Court was equally divided on the question whether ordinary harmless-error analysis was appropriate in cases of Sandstrom error. Compare 460 U. S., at 84-87 (plurality opinion) (such error “is the functional equivalent of a directed verdict” on intent, and is therefore harmless only when the defendant concedes intent), with id., at 95-99 (Powell, J., dissenting) (Chapman standard applies to Sandstrom error). Cf. 460 U. S., at 88 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (joining affirmance of state-court decision that Sandstrom error could not be harmless, but on the ground that the decision was actually one of state law). The Johnson plurality noted that state and federal courts were in conflict on this issue. 460 U. S., at 75, n. 1 (collecting cases). Due in part to the divided views in Johnson, that conflict has persisted. Compare, e. g., Tucker v. Kemp, 762 F. 2d 1496, 1501-1503 (CA11 1985) (en banc) (applying Chapman harmless-error analysis), cert. denied, post, p. 1022, with In re Hamilton, 721F. 2d 1189, 1190-1191 (CA9 1983) (holding that Sandstrom error would be harmless only if intent was not contested at trial).
The Court of Criminal Appeals noted that, almost immediately following the “presumption” instruction, the judge charged:
“The question of whether the alleged killing was done with malice is for you to determine from the entire case, and you should look to all of the facts and circumstances developed by the evidence to determine whether the State has . . . proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of malice. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged killing was done with malice, then the Defendant cannot be guilty of murder in the second degree and you must acquit him of that offense.” App. 188.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that this instruction adequately informed the jurors that the burden of proof on malice remained on the State at all times. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-37 to A-39.
In Sandstrom we held that an instruction creating a presumption of malice that has the effect of shifting the burden of proof on intent to the defendant violates due process under the rule of In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S., at 523-524. Sandstrom was decided shortly before respondent’s trial commenced. 611 F. Supp. 294, 296, n. 3 (1983).
The Court of Appeals’ judgment is reported at 762 F. 2d 1006 (1985). The court’s opinion is unpublished.
We thus do not consider whether, taken in context, the instructions were permissible under our decisions in Sandstrom and in Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307 (1985). For purposes of our harmless-error analysis, we assume that the Court of Appeals properly held that the instructions were unconstitutional.
Each of the examples Chapman cited of errors that could never be harmless either aborted the basic trial process, Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560 (1958) (use of coerced confession), or denied it altogether, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963) (denial of counsel); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927) (biased adjudicator).
Unlike errors such as judicial bias or denial of counsel, the error in this case did not affect the composition of the record. Evaluation of whether the error prejudiced respondent thus does not require any difficult inquiries concerning matters that might have been, but were not, placed in evidence. Cf. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475, 490-491 (1978). Consequently, there is no inherent difficulty in evaluating whether the error prejudiced respondent in this case. See United States v. Frady, 456 U. S. 152, 171-174 (1982) (evaluating Sandstrom error for prejudice under the “cause and actual prejudice” standard of Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977)).
“Because a presumption does not remove the issue of intent from the jury’s consideration, it is distinguishable from other instructional errors that prevent a jury from considering an issue.” Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S., at 95, n. 3 (Powell, J., dissenting). Cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 320, n. 14 (1979) (suggesting that failure to instruct a jury as to the reasonable-doubt standard cannot be harmless).
See Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F. 2d 1383, 1423 (CA11 1985) (Kravitch, J., concurring and dissenting) (emphasizing that juries are free to infer intent from conduct).
In Hopper v. Evans, we held that States are not constitutionally required to instruct juries about lesser included offenses where such instructions are not warranted by the evidence. The defendant in that case claimed that the trial court should have instructed the jury as to unintentional homicide during the commission of a robbery. We concluded:
“It would be an extraordinary perversion of the law to say that intent to kill is not established when a felon, engaged in an armed robbery, admits to shooting his victim in the back .... The evidence not only supported the claim that respondent intended to kill the victim, but affirmatively negated any claim that he did not intend to kill the victim. An instruction on the offense of unintentional killing during this robbery was therefore not warranted.” 456 U. S., at 613 (citation omitted).
As Hopper suggests, it would defy common sense to conclude that an execution-style killing or a violent torture-murder was committed unintentionally. See Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S., at 99, n. 7 (Powell, J., dissenting). It follows that no rational jury would need to rely on an erroneous presumption instruction to find malice in such cases. Id., at 97, and n. 5.
We think the dissent, and not the Court, “asks and answers the wrong question” in this case. Post, at 596 (opinion of Blackmun, J.). We agree that the determination of guilt or innocence, according to the standard of proof required by Winship and its progeny, is for the jury rather than the court. See post, at 593. Harmless-error analysis addresses a different question: what is to be done about a trial error that, in theory, may have altered the basis on which the jury decided the case, but in practice clearly had no effect on the outcome? This question applies not merely to Sandstrom violations, but to other errors that may have affected either the instructions the jury heard or the record it considered — including errors such as mistaken admission of evidence, or unconstitutional comment on a defendant’s silence, or erroneous limitation of a defendant’s cross-examination of a prosecution witness. All of these errors alter the terms under which the jury considered the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and therefore all theoretically impair the defendant’s interest in having a jury decide his case. The dissent’s argument — that the Sixth Amendment forbids a reviewing court to decide the impact of a trial error on the outcome, post, at 593-594 — logically implies that all such errors are immune from harmless-error analysis. Yet this Court repeatedly has held to the contrary. E. g., Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673 (1986) (limitation on defendant’s cross-examination); United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499 (1983) (improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify); Moore v. Illinois, 434 U. S. 220 (1977) (admission of improperly obtained witness identification). Indeed, Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), the beginning of this line of cases, applied harmless-error analysis to an error that placed an improper argument before the jury. Id., at 24-25 (finding comment on defendant’s silence harmful). See also Hopper v. Evans, 456 U. S., at 613-614 (citing Chapman, and finding error in jury instructions harmless). These decisions, ignored by the dissent, strongly support application of harmless-error analysis in the context of Sandstrom error.
The dissent contends that the jury’s decision to convict respondent of only one count of premeditated murder “aptly illustrate^] why harmless-error analysis is inappropriate” in cases where intent is at issue. Post, at 594 (opinion of Blackmun, J.). This argument is without merit. The jury determined that respondent was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of “intend[ing] to take the life” of Joy Faulk “with cool purpose.” App. 185 (trial court’s charge defining premeditation). The jury then determined that respondent was guilty of the malicious, but not premeditated, murder of Charles Browning. The only alleged error in these instructions was the trial court’s instruction that the jury could presume malice from a killing. Respondent’s (and the dissent’s) theory is that a proper instruction on the burden of proof on malice might have led the jury to find neither malice nor premeditation as to Faulk’s killing. This argument is implausible on its face.
We leave the question whether the error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt to the Court of Appeals on remand. We do suggest that the different verdicts for the two killings in no way support respondent’s contention that the Sandstrom error in this case was prejudicial.
The parties disagree as to the scope of the relevant evidence that must be assessed under Chapman. In particular, petitioner argues that evidence of amnesia, of respondent’s drunkenness on the day of the murders, and of insanity is irrelevant to malice. Respondent disagrees. These are, of course, issues of Tennessee law in the first instance, and we need not resolve them here. Nor do we express any view as to whether, assuming all the evidence in question is relevant to malice, the error in this case was nevertheless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case calls upon us to apply established precedent in a slightly different context. We have previously held that the time for filing a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) begins when the discriminatory act occurs. We have explained that this rule applies to any “[discrete ac[t]” of discrimination, including discrimination in “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, [and] refusal to hire.” National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U. S. 101,114 (2002). Because a pay-setting decision is a “discrete act,” it follows that the period for filing an EEOC charge begins when the act occurs. Petitioner, having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII. Petitioner also contends that discrimination in pay is different from other types of employment discrimination and thus should be governed by a different rule. But because a pay-setting decision is a discrete act that occurs at a particular point in time, these arguments must be rejected. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Petitioner Lilly Ledbetter (Ledbetter) worked for respondent Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) at its Gadsden, Alabama, plant from 1979 until 1998. During much of this time, salaried employees at the plant were given or denied raises based on their supervisors’ evaluation of their performance. In March 1998, Ledbetter submitted a questionnaire to the EEOC alleging certain acts of sex discrimination, and in July of that year she filed a formal EEOC charge. After taking early retirement in November 1998, Ledbetter commenced this action, in which she asserted, among other claims, a Title VII pay discrimination claim and a claim under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), 77 Stat. 56, 29 U. S. C. § 206(d).
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Goodyear on several of Ledbetter’s claims, including her EPA claim, but allowed others, including her Title VII pay discrimination claim, to proceed to trial. In support of this latter claim, Ledbetter introduced evidence that during the course of her employment several supervisors had given her poor evaluations because of her sex, that as a result of these evaluations her pay was not increased as mueh as it would have been if she had been evaluated fairly, and that these past pay decisions continued to affect the amount of her pay throughout her employment. Toward the end of her time with Goodyear, she was being paid significantly less than any of her male colleagues. Goodyear maintained that the evaluations had been nondiscriminatory, but the jury found for Ledbetter and awarded her backpay and damages.
On appeal, Goodyear contended that Ledbetter’s pay discrimination claim was time barred with respect to all pay decisions made prior to September 26, 1997 — that is, 180 days before the filing of her EEOC questionnaire. And Goodyear argued that no discriminatory act relating to Ledbetter’s pay occurred after that date.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that a Title VII pay discrimination claim cannot be based on any pay decision that occurred prior to the last pay decision that affected the employee’s pay during the EEOC charging period. 421 F. 3d 1169, 1182-1183 (2005). The Court of Appeals then concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Goodyear had acted with discriminatory intent in making the only two pay decisions that occurred within that time span, namely, a decision made in 1997 to deny Ledbetter a raise and a similar decision made in 1998. Id., at 1186-1187.
Ledbetter filed a petition for a writ of certiorari but did not seek review of the Court of Appeals’ holdings regarding the sufficiency of the evidence in relation to the 1997 and 1998 pay decisions. Rather, she sought review of the following question:
“Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period.” Pet. for Cert. i.
In light of disagreement among the Courts of Appeals as to the proper application of the limitations period in Title VII disparate-treatment pay cases, compare 421 F. 3d 1169 with Forsyth v. Federation Employment & Guidance Serv., 409 F. 3d 565 (CA2 2005); Shea v. Rice, 409 F. 3d 448 (CADC 2005), we granted certiorari, 548 U. S. 903 (2006).
II
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an “unlawful employment practice” to discriminate “against any individual with respect to his compensation... because of such individual’s... sex.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). An individual wishing to challenge an employment practice under this provision must first file a charge with the EEOC. § 2000e~5(e)(l). Such a charge must be filed within a specified period (either 180 or 300 days, depending on the State) “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” ibid., and if the employee does not submit a timely EEOC charge, the employee may not challenge that practice in court, § 2000e — 5(f)(1).
In addressing the issue whether an EEOC charge was filed on time, we have stressed the need to identify with care the specific employment practice that is at issue. Morgan, 536 U. S., at 110-111. Ledbetter points to two different employment practices as possible candidates. Primarily, she urges us to focus on the paychecks that were issued to her during the EEOC charging period (the 180-day period preceding the filing of her EEOC questionnaire), each of which, she contends, was a separate act of discrimination. Alternatively, Ledbetter directs us to the 1998 decision denying her a raise, and she argues that this decision was “unlawful because it carried forward intentionally discriminatory disparities from prior years.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 20. Both of these arguments fail because they would require us in effect to jettison the defining element of the legal claim on which her Title VII recovery was based.
Ledbetter asserted disparate treatment, the central element of which is discriminatory intent. See Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U. S. 6, 8 (1981) (per curiam); Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 335, n. 15 (1977); Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S. 977, 1002 (1988) (Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan, and Marshall, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (“[A] disparate-treatment challenge focuses exclusively on the intent of the employer”). However, Ledbetter does not assert that the relevant Goodyear decisionmakers acted with actual discriminatory intent either when they issued her checks during the EEOC charging period or when they denied her a raise in 1998. Rather, she argues that the paychecks were unlawful because they would have been larger if she had been evaluated in a nondiscriminatory manner prior to the EEOC charging period. Brief for Petitioner 22. Similarly, she maintains that the 1998 decision was unlawful because it “carried forward” the effects of prior, uncharged discrimination decisions. Reply Brief for Petitioner 20. In essence, she suggests that it is sufficient that discriminatory acts that occurred prior to the charging period had continuing effects during that period. Brief for Petitioner 13 (“[E]ach paycheck that offers a woman less pay than a similarly situated man because of her sex is a separate violation of Title VII with its own limitations period, regardless of whether the paycheck simply implements a prior discriminatory decision made outside the limitations period”); see also Reply Brief for Petitioner 20. This argument is squarely foreclosed by our precedents.
In United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U. S. 553 (1977), we rejected an argument that is basically the same as Ledbetter’s. Evans was forced to resign because the airline refused to employ married flight attendants, but she did not file an EEOC charge regarding her termination. Some years later, the airline rehired her but treated her as a new employee for seniority purposes. Id., at 554-555. Evans then sued, arguing that, while any suit based on the original discrimination was time barred, the airline’s refusal to give her credit for her prior service gave “present effect to [its] past illegal act and therefore perpetuate[d] the consequences of forbidden discrimination.” Id., at 557.
We agreed with Evans that the airline’s “seniority system [did] indeed have a continuing impact on her pay and fringe benefits,” id., at 558, but we noted that “the critical question [was] whether any present violation exist[ed],” ibid, (emphasis in original). We concluded that the continuing effects of the precharging period discrimination did not make out a present violation. As Justice Stevens wrote for the Court:
“United was entitled to treat [Evans’ termination] as lawful after respondent failed to file a charge of discrimination within the 90 days then allowed by § 706(d). A discriminatory act which is not made the basis for a timely charge... is merely an unfortunate event in history which has no present legal consequences.” Ibid.
It would be difficult to speak to the point more directly.
Equally instructive is Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U. S. 250 (1980), which concerned a college professor, Ricks, who alleged that he had been discharged because of national origin. In March 1974, Ricks was denied tenure, but he was given a final, nonrenewable 1-year contract that expired on June 30, 1975. Id., at 252-253. Ricks delayed filing a charge with the EEOC until April 1975, id., at 254, but he argued that the EEOC charging period ran from the date of his actual termination rather than from the date when tenure was denied. In rejecting this argument, we recognized that “one of the effects of the denial of tenure,” namely, his ultimate termination, “did not occur until later.” Id., at 258 (emphasis in original). But because Ricks failed to identify any specific discriminatory act “that continued until, or occurred at the time of, the actual termination of his employment,” id., at 257, we held that the EEOC charging period ran from “the time the tenure decision was made and communicated to Ricks,” id., at 258.
This same approach dictated the outcome in Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 490 U. S. 900 (1989), which grew out of a change in the way in which seniority was calculated under a collective-bargaining agreement. Before 1979, all employees at the plant in question accrued seniority based simply on years of employment at the plant. In 1979, a new agreement made seniority for workers in the more highly paid (and traditionally male) position of “tester” depend on time spent in that position alone and not in other positions in the plant. Several years later, when female testers were laid off due to low seniority as calculated under the new provision, they filed an EEOC charge alleging that the 1979 scheme had been adopted with discriminatory intent, namely, to protect incumbent male testers when women with substantial plant seniority began to move into the traditionally male tester positions. Id., at 902-903.
We held that the plaintiffs’ EEOC charge was not timely because it was not filed within the specified period after the adoption in 1979 of the new seniority rule. We noted that the plaintiffs had not alleged that the new seniority rule treated men and women differently or that the rule had been applied in a discriminatory manner. Rather, their complaint was that the rule was adopted originally with discriminatory intent. Id., at 905. And as in Evans and Ricks, we held that the EEOC charging period ran from the time when the discrete act of alleged intentional discrimination occurred, not from the date when the effects of this practice were felt. 490 U. S., at 907-908. We stated:
“Because the claimed invalidity of the facially nondiscriminatory and neutrally applied tester seniority system is wholly dependent on the alleged illegality of signing the underlying agreement, it is the date of that signing which governs the limitations period.” Id., at 911.
Our most recent decision in this area confirms this understanding. In Morgan, we explained that the statutory term “employment practice” generally refers to “a discrete act or single ‘occurrence’ ” that takes place at a particular point in time. 536 U. S., at 110-111. We pointed to “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, [and] refusal to hire” as examples of such “discrete” acts, and we held that a Title VII plaintiff “can only file a charge to cover discrete acts that ‘occurred’ within the appropriate time period.” Id., at 114.
The instruction provided by Evans, Ricks, Lorance, and Morgan is clear. The EEOC charging period is triggered when a discrete unlawful practice takes place. A new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination. But of course, if an employer engages in a series of acts each of which is intentionally discriminatory, then a fresh violation takes place when each act is committed. See Morgan, supra, at 113.
Ledbetter’s arguments here — that the paychecks that she received during the charging period and the 1998 raise denial each violated Title VII and triggered a new EEOC charging period — cannot be reconciled with Evans, Ricks, Lorance, and Morgan. Ledbetter, as noted, makes no claim that intentionally discriminatory conduct occurred during the charging period or that discriminatory decisions that occurred prior to that period were not communicated to her. Instead, she argues simply that Goodyear’s conduct during the charging period gave present effect to discriminatory conduct outside of that period. Brief for Petitioner 13. But current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination; as we held in Evans, such effects in themselves have “no present legal consequences.” 431 U. S., at 558. Ledbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her. She did not do so, and the paychecks that were issued to her during the 180 days prior to the filing of her EEOC charge do not provide a basis for overcoming that prior failure.
In an effort to circumvent the need to prove discriminatory intent during the charging period, Ledbetter relies on the intent associated with other decisions made by other persons at other times. Reply Brief for Petitioner 6 (“Intentional discrimination... occurs when... differential treatment takes place, even if the intent to engage in that conduct for a discriminatory purpose was made previously”).
Ledbetter’s attempt to take the intent associated with the prior pay decisions and shift it to the 1998 pay decision is unsound. It would shift intent from one act (the act that consummates the discriminatory employment practice) to a later act that was not performed with bias or discriminatory motive. The effect of this shift would be to impose liability in the absence of the requisite intent.
Our cases recognize this point. In Evans, for example, we did not take the airline’s discriminatory intent in 1968, when it discharged the plaintiff because of her sex, and attach that intent to its later act of neutrally applying its seniority rules. Similarly, in Ricks, we did not take the discriminatory intent that the college allegedly possessed when it denied Ricks tenure and attach that intent to its subsequent act of terminating his employment when his nonrenewable contract ran out. On the contrary, we held that “the only alleged discrimination occurred — and the filing limitations periods therefore commenced — at the time the tenure decision was made and communicated to Ricks.” 449 U. S., at 258.
Not only would Ledbetter’s argument effectively eliminate the defining element of her disparate-treatment claim, but it would distort Title VII’s “integrated, multistep enforcement procedure.” Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 359 (1977). We have previously noted the legislative compromises that preceded the enactment of Title VII, Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, 819-821 (1980); EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U. S. 107, 126 (1988) (Stevens, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., dissenting). Respectful of the legislative process that crafted this scheme, we must “give effect to the statute as enacted,” Mohasco, supra, at 819, and we have repeatedly rejected suggestions that we extend or truncate Congress’ deadlines. See, e. g., Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U. S. 229, 236-240 (1976) (union grievance procedures do not toll EEOC filing deadline); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 47-49 (1974) (arbitral decisions do not foreclose aecess to court following a timely filed EEOC complaint).
Statutes of limitations serve a policy of repose. American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554-555 (1974). They
“represent a pervasive legislative judgment that it is unjust to fail to put the adversary on notice to defend within a specified period of time and that ‘the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.’” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U. S. 111, 117 (1979) (quoting Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 349 (1944)).
The EEOC filing deadline “protect[s] employers from the burden of defending claims arising from employment decisions that are long past.” Ricks, supra, at 256-257. Certainly, the 180-day EEOC charging deadline, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(e)(l), is short by any measure, but “[b]y choosing what are obviously quite short deadlines, Congress clearly intended to encourage the prompt processing of all charges of employment discrimination.” Mohasco, supra, at 825. This short deadline reflects Congress’ strong preference for the prompt resolution of employment discrimination allegations through voluntary conciliation and cooperation. Occidental Life Ins., supra, at 367-368; Alexander, supra, at 44.
A disparate-treatment claim comprises two elements: an employment practice, and discriminatory intent. Nothing in Title VII supports treating the intent element of Ledbetter’s claim any differently from the employment practice element. If anything, concerns regarding stale claims weigh more heavily with respect to proof of the intent associated with employment practices than with the practices themselves. For example, in a ease such as this in which the plaintiff’s claim concerns the denial of raises, the employer’s challenged acts (the decisions not to increase the employee’s pay at the times in question) will almost always be documented and will typically not even be in dispute. By contrast, the employer’s intent is almost always disputed, and evidence relating to intent may fade quickly with time. In most disparate-treatment cases, much if not all of the evidence of intent is circumstantial. Thus, the critical issue in a case involving a long-past performance evaluation will often be whether the evaluation was so far off the mark that a sufficient inference of discriminatory intent can be drawn. See Watson, 487 U. S., at 1004 (Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (noting that in a disparate-treatment claim, the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), factors establish discrimination by inference). See also, e. g., Zhuang v. Datacard Corp., 414 F. 3d 849 (CA8 2005) (rejecting inference of discrimination from performance evaluations); Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F. 3d 695, 732-733 (CA11 2004) (same). This can be a subtle determination, and the passage of time may seriously diminish the ability of the parties and the factfinder to reconstruct what actually happened.
Ledbetter contends that employers would be protected by the equitable doctrine of laches, but Congress plainly did not think that laches was sufficient in this context. Indeed, Congress took a diametrically different approach, including in Title VII a provision allowing only a few months in most cases to file a charge with the EEOC. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e)(l).
Ultimately, “experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law.” Mohasco, supra, at 826. By operation of §§2000e-5(e)(1) and 2000e-5(f)(1), a Title VII “claim is time barred if it is not filed within these time limits.” Morgan, 536 U. S., at 109; Electrical Workers, 429 U. S., at 236. We therefore reject the suggestion that an employment practice committed with no improper purpose and no discriminatory intent is rendered unlawful nonetheless because it gives some effect to an intentional discriminatory act that occurred outside the charging period. Ledbetter’s claim is, for this reason, untimely.
III
A
In advancing her two theories Ledbetter does not seriously contest the logic of Evans, Ricks, Lorance, and Morgan as set out above, but rather argues that our decision in Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U. S. 385 (1986) (per curiam), requires different treatment of her claim because it relates to pay. Ledbetter focuses specifically on our statement that “[e]ach week’s paycheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly situated white is a wrong actionable under Title VII.” Id., at 395. She argues that in Bazemore we adopted a “paycheck accrual rule” under which each paycheck, even if not accompanied by discriminatory intent, triggers a new EEOC charging period during which the complainant may properly challenge any prior discriminatory conduct that impacted the amount of that paycheck, no matter how long ago the discrimination occurred. On this reading, Bazemore dispensed with the need to prove actual discriminatory intent in pay eases and, without giving any hint that it was doing so, repudiated the very different approach taken previously in Evans and Ricks. Ledbetter’s interpretation is unsound.
Bazemore concerned a disparate-treatment pay claim brought against the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Service). 478 U. S., at 389-390. Service employees were originally segregated into “a white branch” and “a ‘Negro branch,’” with the latter receiving less pay, but in 1965 the two branches were merged. Id., at 390-391. After Title VII was extended to public employees in 1972, black employees brought suit claiming that pay disparities attributable to the old dual pay scale persisted. Id., at 391. The Court of Appeals rejected this claim, which it interpreted to be that the “ ‘discriminatory difference in salaries should have been affirmatively eliminated.’” Id., at 395.
This Court reversed in a per curiam opinion, id., at 386-388, but all of the Members of the Court joined Justice Brennan’s separate opinion, see id., at 388 (opinion concurring in part). Justice Brennan wrote:
“The error of the Court of Appeals with respect to salary disparities created prior to 1972 and perpetuated thereafter is too obvious to warrant extended discussion: that the Extension Service discriminated with respect to salaries prior to the time it was covered by Title VII does not excuse perpetuating that discrimination after the Extension Service became covered by Title VII. To hold otherwise would have the effect of exempting from liability those employers who were historically the greatest offenders of the rights of blacks. A pattern or practice that would have constituted a violation of Title VII, but for the fact that the statute had not yet become effective, became a violation upon Title VII’s effective date, and to the extent an employer continued to engage in that act or practice, it is liable under that statute. While recovery may not be permitted for pre-1972 acts of discrimination, to the extent that this discrimination was perpetuated after 1972, liability may be imposed.” Id., at 395 (emphasis in original).
Far from adopting the approach that Ledbetter advances here, this passage made a point that was “too obvious to warrant extended discussion,” ibid.; namely, that when an employer adopts a facially discriminatory pay structure that puts some employees on a lower scale because of race, the employer engages in intentional discrimination whenever it issues a check to one of these disfavored employees. An employer that adopts and intentionally retains such a pay structure can surely be regarded as intending to discriminate on the basis of race as long as the structure is used.
Bazemore thus is entirely consistent with our prior precedents, as Justice Brennan’s opinion took care to point out. Noting that Evans turned on whether “ ‘any present violation exist[ed],’” Justice Brennan stated that the Bazemore plaintiffs were alleging that the defendants “ha[d] not from the date of the Act forward made all their employment decisions in a wholly nondiscriminatory way,” 478 U. S., at 396-397, n. 6 (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) — which is to say that they had engaged in fresh discrimination. Justice Brennan added that the Court’s “holding in no sense g[ave] legal effect to the pre1972 actions, but, consistent with Evans... focuse[d] on the present salary structure, which is illegal if it is a mere continuation of the pre-1965 discriminatory pay structure.” Id., at 397, n. 6 (emphasis added).
The sentence in Justice Brennan’s opinion on which Led-better chiefly relies comes directly after the passage quoted above, and makes a similarly obvious point:
“Each week’s payeheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly situated white is a wrong actionable under Title VII, regardless of the fact that this pattern was begun prior to the effective date of Title VII.” Id., at 39S-396.
In other words, a freestanding violation may always be charged within its own charging period regardless of its connection to other violations. We repeated this same point more recently in Morgan: “The existence of past acts and the employee’s prior knowledge of their occurrence... does not bar employees from filing charges about related discrete acts so long as the acts are independently discriminatory and charges addressing those acts are themselves timely filed.” 536 U. S., at 113. Neither of these opinions stands for the proposition that an action not comprising an employment practice and alleged discriminatory intent is separately chargeable, just because it is related to some past act of discrimination.
Ledbetter attempts to eliminate the obvious inconsistencies between her interpretation of Bazemore and the Evans/ Ricks/Lorance/Morgan line of cases on the ground that none of the latter cases involved pay raises, but the logic of our prior cases is folly applicable to pay cases. To take Evans as an example, the employee there was unlawfully terminated; this caused her to lose seniority; and the loss of seniority affected her wages, among other things. 431 U. S., at 555, n. 5 (“[Sjeniority determine[s] a flight attendant’s wages; the duration and timing of vacations; rights to retention in the event of layoffs and rights to re-employment thereafter; and rights to preferential selection of flight assignments”). The relationship between past discrimination and adverse present effects was the same in Evans as it is here. Thus, the argument that Ledbetter urges us to accept here would necessarily have commanded a different outcome in Evans.
Bazemore stands for the proposition that an employer violates Title VII and triggers a new EEOC charging period whenever the employer issues paychecks using a discriminatory pay structure. But a new Title VII violation does not occur and a new charging period is not triggered when an employer issues paychecks pursuant to a system that is “facially nondiscriminatory and neutrally applied.” Lorance, 490 U. S., at 911. The fact that precharging period discrimination adversely affects the calculation of a neutral factor (like seniority) that is used in determining future pay does not mean that each new paycheck constitutes a new violation and restarts the EEOC charging period.
Because Ledbetter has not adduced evidence that Goodyear initially adopted its performance-based pay system in order to discriminate on the basis of sex or that it later applied this system to her within the charging period with any discriminatory animus, Bazemore is of no help to her. Rather, all Ledbetter has alleged is that Goodyear’s agents discriminated against her individually in the past and that this discrimination reduced the amount of later paychecks. Because Ledbetter did not file timely EEOC charges relating to her employer’s discriminatory pay decisions in the past, she cannot maintain a suit based on that past discrimination at this time.
B
The dissent also argues that pay claims are different. Its principal argument is that a pay discrimination claim is like a hostile work environment claim because both types of claims are “‘based on the cumulative effect of individual acts/” post, at 648, but this analogy overlooks the critical conceptual distinction between these two types of claims. And although the dissent relies heavily on Morgan, the dissent’s argument is fundamentally inconsistent with Morgan’s reasoning.
Morgan distinguished between “discrete” acts of discrimination and a hostile work environment. A discrete act of discrimination is an act that in itself “constitutes a separate actionable ‘unlawful employment practice’ ” and that is temporally distinct. 536 U. S., at 114, 117. As examples we identified “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.” Id., at 114. A hostile work environment, on the other hand, typically comprises a succession of harassing acts, each of which “may not be actionable on its own.” In addition, a hostile work environment claim “cannot be said to occur on any particular day.” Id., at 115-116. In other words, the actionable wrong is the environment, not the' individual acts that, taken together, create the environment.
Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, post, at 648-649, what Ledbetter alleged was not a single wrong consisting of a succession of acts. Instead, she alleged a series of discrete discriminatory acts, see Brief for Petitioner 13,15 (arguing that payment of each paycheck constituted a separate violation of Title VII), each of which was independently identifiable and actionable, and Morgan is perfectly clear that when an employee alleges “serial violations,” i. e., a series of actionable wrongs, a timely EEOC charge must be filed with respect to each discrete alleged violation. 536 U. S., at 113.
While this fundamental misinterpretation of Morgan is alone sufficient to show that the dissent’s approach must be rejected, it should also be noted that the dissent is coy as to whether it would apply the same rule to all pay discrimination claims or whether it would limit the rule to eases like Ledbetter’s, in which multiple discriminatory pay decisions are alleged. The dissent relies on the fact that Ledbetter was allegedly subjected to a series of discriminatory pay decisions over a period of time, and the dissent suggests that she did not realize for some time that she had been victimized. But not all pay cases share these characteristics.
If, as seems likely, the dissent would apply the same rule in all pay cases, then, if a single discriminatory pay decision made 20 years ago continued to affect an employee’s pay today, the dissent would presumably hold that the employee could file a timely EEOC charge today. And the dissent would presumably allow this even if the employee had full knowledge of all the circumstances relating to the 20-year-old decision at the time it was made. The dissent, it appears, proposes that we adopt a special rule for pay cases based on the particular characteristics of one case that is certainly not representative of all pay cases and may not even be typical. We refuse to take that approach.
IV
In addition to the arguments previously discussed, Ledbetter relies largely on analogies to other statutory regimes and on extrastatutory policy arguments to support her “paycheck accrual rule.”
A
Ledbetter places significant weight on the EPA, which was enacted contemporaneously with Title VII and prohibits paying unequal wages for equal work because of sex. 29 U. S. C. § 206(d). Stating that “the lower courts routinely hear [EPA] claims challenging pay disparities that first arose outside the limitations period,” Ledbetter suggests that we should hold that Title VII is violated each time an employee receives a paycheck that reflects past discrimination. Brief for Petitioner 34-85.
The simple answer to this argument is that the EPA and Title VII are not the same. In particular, the EPA does not require the filing of a charge with the EEOC or proof of intentional discrimination. See § 206(d)(1) (asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”). Ledbetter originally asserted an EPA claim, but that claim was dismissed by the District Court and is not before us. If Ledbetter had pursued her EPA claim, she would not face the Title VII obstacles that she now confronts.
Ledbetter’s appeal to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) is equally unavailing. Stating that it is “well established that the statute of limitations for violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the [FLSA] runs anew with each paycheck,” Brief for Petitioner 35, Led-better urges that the same should be true in a Title VII pay case. Again, however, Ledbetter’s argument overlooks the fact that an FLSA minimum wage or overtime claim does not require proof of a specific intent to discriminate. See 29 U. S. C. § 207 (establishing overtime rules); cf. § 255(a) (establishing 2-year statute of limitations for FLSA claims, except for claims of a “willful violation,” which may be commenced within 3 years).
Ledbetter is on firmer ground in suggesting that we look to cases arising under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) since the NLRA provided a model for Title VIPs remedial provisions and, like Title VII, requires the filing of a timely administrative charge (with the National Labor Relations Board) before suit may be maintained. Lorance, 490 U. S., at 909; Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 226, n. 8 (1982). Cf. 29 U. S. C. § 160(b) (“[N]o complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board”).
•Ledbetter argues that the NLRA’s 6-month statute of limitations begins anew for each paycheck reflecting a prior violation of the statute, but our precedents suggest otherwise. In Machinists v. NLRB, 362 U. S. 411,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court in part.
The city of New York (City) taxes the possession of cigarettes. Hemi Group, based in New Mexico, sells cigarettes online to residents of the City. Neither state nor city law requires Hemi to charge, collect, or remit the tax, and the purchasers seldom pay it on their own. Federal law, however, requires out-of-state vendors such as Hemi to submit customer information to the States into which they ship the cigarettes.
Against that backdrop, the City filed this lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging that Hemi failed to file the required customer information with the State. That failure, the City argues, constitutes mail and wire fraud, which caused it to lose tens of millions of dollars in unrecovered cigarette taxes. Because the City cannot show that it lost the tax revenue “by reason of” the alleged RICO violation, 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c), we hold that the City cannot state a claim under RICO. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary.
I
A
This case arises from a motion to dismiss, and so we accept as true the factual allegations in the City’s second amended complaint. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. S. 163, 164 (1993).
New York State authorizes the City of New York to impose its own taxes on cigarettes. N. Y. Unconsol. Law Ann. §9436(1) (West Supp. 2009). Under that authority, the City has levied a $1.50 per pack tax on each standard pack of cigarettes possessed within the City for sale or use. N. Y. C. Admin. Code §ll-1302(a) (2008); see also Record A1016. When purchasers buy cigarettes from in-state vendors, the seller is responsible for charging, collecting, and remitting the tax. N. Y. Tax Law Ann. §471(2) (West Supp. 2009). Out-of-state vendors, however, are not. Ibid.; see New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com, Inc., 541 F. 3d 425, 432-433 (CA2 2008). Instead, the City is responsible for recovering, directly from the customers, use taxes on cigarettes sold outside New York. That can be difficult, as those customers are often reluctant to pay and tough to track down. One way the City can gather information that would assist it in collecting the back taxes is through the Jenkins Act, ch. 699, 63 Stat. 884, as amended by 69 Stat. 627. That Act requires out-of-state cigarette sellers to register and to file a report with state tobacco tax administrators listing the name, address, and quantity of cigarettes purchased by state residents. 15 U. S. C. §§ 375-378.
New York State and the City have executed an agreement under which both parties undertake to “cooperate fully with each other and keep each other fully and promptly informed with reference to any person or transaction subject to both State and City cigarette taxes including Conformation obtained which may result in additional cigarette tax revenue to the State or City provided that the disclosure of that information is permissible under existing laws and agreements.” Record A1003. The City asserts that under that agreement, the State forwards Jenkins Act information to the City. Id., at A998; Second Amended Compl. ¶ 54. That information helps the City track down purchasers who do not pay their taxes. Id., ¶¶ 58-59.
Hemi Group is a New Mexico company that sells cigarettes online. Hemi, however, does not file Jenkins Act information with the State. The City alleges that this failure has cost it “tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year in cigarette excise tax revenue.” Record A996. Based on Hemi’s failure to file the information with the State, the City filed this federal RICO claim.
B
RICO provides a private cause of action for “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter.” 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c). Section 1962, in turn, contains RICO’s criminal provisions. Specifically, § 1962(c), which the City invokes here, makes it “unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate . . . commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” “[Racketeering activity” is defined to include a number of so-called predicate acts, including the two at issue in this case — mail and wire fraud. See §1961(1).
The City alleges that Hemi’s “interstate sale of cigarettes and the failure to file Jenkins Act reports identifying those sales” constitute the RICO predicate offenses of mail and wire fraud in violation of § 1962(c), for which § 1964(c) provides a private cause of action. Record A980. Invoking that private cause of action, the City asserts that it has suffered injury in the form of lost tax revenue — its “business or property” in RICO terms — “by reason of” Hemi’s fraud.
Hemi does not contest the City’s characterization of the Jenkins Act violations as predicate offenses actionable under 11964(c). (We therefore assume, without deciding, that failure to file Jenkins Act material can serve as a RICO predicate offense.) Instead, Hemi argues that the City’s asserted injury — lost tax revenue — is not “business or property” under RICO, and that the City cannot show that it suffered any injury “by reason of” the failure to file Jenkins Act reports.
The District Court dismissed the City’s RICO claims, determining that Hemi owner and officer Kai Gachupín did not have an individual duty to file Jenkins Act reports, and thus could not have committed the alleged predicate acts. New York v. Nexicon, Inc., No. 03 CV 383 (DAB), 2006 WL 647716, *7-*8 (SDNY, Mar. 15, 2006). The District Court therefore held that the City could not establish that Hemi and Gachupín formed an “enterprise” as required to establish RICO liability. Id., at *7-* 10. Because it dismissed on that ground, the District Court did not address whether the City’s loss of tax revenue constitutes an injury to its “business or property” under § 1964, or whether that injury was caused “by reason of” Hemi’s failure to file the Jenkins Act reports.
The Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the City had established that Gachupín and Hemi operated as an “enterprise” and that the enterprise committed the predicate RICO acts of mail and wire fraud, based on the failure to file the Jenkins Act material with the State. 541 F. 3d, at 447-448. The court also determined that the City’s asserted injury, lost tax revenue, was “business or property” under RICO. Id., at 444-445. And that injury, the court concluded, came about “by reason of” the predicate mail and wire frauds. Id., at 440-444. The City thus had stated a viable RICO claim. Judge Winter dissented on the ground that the alleged RICO violation was not the proximate cause of the City’s injury. Id., at 458-461.
Hemi filed a petition for certiorari, asking this Court to determine whether the City had been “directly injured in its 'business or property”’ by reason of the alleged mail and wire frauds. Pet. for Cert. i. We granted that petition. 556 U. S. 1220 (2009).
II
Though framed as a single question, Hemi’s petition for certiorari raises two distinct issues: First, whether a loss in tax revenue is “business or property” under 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c); and second, whether the City's asserted injury came about “by reason of” the allegedly fraudulent conduct, as required by § 1964(c). We determine that the City cannot satisfy the causation requirement — that any injury the City suffered must be “by reason of” the alleged frauds— and therefore do not decide whether the City’s allegations of lost tax revenue constitute an injury to its “business or property.”
A
In Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U. S. 258 (1992), we set forth the standard of causation that applies to civil RICO claims. In that case, we addressed a RICO claim brought by Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) against defendants whom SIPC alleged had manipulated stock prices. Id., at 262-263. SIPC had a duty to reimburse customers of certain registered broker-dealers in the event the broker-dealers were unable to meet their financial obligations. Id., at 261. When the conspiracy by the stock manipulators was detected, stock prices collapsed, and two broker-dealers were unable to meet their obligations to their customers. SIPC, as insurer against that loss, ultimately was on the hook for nearly $13 million to cover the customers’ claims. The Court held that SIPC could not recover against the conspirators because it could not establish that it was injured “by reason of” the alleged fraud, as that phrase is used in RICO.
We explained that, to state a claim under civil RICO, the plaintiff is required to show that a RICO predicate offense “not only was a ‘but for’ cause of his injury, but was the proximate cause as well.” Id., at 268. Proximate cause for RICO purposes, we made dear, should be evaluated in light of its common-law foundations; proximate cause thus requires “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” Ibid. A link that is “too remote,” “purely contingent,” or “indirec[t]” is insufficient. Id., at 271, 274.
Applying that standard, we rejected SIPC’s RICO claim. The alleged conspiracy, we held, directly harmed only the broker-dealers; SIPC’s injury, on the other hand, was “purely contingent” on that harm. Id., at 271. The connection between the alleged conspiracy and SIPC’s injury was therefore “too remote” to satisfy RICO’s direct relationship requirement. Ibid.
The City’s causal theory is far more attenuated than the one we rejected in Holmes. According to the City, Hemi committed fraud by selling cigarettes to city residents and failing to submit the required customer information to the State. Without the reports from Hemi, the State could not pass on the information to the City, even if it had been so inclined. Some of the customers legally obligated to pay the cigarette tax to the City failed to do so. Because the City did not receive the customer information, the City could not determine which customers had failed to pay the tax. The City thus could not pursue those customers for payment. The City thereby was injured in the amount of the portion of back taxes that were never collected. See Record A996.
But as we reiterated in Holmes, “[t]he general tendency of the law, in regard to damages at least, is not to go beyond the first step.” 503 U. S., at 271-272 (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U. S. 519, 534 (1983), in turn quoting Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U. S. 531, 533 (1918); internal quotation marks omitted). Our cases confirm that the “general tendency” applies with full force to proximate cause inquiries under RICO. Holmes, supra, at 271-272; see also Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U. S. 639, 657-659 (2008); Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U. S. 451, 460-461 (2006). Because the City’s theory of causation requires us to move well beyond the first step, that theory cannot meet RICO’s direct relationship requirement.
Our decision in Anza, supra, confirms that the City’s theory of causation is far too indirect. There we considered a RICO claim brought by Ideal Steel Supply against its competitor, National Steel Supply. Ideal alleged that National had defrauded New York State by failing to charge and remit sales taxes, and that National was thus able to undercut Ideal’s prices. The lower prices offered by National, Ideal contended, allowed National to attract customers at Ideal’s expense. Id., at 458.
Finding the link between the fraud alleged and injury suffered to be “attenuated,” we rejected Ideal’s claim. Id., at 459. “The direct victim of this conduct,” we held, was “the State of New York, not Ideal.” Id., at 458. “It was the State that was being defrauded and the State that lost tax revenue as a result.” Ibid. We recognized that Ideal had asserted “its own harms when [National] failed to charge customers for the applicable sales tax.” Ibid. But the cause of Ideal’s harm was “a set of actions (offering lower prices) entirely distinct from the alleged RICO violation (defrauding the State).” Ibid. The alleged violation therefore had not “led directly to the plaintiff’s injuries,” and Ideal accordingly had failed to meet RICO’s “requirement of a direet causal connection” between the predicate offense and the alleged harm. Id., at 460-461.
The City’s claim suffers from the same defect as the claim in Anza. Here, the conduct directly responsible for the City’s harm was the customers’ failure to pay their taxes. And the conduct constituting the alleged fraud was Hemi’s failure to file Jenkins Act reports. Thus, as in Anza, the conduct directly causing the harm was distinct from the conduct giving rise to the fraud. See id., at 458.
Indeed, the disconnect between the asserted injury and the alleged fraud in this case is even sharper than in Anza. There, we viewed the point as important because the same party — National Steel — had both engaged in the harmful conduct and committed the fraudulent act. We nevertheless found the distinction between the relevant acts sufficient to defeat Ideal’s RICO elaim. Here, the City’s theory of liability rests not just on separate actions, but separate actions carried out by separate parties.
The City’s theory thus requires that we extend RICO liability to situations where the defendant’s fraud on the third party (the State) has made it easier for a fourth party (the taxpayer) to cause harm to the plaintiff (the City). Indeed, the fourth-party taxpayers here only caused harm to the City in the first place if they decided not to pay taxes they were legally obligated to pay. Put simply, Hemi’s obligation was to file the Jenkins Act reports with the State, not the City, and the City’s harm was directly caused by the customers, not Hemi. We have never before stretched the causal chain of a RICO violation so far, and we decline to do so today. See id., at 460-461; cf. Associated Gen. Contractors, supra, at 541, n. 46 (finding no proximate cause in the antitrust context where the plaintiff’s “harm stems most directly from the conduct of persons who are not victims of the conspiracy”).
One consideration we have highlighted as relevant to the RICO “direct relationship” requirement is whether better situated plaintiffs would have an incentive to sue. See Holmes, supra, at 269-270. The State certainly is better situated than the City to seek recovery from Hemi. And the State has an incentive to sue — the State imposes its own $2.75 per pack tax on cigarettes possessed within the State, nearly double what the City charges. N. Y. Tax Law Ann. § 471(1) (West Supp. 2009). We do not opine on whether the State could bring a RICO action for any lost tax revenue. Suffice it to say that the State would have concrete incentives to try. See Anza, supra, at 460 (“Ideal accuses the Anzas of defrauding the State of New York out of a substantial amount of money. If the allegations are true, the State can be expected to pursue appropriate remedies”).
The dissent would have RICO’s proximate cause requirement turn on foreseeability, rather than on the existence of a sufficiently “direct relationship” between the fraud and the harm. It would find that the City has satisfied that requirement because “the harm is foreseeable; it is a consequence that Hemi intended, indeed desired; and it falls well within the set of risks that Congress sought to prevent.” Post, at 24 (opinion of Breyer, J.). If this line of reasoning sounds familiar, it should. It is precisely the argument lodged against the majority opinion in Anza. There, the dissent criticized the majority’s view for “permitting] a defendant to evade liability for harms that are not only foreseeable, but the intended consequences of the defendant’s unlawful behavior.” 547 U. S., at 470 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). But the dissent there did not carry the day, and no one has asked us to revisit Anza.
The concepts of direct relationship and foreseeability are of course two of the “many shapes [proximate cause] took at common law,” Holmes, 503 U. S., at 268. Our precedents make clear that in the RICO context, the focus is on the directness of the relationship between the conduct and the harm. Indeed, Anza and Holmes never even mention the concept of foreseeability.
B
The City offers a number of responses. It first challenges our characterization of the violation at issue. In the City’s view, the violation is not merely Hemi’s failure to file Jenkins Act information with the State, but a more general “systematic scheme to defraud the City of tax revenue.” Brief for Respondent 42. Having broadly defined the violation, the City contends that it has been directly harmed by reason of that systematic scheme. Ibid.
But the City cannot escape the proximate cause requirement merely by alleging that the fraudulent scheme embraced all those indirectly harmed by the alleged conduct. Otherwise our RICO proximate cause precedent would become a mere pleading rule. In Anza, for example, Ideal alleged that National’s scheme “was to give National a competitive advantage over Ideal.”. 547 U. S., at 454-455. But that allegation did not prevent the Court from concluding that National’s fraud directly harmed only the State, not Ideal. As the Court explained, Ideal could not “circumvent the proximate-cause requirement simply by claiming that the defendant’s aim was to increase market share at a competitor’s expense.” Id., at 460.
Our precedent makes clear, moreover, that “the compensable injury flowing from a [RICO] violation... 'necessarily is the harm caused by [the] predicate acts.’ ” Id., at 457 (quoting Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 497 (1985)). In its RICO statement, the City alleged that Hemi’s failure to file Jenkins Act reports constituted the predicate act of mail and wire fraud. Record A980. The City went on to allege that this predicate act “directly caused” its harm, id., at A996, but that assertion is a legal conclusion about proximate cause — indeed, the very legal conclusion before us. The only fraudulent conduct alleged here is a violation of the Jenkins Act. See 541 F. 3d, at 459 (Winter, J., dissenting). Thus, the City must show that Hemi’s failure to file the Jenkins Act reports with the State led directly to its injuries. This it cannot do.
The City also relies on Bridge, 553 U. S. 639. Bridge reaffirmed the requirement that there must be “a sufficiently direct relationship between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.” Id., at 657. The case involved competing bidders at a county tax-lien auction. Because the liens were profitable even at the lowest possible bid, multiple bidders offered that low bid. (The bidding took the form of the percentage tax penalty the bidder would require the property owner to pay, so the lowest possible bid was 0%.) To decide which bidder would be awarded the lien, the county devised a plan to allocate the liens “on a rotational basis.” Id., at 643 (internal quotation marks omitted). But as we noted in that case, this created a “perverse incentive”: “Bidders who, in addition to bidding themselves, sen[t] agents to bid on their behalf [would] obtain a disproportionate share of liens.” Ibid. The county therefore prohibited bidders from using such agents. Ibid.
A losing bidder alleged that a competitor had defrauded the county by employing shadow bidders to secure a greater proportion of liens than it was due. We held that the bidder-plaintiff had met RICO’s causation requirement. Distinguishing that claim from the one at issue in Anza, we noted that the plaintiff’s theory of causation in Bridge was “straightforward”: Because of the zero-sum nature of the auction, and because the county awarded bids on a rotational basis, each time a fraud-induced bid was awarded, a particular legitimate bidder was necessarily passed over. 553 U. S., at 647, 658. The losing bidders, moreover, “were the only parties injured by petitioners’ misrepresentations.” Id., at 658. The county was not; it received the same revenue regardless of which bidder prevailed.
The City’s theory in this case is anything but straightforward: Multiple steps, as we have detailed, separate the alleged fraud from the asserted injury. And in contrast to Bridge, where there were “no independent factors that account[ed] for [the plaintiff’s] injury,” ibid., here there certainly were: The City’s theory of liability rests on the independent actions of third and even fourth parties.
The City at various points during the proceedings below described its injury as the lost “opportunity to tax” rather than “lost tax revenue.” It is not clear that there is a substantive distinction between the two descriptions. In any event, before this Court, the City’s argument turned on lost revenue, not a lost opportunity to collect it. See, e. g., Brief for Respondent i (“Counter-Question Presented[:] Does the City of New York have standing under RICO because lost tax revenue constitutes a direct injury to the City’s “business or property’ in accord with the statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c), and this Court’s authority?”); id., at 40 (“[T]he City alleges that it has been injured (the loss of tax revenues) by defendants’ RICO violations”). Indeed, in its entire brief on the merits, the City never uses the word “opportunity” (or anything similar) to describe its injury.
Perhaps the City articulated its argument in terms of the lost revenue itself to meet Hemi’s contention that an injury to the mere “opportunity to collect” taxes fell short of RICO’s injury to “property” requirement. Brief for Petitioners 25 (“The opportunity to collect taxes from those who did owe them... falls within a class of expectation interests that do not qualify as injury to business or property and therefore do not confer civil RICO standing” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see Cleveland v. United States, 531 U. S. 12, 15 (2000) (“It does not suffice ... that the object of the fraud may become property in the recipient’s hands; for purposes of the mail fraud statute, the thing obtained must be property in the hands of the victim”).
That is not to say, however, that the City would fare any better on the causation question had it framed its argument in terms of a lost opportunity. Hemi’s filing obligation would still be to the State, and any harm to the City would still be caused directly by the customers’ failure to pay their taxes. See 541 F. 3d, at 461 (Winter, J., dissenting). Whatever the City’s reasons for framing its merits arguments as it has, we will not reformulate them for it now.
In a final effort to save its claim, the City has shifted course before this Court. In its second amended complaint and RICO statement, the City relied solely on Hemi’s failure to file Jenkins Act reports with the State to form the basis of the predicate act mail and wire frauds. See Second Amended Compl. ¶¶99, 101, 118, 125; Record A980-A982. Before this Court, however, the City contends that Hemi made affirmative misrepresentations to city residents, which, the City now argues, comprise part of the RICO predicate mail and wire frauds. See Brief for Respondent 42-43. The City’s counsel pressed the point at oral argument, asserting that the City’s injury was “caused by the seller’s misrepresentation, which encourages the purchasers not to pay taxes.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 44.
The City, however, affirmatively disavowed below any reliance on misrepresentations to form the predicate RICO violation. The alleged false statements, the City there stated, “are evidence of the scheme to defraud, but are not part of the fraud itself.... [T]he scheme to defraud would exist even absent the statements.” Record A980. The City reiterated the point: “The scheme consists of the interstate sale of cigarettes and the failure to file Jenkins Act reports identifying those sales.” Ibid. “Related to the fraud, but not a circumstance 'constituting’ the fraud, the defendants inform customers that [their] purchases will be concealed, and also seek to convince their customers that no taxes are owed by claiming, falsely, that the sales are tax-free.” Id., at A982. Not only did the City disclaim any reliance upon misrepresentations to the customers to form the predicate acts under RICO, but the City made clear in its second amended complaint that its two RICO claims rested solely on the Jenkins Act violations as the predicate acts. See Second Amended Compl. ¶¶ 118,125. Because the City defined the predicate act before the District Court as Hemi’s failure to file the Jenkins Act reports, and expressly disavowed reliance on the alleged misrepresentations themselves as predicate acts, we decline to consider Hemi’s alleged misstatements as predicate acts at this late stage.
* * *
It bears remembering what this case is about. It is about the RICO liability of a company for lost taxes it had no obligation to collect, remit, or pay, which harmed a party to whom it owed no duty. It is about imposing such liability to substitute for or complement a governing body’s uncertain ability or desire to collect taxes directly from those who owe them. And it is about the fact that the liability comes with treble damages and attorney’s fees attached. This Court has interpreted RICO broadly, consistent with its terms, but we have also held that its reach is limited by the “requirement of a direct causal connection” between the predicate wrong and the harm. Anza, 547 U. S., at 460. The City’s injuries here were not caused directly by the alleged fraud, and thus were not caused “by reason of” it. The City, therefore, has no RICO claim.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Even if we were willing to look to Hexni’s intent, as the dissent suggests we should, the City would fare no better. Hemi’s aim was not to defraud the aty (or the State, for that matter) of tax revenue, but to sell more cigarettes. Hemi itself neither owed taxes nor was obliged to collect and remit them. This all suggests that Hemi’s alleged fraud was aimed at Hemi’s competitors, not the City. But Anza teaches that the competitors’ injuries in such a case are too attenuated to state a RICO claim.
The dissent recognizes that its position poses the troubling specter of turning RICO into a tax collection statute. Post, at 29 (opinion of Breyer, J.). The dissent’s answer looks largely to prosecution policy set forth in the Federal Department of Justice Guidelines, which are, of course, not only changeable, but have no applicability whatever to state or local governments. Under the decision below and the dissent’s position, RICO could be used as a tax collection device based solely on the failure to file reports under the Jenkins Act, which itself provides quite limited remedies. See 15 U. S. C. § 377 (providing that a violation of the Jenkins Act may be punished as a misdemeanor with a fine up to $1,000 and imprisonment for no more than six months). And that device would be available not only to the State, to which the reports were due, but also to the City, to which Hemi owed no duty under the Act and to which it owed no taxes.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This is a companion case to No. 67, Wirtz v. Local 168, Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., ante, p. 463. Petitioner, the Secretary of Labor, filed the action in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, under § 402 (b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U. S. C. § 482 (b). His complaint challenged the validity of a general election of union officers conducted by the respondent Local Union on June 8, 1963, and the validity of a runoff election for the single office of Business Representative made necessary by a tie vote for that office at the June 8 election. The complaint alleged, in part, violations of § 401 (e), 29 U. S. C. § 481 (e), in permitting members not “in good standing” to vote and to run for office on both occasions. However, the only allegation that internal union remedies had been exhausted, as is required by § 402 (a), was in regard to the runoff election of July 13; the complaint stated that the loser in the runoff election, one Dial, protested and appealed to the General Executive Board of the International Union concerning the conduct of that election and, having received a final denial of his protest by the General Executive Board, filed a timely complaint with the Secretary. The District Court held that the omission in the complaint of an allegation that a member complained internally about the conduct of the June 8 general election was fatal to the Secretary’s action addressed to that election and dismissed that part of the complaint. 231 F. Supp. 590. The Secretary appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. During pendency of the appeal, respondent Local conducted its next regular triennial election of officers. The Court of Appeals thereupon vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded to the District Court with instructions that the portion of the Secretary’s complaint dealing with the June 8 election be dismissed as moot. 375 F. 2d 921. We granted cer-tiorari. 387 U. S. 904. In light of our decision today in Wirtz v. Local 153, supra, the action of the Court of Appeals must be reversed; we there held that "... the fact that the union has already conducted another unsupervised election does not deprive the Secretary of his right to a court order declaring the challenged election void and directing that a new election be conducted under his supervision.” At 475^476.
In the circumstances we might remand to the Court of Appeals to decide the merits of the Secretary’s appeal. The issue on the merits is whether the District Court erred in holding that the Secretary in his suit may not challenge the alleged violations affecting the general election of June 8 because Dial specifically challenged only the runoff election of July 13 with respect to the office of Business Representative. The merits of this question have been fully briefed and argued in this Court and the underlying issue of statutory construction has already been the subject of several and conflicting rulings by various federal courts. The interests of judicial economy are therefore best served if we proceed to resolve this important question now.
Respondent Local is governed by the Constitution and the Uniform Local Union Constitution of the Laborers’ International Union of North America. Under the Uniform Local Union Constitution as it existed during the period relevant here, a member’s good standing was lost by failure to pay membership dues within a specified grace period, and the member was automatically suspended without notice and with loss of all membership rights except the right to readmission (but as a new member) upon payment of a fee. The eligibility of voters and candidates in both elections in this case was determined by reference to a report to the International Union of the names of members for whom a per capita tax had been paid. This report included some 50 to 75 members who were delinquent in the payment of their Local dues and had therefore actually lost good standing under the provisions of the Uniform Local Union Constitution. The cause of this patent disregard of the Local’s own constitution was the practice of its Secretary-Treasurer of paying from Local funds the per capita tax of delinquent members selected by him, thus making it appear on the per capita tax report that those members had met their dues obligations when in fact they had not. The Secretary’s investigation disclosed that approximately 50 of the members voting in the June 8 general election and approximately 60 voting in the July 13 runoff election were ineligible to vote; and that 16 of the 27 candidates for office in the general election, including Dial’s opponent who ultimately won the runoff, were ineligible for the same reason.
The question is one of statutory construction and must be answered by inference since there is lacking an explicit provision regarding the permissible scope of the Secretary’s complaint. On the facts of this case we think the Secretary is entitled to maintain his action challenging the June 8 general election because respondent union had fair notice from the violation charged by Dial in his protest of the runoff election that the same unlawful conduct probably occurred at the earlier election as well. We therefore need not consider and intimate no view on the merits of the Secretary’s argument that a member’s protest triggers a § 402 enforcement action in which the Secretary would be permitted to file suit challenging any violation of § 401 discovered in his investigation of the member’s complaint.
We reject the narrow construction adopted by the District Court and supported by respondent limiting the Secretary’s complaint solely to the allegations made in the union member’s initial complaint. Such a severe restriction upon the Secretary’s powers should not be read into the statute without a clear indication of congressional intent to that effect. Neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history provides such an indication; indeed, the indications are quite clearly to the contrary.
First, it is most improbable that Congress deliberately settled exclusive enforcement jurisdiction on the Secretary and granted him broad investigative powers to discharge his responsibilities, yet intended the shape of the enforcement action to be immutably fixed by the artfulness of a layman’s complaint which often must be based on incomplete information. The expertise and resources of the Labor Department were surely meant to have a broader play. Second, so to constrict the Secretary would be inconsistent with his vital role, which we emphasize today in Wirtz v. Local 153, supra, in protecting the public interest bound up in Title IY. The Act was not designed merely to protect the right of a union member to run for a particular union office in a particular election. Title IY’s special function in furthering the general goals of the LMRDA is to insure free and democratic union elections, the regulations of the union electoral process enacted in the Title having been regarded as necessary protections of the public interest as well as of the rights and interests of union members.
We can only conclude, therefore, that it would be anomalous to limit the reach of the Secretary’s cause of action by the specifics of the union member’s complaint. In an analogous context we rejected such a limiting construction of the National Labor Relations Board’s authority to fashion unfair labor practice complaints. NLRB v. Fant Milling Co., 360 U. S. 301, 306-309; National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U. S. 350, 369.
Respondent argues, however, that the spirit and letter of the statutory requirement that the member first exhaust his internal union remedies before the Secretary may intervene compels the suggested limitation. It contends that even to allow the Secretary to challenge the earlier election for the same violation established as having occurred in the runoff election would be inconsistent with Congress’ intention to allow unions first opportunity to redress violations of § 401. This argument is not persuasive.
It is true that the exhaustion requirement was regarded by Congress as critical to the statute’s objective of fostering union self-government. By channeling members through the internal appellate processes, Congress hoped to accustom members to utilizing the remedies made available within their own organization; at the same time, however, unions were expected to provide responsible and responsive procedures for investigating and redressing members' election grievances. These intertwined objectives are not disserved but furthered by permitting the Secretary to include in his complaint at least any § 401 violation he has discovered which the union had a fair opportunity to consider and redress in connection with a member’s initial complaint.
Here the Secretary sought to challenge the June 8 general election, alleging that the same unlawful conduct occurring in the runoff affected the general election held only five weeks before. Dial’s complaint had disclosed the fraudulent practice with respect to the runoff, and he was apparently able to prove at the hearing before the General Executive Board that that practice enabled nine ineligible members to vote in the runoff election; but his protest was denied because he had lost by 19 votes. The Secretary’s investigation, however, discovered that a much larger number of ineligible members had been permitted to vote in that runoff election and that the Secretary-Treasurer responsible for the falsification prepared the per capita tax reports used to determine the eligibility of voters and candidates at both elections. Yet in the face of Dial’s evidence raising the almost overwhelming probability that the misconduct affecting the runoff election had also occurred at the June 8 election, the union insists that it was under no duty to expand its inquiry beyond the specific challenge to the runoff election made by Dial. Surely this is not the responsible union self-government contemplated by Congress in allowing the unions great latitude in resolving their own internal controversies. In default of respondent’s action on a violation which it had a fair opportunity to consider and resolve in connection with Dial’s protest, the Secretary was entitled to seek relief from the court with respect to the June 8 election. Again, Congress, having given the Secretary a broad investigative power, cannot have intended that his right to relief be defined by a complaining member’s ignorance of the law or the facts or by the artlessness of the member’s protest.
Because the complaint as to the June 8 election was dismissed for deficiency in pleading, the factual allegations have not been tried. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court with direction to enter a judgment reversing the District Court’s judgment of dismissal and directing further proceedings by that court consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The order of dismissal in the District Court was entered July 14, 1964. On April 18, 1966, the District Court entered an order granting the Secretary's motion for summary judgment regarding the portion of his complaint directed to the runoff election of July 13, 1963, for the office of Business Representative. The runoff was conducted under the Secretary’s supervision on June 11, 1966, the same day the union conducted the unsupervised intervening election. Dial lost the runoff.
Compare Wirtz v. Hotel Employees Union, Local 6, 381 F. 2d 500; Wirtz v. Local 9 et al., IUOE, 366 F. 2d 911; Wirtz v. Local 174, Musicians, 65 L. R. R. M. 2972; and Wirtz v. Local 450, IUOE, 63 L. R. R. M. 2105, which more or less support the view of the District Court herein, with Wirtz v. Local 406, IUOE, 254 F. Supp. 962; Wirtz v. Local 705, Hotel Employees, 63 L. R. R. M. 2315; and Wirtz v. Local 169, Hod Carriers, 246 F. Supp. 741, which support a broader view.
These conflicting views particularly justify our resolution of the question without remanding to the Court of Appeals. In contrast, the issue in No. 57, Wirtz v. Local 153, supra, which we did remand to the Court of Appeals, was whether a standard not questioned by any party was properly applied to the particular facts.
The International Constitution required respondent Local to remit to the- International a per capita tax payment of $1 per member per month. These payments were to be made only for members who had in fact made current payment of their dues to the Local.
See Wirtz v. Local 169, Hod Carriers, supra, n. 2, at 751-753.
Although the eligibility of Dial’s opponent in the runoff was an issue before the District Court on the 'Secretary’s motion for summary judgment, the judgment was granted on the ground of voter ineligibility; that judgment is not before us.
The Secretary’s authority under § 601, 29 U. S. C. § 521, both supplements his investigative mandate under § 402 (b) and authorizes inquiry without regard to the filing of a complaint by a union member. But when the Secretary investigates pursuant to § 601 without a member’s complaint, his remedy is limited to disclosure of violations discovered. Whether violations of §401 uncovered by a § 601 investigation may be the predicate of a member’s protest to the union and an enforcement proceeding under § 402 if the union denies relief is a question we need not and do not reach in this case.
Senator Kennedy’s reference to the Secretary as the complaining “union member’s lawyer,” 104 Cong. Ree. 10947, Leg. Hist. 1093 (Dept. Labor 1964), does not support the District Court’s conclusion. The lawyer’s function is to use his skills to give shape and substance to his client’s often incompletely expressed complaint.
The fact that the National Labor Relations Act does not require prior exhaustion of internal union remedies does not destroy the analogy; nothing in our holding today dispenses with the exhaustion requirement of § 402 (a).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Marshall,
announced by Mr. Justice Stewart.
Appellees live on the grounds of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal reservation or enclave located within the geographical boundaries of Montgomery County in the State of Maryland. In October 1968, the Permanent Board of Registry of Montgomery County announced that persons living on NIH grounds did not meet the residency requirement of Art. 1, § 1, of the Maryland Constitution. Accordingly, such persons were not qualified to vote in Maryland elections, and the names of those previously registered would be removed from the county’s voter rolls. Appellees then instituted the present suit against the members of the Permanent Board, requesting that a three-judge Federal District Court be convened to enjoin as unconstitutional this application of the Maryland voter residency law.
After the District Court issued a temporary restraining order so that appellees who had previously registered could vote in the November 1968 general election, the case was considered on the pleadings and stipulations of fact. The District Court issued the requested permanent injunction, holding that to deny appellees the right to vote was to deny them the equal protection of the laws. Cornman v. Dawson, 295 F. Supp. 654 (D. C. Md. 1969). Thereafter, a motion by the present appellants to intervene as additional defendants was granted, and a direct appeal was prosecuted to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We noted probable jurisdiction, 396 U. S. 812 (1969), and we affirm.
Under Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, of the United States Constitution, Congress is empowered 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” NIH, a medical research facility owned and operated by the United States Government, is one of the places subject to that congressional power. The facility commenced operation more than 30 years ago, when land was purchased and residential buildings were built to allow scientists and doctors to live near their work. It did not become a federal reservation, however, until 1953 when the State of Maryland ceded jurisdiction over the property to the United States.
Before that time, persons who resided on NIH grounds could register and vote in Montgomery County; they continued to do so, apparently without question, for another 15 years. In 1963, however, in a case involving residents of another federal enclave, Royer v. Board of Election Supervisors, 231 Md. 561, 191 A. 2d 446, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a resident of a federal reservation is not “a resident of the State” within the meaning of that term in Art. 1, § 1, of the Maryland Constitution, the provision that governs voter qualifications.
It was the Royer decision that prompted the action of the election officials in the present case. Appellants rely heavily on it and urge simply that persons who live on NIH grounds are residents of the enclave, not residents of the State of Maryland. Maryland may, of course, require that “all applicants for the vote actually fulfill the requirements of bona fide residence.” Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 96 (1965). “But if they are in fact residents, with the intention of making [the State] their home indefinitely, they, as all other qualified residents, have a right to an equal opportunity for political representation.” Id., at 94.
What was said in Carrington, rejecting in another context a different artificial gloss on a residency requirement, is applicable here as well. Appellees clearly live within the geographical boundaries of the State of Maryland, and they are treated as state residents in the census and in determining congressional apportionment. They are not residents of Maryland only if the NIH grounds ceased to be a part of Maryland when the enclave was created. However, that “fiction of a state within a state” was specifically rejected by this Court in Howard v. Commis sioners of Louisville, 344 U. S. 624, 627 (1953), and it cannot be resurrected here to deny appellees the right to vote.
Appellants argue that even if appellees are residents of Maryland, the State may constitutionally structure its election laws so as to deny them the right to vote. This Court has, of course, recognized that the States “have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board, 360 U. S. 45, 50 (1959). At the same time, however, there can be no doubt at this date that “once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966); see Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 29 (1968). Moreover, the right to vote, as the citizen’s link to his laws and government, is protective of all fundamental rights and privileges. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 370 (1886); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 17 (1964). And before that right can be restricted, the purpose of the restriction and the assertedly overriding interests served by it must meet close constitutional scrutiny.
The sole interest or purpose asserted by appellants to justify the limitation on the vote in the present case is essentially to insure that only those citizens who are primarily or substantially interested in or affected by electoral decisions have a voice in making them. Without deciding the question, we have assumed that such an interest could be sufficiently compelling to justify limitations on the suffrage, at least with regard to some elections. See Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U. S. 621, 632 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701, 704 (1969). However, it is clear that such a claim cannot lightly be accepted. This Court has held that a State may not dilute a person’s vote to give weight to other interests, see, e. g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964), and a lesser rule could hardly be applicable to a complete denial of the vote. See Kramer v. Union School District, supra, at 626-627. All too often, lack of a “substantial interest” might mean no more than a different interest, and “ ‘[fjencing out’ from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible.” Carrington v. Rash, supra, at 94.
According to appellants, NIH residents are substantially less interested in Maryland affairs than other residents of the State because the Constitution vests “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over federal enclaves to Congress. Appellants cite decisions dating back to Opinion of the Justices, 42 Mass. 580 (1841), and Sinks v. Reese, 19 Ohio St. 306 (1870), denying enclave residents the right to vote on the ground that the State has no jurisdiction over them. We need not consider, however, whether these early cases would meet the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, for the relationship between federal enclaves and the States in which they are located has changed considerably since they were decided. As the District Court noted, Congress has now permitted the States to extend important aspects of state powers over federal areas. While it is true that federal enclaves are still subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction and Congress could restrict as well as extend the powers of the States within their bounds, see Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, 351 U. S. 253 (1956), whether appellees are sufficiently disinterested in electoral decisions that they may be denied the vote depends on their actual interest today, not on what it may be sometime in the future.
Appellants do not deny that there are numerous and vital ways in which NIH residents are affected by electoral decisions. Thus, if elected representatives enact new state criminal laws or sanctions or make changes in those presently in effect, the changes apply equally to persons on NIH grounds. Under the Federal Assimila-tive Crimes Act, 18 U. S. C. § 13, “acts not punishable by any enactment of Congress are punishable by the then effective laws of the State in which the enclave is situated.” United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U. S. 286, 287 (1958). Further, appellees are as concerned with state spending and taxing decisions as other Maryland residents, for Congress has permitted the States to levy and collect their income, gasoline, sales, and use taxes— the major sources of state revenues — on federal enclaves. See 4 U. S. C. §§ 104-110. State unemployment laws and workmen’s compensation laws likewise apply to persons who live and work in federal areas. See 26 U. S. C. § 3305 (d); 40 U. S. C. § 290. Appellees are required to register their automobiles in Maryland and obtain drivers’ permits and license plates from the State; they are subject to the process and jurisdiction of state courts; they themselves can resort to those courts in divorce and child adoption proceedings; and they send their children to Maryland public schools.
All of these factors led the District Court to “conclude that on balance the [appellees] are treated by the State of Maryland as state residents to such an extent that it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the State to deny them the right to vote.” 295 F. Supp., at 659. Appellants resist that conclusion, arguing that NIH residents do not pay the real property taxes that constitute a large part of the revenues for local school budgets. However, Maryland does not purport to exclude from the polls all persons living on tax-exempt property, and it could not constitutionally do so. Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra; see Kramer v. Union School District, supra. Of the other differences asserted between Maryland residents who live on federal enclaves and those who do not, most are far more theoretical than real. In any case, these differences, along with whatever others may exist, do not come close to establishing that degree of disinterest in electoral decisions that might justify a total exclusion from the franchise.
In their day-to-day affairs, residents of the NIH grounds are just as interested in and connected with electoral- decisions as they were prior to 1953 when the area came under federal jurisdiction and as are their neighbors who live off the enclave. In nearly every election, federal, state, and local, for offices from the Presidency to the school board, and on the entire variety of other ballot propositions, appellees have a stake equal to that of other Maryland residents. As the District Court concluded, they are entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to protect that stake by exercising the equal right to vote.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Of the 12 appellees, 10 were registered to vote in Maryland prior to the commencement of this suit. The other two had sought to register but were not allowed to because they lived on NIH grounds.
See Md. Ann. Code, Art. 96, § 34.
In addition to the Royer decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, there are a number of other state court rulings to the same effect. See, e. g., Herken v. Glynn, 151 Kan. 855, 101 P. 2d 946 (1940); Arledge v. Mabry, 52 N. M. 303, 197 P. 2d 884 (1948); McMahon v. Polk, 10 S. D. 296, 73 N. W. 77 (1897); State ex rel. Lyle v. Willett, 117 Tenn. 334, 97 S. W. 299 (1906).
At the same time, however, there is a contrary line of recent state decisions granting enclave residents the right to vote. See Arapajolu v. McMenamin, 113 Cal. App. 2d 824, 249 P. 2d 318 (1952); Rothfels v. Southworth, 11 Utah 2d 169, 356 P. 2d 612 (1960); Adams v. Londeree, 139 W. Va. 748, 83 S. E. 2d 127 (1954).
Except for a lessee’s interest in property leased from the United States, see 10 U. S. C. §2667 (e), Congress has not provided that the States may apply their property taxes to federal enclaves. At the same time, all, or virtually all, enclave real property is owned by the United States and is otherwise exempt from state property taxes. To compensate for this exemption, Congress has provided that increased amounts of federal-aid-to-education funds be paid with respect to federal employees living on federal property. See 20 U. S. C. §§ 236-244, 631-645.
Thus, if there were severance or personal property taxes applicable to residents of Montgomery County (which there are not), they could not be collected on the enclave. Similarly, appellees are exempt from service in the State’s unorganized militia (which has apparently never been called up) and from compulsory education laws. Appellants state that a myriad of state regulatory and licensing provisions are not enforceable on the enclave, but no instance of a practical effect on appellees is cited. See also Chicago & Pacific R. Co. v. McClinn, 114 U. S, 542 (1885); Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U. S. 94 (1940).
Perhaps the most real of the differences is that crimes committed on NIH grounds where appellees live, while defined by state law, may only be prosecuted in federal court by federal authorities, whereas the same acts would be prosecuted by state authorities in state courts if they occurred off the enclave. If this difference lessens appellees’ interest in state law enforcement and policy at all, it certainly does not do so substantially. All Maryland residents, including appellees, undoubtedly have an interest in state laws and how they are enforced throughout the entire State.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises a question as to respondent’s liability for the taxable year 1943 under the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1940 as amended. 54 Stat. 975, 26 U. S. C. § 710, et seq. The law was passed to tax abnormally high profits due to large governmental expenditures about to be made from appropriations for national defense. The excess profits tax was a graduated surtax upon a portion of corporate income, and was imposed in addition to the regular income tax. It applied to all corporate profits and gains over and above what Congress deemed to be a fair and normal return for the corporate business taxed.
Under the controlling 1943 law the amount of income subject to this excess profits tax is computed by subtracting from the net income subject to regular income tax the amount of earnings Congress deemed to be a taxpayer’s normal and fair return. This deductible amount, called the excess profits credit, was to be computed in one of two ways, whichever resulted in the lesser tax. § 712. The first, not used here, permits a deduction of an amount equal to the company’s average net income for the taxable years 1936 to 1939 inclusive. § 713. The second, used here, permits a deduction of an amount equal to 8 per centum of the taxpayer’s invested capital for the taxable year. § 714. An includable element of the “invested capital” is the “accumulated earnings and profits as of the beginning of such taxable year.” It thus appears that by this method Congress intended, with minor exceptions not here relevant, to impose the excess profits tax on all annual net income in excess of 8% of a corporation’s working capital, including its accumulated profits. The controversy here is over the taxpayer’s claim that in computing its 1943 tax the statute allows it to include in this 8% deduction its “accumulated profits” from certain installment sales, which profits the taxpayer, in accordance with an option conferred upon him, had elected not to report as a part of its taxable income in prior years.
Beginning in 1937 and extending over a four-year period, respondent sold parcels of real estate, gave deeds, and took installment notes, which were secured by mortgages and vendors’ liens. It kept its books generally on a calendar year accrual basis of accounting, a basis under which all obligations of a company applicable to a year are listed as expenditures, whether paid that year or not, and all obligations to it incurred by others applicable to the year are set up as income on the same basis. Under 26 U. S. C. § 41 an income taxpayer may report income and expenditures either on an accrual basis or on a cash basis — under which latter method annual net income is measured by the difference between actual cash received and paid out within the taxable year. In any event, the basis used must, in the language of § 41, "clearly reflect the income.”
Respondent did not report the value of its land installment notes as income on the accrual basis as it could have done under § 41. Instead, from 1937 up to and including 1943, it has consistently reported its annual income from the installment sales on a third or “installment” basis, expressly authorized for certain types of installment sales by 26 U. S. C. § 44. That section permits a taxpayer to return as taxable income for a given year only “that proportion of the installment payments actually received in that year which the gross profit realized or to be realized when payment is completed, bears to the total contract price.” Thus respondent’s installment income has actually been reported for taxes all along substantially on a modified cash receipts basis, and the taxpayer’s net income, which is subjected both to the normal income tax and to the excess profits tax, has not in any of these years reflected the unpaid balances on the installment notes, or any part of them. On the contrary, these balances were listed on respondent’s tax returns during these years as “Unrealized Profit Installment Sales.”
On its 1943 excess profits tax return respondent nevertheless reported as “accumulated earnings and profits” the amount of “Unrealized Profit Installment Sales” shown on its books at the end of 1942, and included this amount in “invested capital.” It thus sought to deduct 8% of its theretofore designated “unrealized profit” in computing its excess profits tax. The Commissioner redetermined the tax for 1943 after eliminating this item from “invested capital.” The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s redetermination, 7 T. C. 669, relying on its opinion in Kimbrell’s Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Commissioner, 7 T. C. 339. The Circuit Court of Appeals, with one justice dissenting, reversed on the authority of its decision in Commissioner v. Shenandoah Co., 138 F. 2d 792. The Government’s petition for certiorari alleged that the result reached by the Circuit Court of Appeals was counter to the Commissioner’s regulations and to long-standing tax practices recognized by statutes and judicial opinions, under which practices a taxpayer normally cannot report taxable income on one accounting basis and adjustments of that income on another. The questions thereby raised are of importance in tax administration and we granted certiorari to consider them.
A Treasury regulation, set out in part below, applicable to both the normal income tax and the excess profits tax, specifically provides that “a corporation computing income on the installment basis as provided in section 44 shall, with respect to the installment transactions, compute earnings and profits on such basis.” Since respondent computed its taxable income from installment sales on the installment or modified cash receipts basis, but computed its earnings and profits from these same sales on another basis, the accrual, it contends that the regulation is invalid because inconsistent with the governing code provisions. Validity of the regulation is therefore the crucial question.
This Court has many times declared that Treasury regulations must be sustained unless unreasonable and plainly inconsistent with the revenue statutes and that they constitute contemporaneous constructions by those charged with administration of these statutes which should not be overruled except for weighty reasons. See, e. g., Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 375, 378.
This regulation is in harmony with the long-established congressional policy that a taxpayer generally cannot compute income taxes by reporting annual income on a cash basis and deductions on an accrual basis. Such a practice has been uniformly held inadmissible because it results in a distorted picture which makes a tax return fail truly to reflect net income. This has been the construction given income, estate, and previous excess profits tax laws by administrative officials, the Board of Tax Appeals, and the courts.
The regulation’s reasonableness and consistency with the statutes which impose the excess profits tax on incomes is also supported by prior legislative and administrative history. The present “invested capital” deduction is patterned after a similar provision in § 326 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1057, 1088, 1092. That section imposed a “War-Profits and Excess-Profits Tax.” Invested capital there included “paid-in or earned surplus and undivided profits.” Under that law the administration, the Board of Tax Appeals, and the courts have uniformly held that a taxpayer, having elected to adopt the installment basis of accounting, could not thereafter distort his true excess profits tax income by including uncollected installment obligations in his “invested capital” deduction base. A taxpayer, having chosen to report his taxable income from installment sales on the installment cash receipts plan, thereby spreading its gross earnings and profits from such sales over a number of years and avoiding high tax rates, was not permitted to obtain a further reduction by shifting to an accrual plan and treating uncollected balances on these installment sales as though they had actually been received in the year of the sale.
The history of the congressional adoption of the optional installment basis also supports the power of the Commissioner to adopt the regulation here involved. Prior to 1926 the right of a taxpayer to report on the installment plan rested only on Treasury regulations. In 1925, the Board of Tax Appeals held these regulations were without statutory support. Congress promptly, in § 212 (d) of the 1926 Revenue Act, adopted the present statutory authority for an elective installment basis for reporting income, the Senate committee report on the measure designating it as a “third basis, the installment basis.” This new statutory provision was strikingly similar to the Treasury regulations previously held unauthorized by the Board of Tax Appeals. That the Commissioner was particularly intended by Congress to have broad rule-making power under the regulation was manifested by the first words in the new installment basis section which only permitted taxpayers to take advantage of it “Under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary . . . .” The clause is still contained in § 44 of the Internal Revenue Code. This gives added reasons why interpretations of the Act and regulations under it should not be overruled by the courts unless clearly contrary to the will of Congress. See Burnet v. S. & L. Bldg. Corp., 288 U. S. 406, 415.
The installment basis of reporting was enacted, as shown by its history, to relieve taxpayers who adopted it from having to pay an income tax in the year of sale based on the full amount of anticipated profits when in fact they had received in cash only a small portion of the sales price. Another reason was the difficult and time-consuming effort of appraising the uncertain market value of installment obligations. There is no indication in any of the congressional history, however, that by passage of this law Congress contemplated that those taxpayers who elected to adopt this accounting method for their own advantage could by this means obtain a further tax advantage denied all other taxpayers, whereby they could, as to the same taxable transaction, report in part on a cash receipts basis and in part on an accrual basis.
We find nothing unreasonable in the regulations here. See Commissioner v. Wheeler, 324 U. S. 542.
It is argued that notwithstanding what has been said, Congress by enacting § 501 of the 1940 Second Revenue Act, 54 Stat. 974, 1004, 26 U. S. C. § 115 (l), had provided a definition of “earnings and profits” which includes these unpaid installment obligations and that the regulation here conflicts with § 115 (7), which is applicable alike to both the income and the excess profits taxes. There are at least two reasons why we cannot accept this argument. In the first place, neither § 115 (I) nor any other purports to alter the Commissioner’s power to promulgate reasonable regulations which require taxpayers who adopt the installment basis of accounting to use an accounting method that reflects true income. The hybrid method here urged would not accomplish that result.
In the second place, we cannot agree with the respondent’s interpretation of § 115 (0- He argues that “earnings and profits” derived from a sale of property are defined in § 115 (I) considered in the light of §§ 111, 112, and 113; that these sections together define such earnings and profits as all gain “realized” in the year of sale and “recognized” under the law applicable to the year of sale; that all the anticipated profits from these installment sales were “realized” when the sales were made because the installment obligations of the purchasers were received by respondent in the year of sale and they must be assumed to have been worth their face value; that they were “recognized” as taxable by § 111 (c), the law applicable to the year of sale; and that consequently the Commissioner was compelled to accept these lawfully “realized” and “recognized” accumulated profits as “invested capital” for excess profits tax purposes, even though not previously reported as taxable income for either income tax or excess profits tax purposes. Finally respondent contends that § 44 merely conferred upon it a privilege to defer payment of income tax on its tax-“recognized” profits realized from installment sales until the unpaid installment obligations were collected.
The congressional reports on § 115 (l) do not provide support for the idea that gains not included in taxable income under the taxpayer’s method of accounting may nevertheless be considered “realized” and “recognized” for computing tax adjustments or deductions so long as they might have entered into such computations under a different method of accounting. Furthermore, neither § 111, § 112, nor § 113 requires a “recognition” of the full face value of installment paper. It is true that § 111 (b) does provide that gain or loss “realized” from the sale of property shall be measured by the “sum of any money received plus the fair market value of the property (other than money) received” and § 111 (c) provides that the extent of gain or loss shall be “recognized” as determined “under the provisions of section 112.” But § 111 (d) provides that nothing in § 111 “shall be construed to prevent (in the case of property sold under contract providing for payment in installments) the taxation of that portion of any installment payment representing gain or profit in the year in which such payment is received.” This means that where a taxpayer has validly reported its income from installment sales on the installment basis provided by § 44, that section, not §§ 111, 112, and 113, prescribes the extent to which receipts from such sales are “recognized” as taxable and the year in which such receipts are “recognized” in computing taxable income. Section 44 provides for the return as income “in any taxable year that proportion of the installment payments actually received in that year which the gross profit realized or to be realized when payment is completed, bears to the total contract price.” Unlike § 111, § 44 does not recognize as subject to income tax liability the “market value” of deferred installment obligations. They may never be recognized by a taxpayer on the installment basis for tax purposes under § 44 or any other section, for they may never be paid, or may be paid only in part. The anticipated profits from these deferred obligations are recognized and taxable under § 44 only if the obligations are paid and when they are paid, unless they are sold or transferred before payment. Thus, whatever meaning is given to the words “realized” and “recognized,” the regulation here considered is not in conflict with §§ 115 (l), 111, 112, and 113.
The regulation is valid. The respondent can include in its equity invested capital only that portion of its profits from installment payments which it has actually received and on which it has already paid income taxes in the years of receipt.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Burton dissent.
H. R. Rep. No. 2894, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 1-2.
Other adjustments not here material are provided, but the chief deduction or “adjustment” is the one noted above.
The straight 8% figure of 1940 was modified in several respects not here material in 1941 and subsequent years. 55 Stat. 699; 56 Stat. 911; 58 Stat. 55.
In its 1943 return respondent also reported the amount of such unrealized profits shown on its books as of the end of the two preceding years for purposes of calculating the excess profits credit carryover authorized by § 710 (c).
The Kimbrell case was subsequently reversed but not on the contention here urged. 159 F. 2d 608.
Section 29.115-3 of Regulations 111: “EaRnings or Profits.- — In determining the amount of earnings or profits (whether of the taxable year, or accumulated since February 28, 1913, or accumulated prior to March 1, 1913) due consideration must be given to the facts, and, while mere bookkeeping entries increasing or decreasing surplus will not be conclusive, the amount of the earnings or profits in any case will be dependent upon the method of accounting properly employed in computing net income. For instance, a corporation keeping its books and filing its income tax returns under sections 41, 42, and 43 on the cash receipts and disbursements basis may not use the accrual basis in determining earnings and profits; a corporation computing income on the installment basis as provided in section 44 shall, with respect to the installment transactions, compute earnings and profits on such basis; . . . .”
The meaning of all terms used in the subchapter dealing with the income tax was expressly made applicable to terms used in the excess profits subchapter. §728. Treasury Regulations 112 provided: “. . . In general, the concept of 'accumulated earnings and profits’ for the purpose of the excess profits tax is the same as for the purpose of the income tax.” § 35.718-2. See also H. R. Rep. No. 2894, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 41.
This part of the regulation was added as an amendment to Reg. 103, § 19.115-3, now § 29.115-3 of Reg. Ill, after adoption of the 1940 Excess Profits Tax Law. T. D. 5059, July 8, 1941.
G. C. M. 2951, VII-I Cum. Bull. 160 (1928); I. T. 3253, 1939-1 Cum. Bull. 178; Consolidated Asphalt Co., 1 B. T. A. 79, 82; Henry Beubel Executor, 1 B. T. A. 676, 678-680; B. B. Todd, Inc., 1 B. T. A. 762, 766; Bank of Hartsville, 1 B. T. A. 920, 921; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 2 B. T. A. 892, 894-895; United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422, 440; Jacob Bros. v. Comm’r, 50 F. 2d 394, 396; Jenkins v. Bitgood, 22 F. Supp. 16,17-18, aff’d, 101 F. 2d 17.
Schmoller & Mueller Piano Co. v. United, States, 67 Ct. Cl. 428; John M. Brant Co. v. United States, 40 F. 2d 126; Standard Computing Scale Co. v. United States, 52 F. 2d 1018; Jacob Bros. v. Comm’r, 50 F. 2d 394; Tull & Gibbs v. United States, 48 F. 2d 148; Appeal of Blum’s, Inc., 1 B. T. A. 737, 771; New England Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Comm’r, 9 B. T. A. 334; Green Furniture Co. v. Comm’r, 14 B. T. A. 508; S. Davidson & Bros. v. Comm’r, 21 B. T. A. 638, 644; Federal St. & Pleasant Valley Passenger R. Co. v. Comm’r, 24 B. T. A. 262, 266.
Article 117 of Regulations 33 (Revised), promulgated Jan. 2, 1918, and Article 42 of Regulations 45, promulgated April 17,1919.
B. B. Todd, Inc., 1 B. T. A. 762; H. B. Graves Co., 1 B. T. A. 859; Hoover-Bond Co., 1 B. T. A. 929; Six Hundred and Fifty West End Avenue Co., 2 B. T. A. 958.
S. Rep. No. 52, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 19, the Senate Finance Committee’s report on Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, 23.
S. Rep. No. 52, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 19; Willcuts v. Gradwohl, 58 F. 2d 587, 589-590.
Section 115(1) provides: “The gain or loss realized from the sale or other disposition ... of property by a corporation— . . .
“(2) for the purpose of the computation of earnings and profits of the coloration for any period beginning after Februarj' 28, 1913, shall be determined by using as the adjusted basis the adjusted basis (under the law applicable to the year in which the sale or other disposition was made) for determining gain.
“Gain or loss so realized shall increase or decrease the earnings and profits to, but not beyond, the extent to which such a realized gain or loss was recognized in computing net income under the law applicable to the year in which such sale or disposition was made.”
The Conference Committee report on the Second Revenue Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 974, said with reference to § 115 (l): “The provisions in the House and Senate bills, that gain or loss so realized shall increase or decrease the earnings and profits to, but not beyond, the extent recognized in computing net income under the law applicable to the year in which such sale or disposition was made, are retained. As used in this subsection the term ‘recognized’ relates to a realized gain or loss which is recognized pursuant to the provisions of law, for example, see section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code. It does not relate to losses disallowed or not taken into account.” Conf. Rep. No. 3002, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 60.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue presented in this case is whether the collision of two pleasure boats on navigable waters falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. See 28 U. S. C. § 1333. We granted certiorari to resolve the confusion in the lower courts respecting the impact of Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249 (1972), on traditional rules for determining federal admiralty jurisdiction. 454 U. S. 813 (1981). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an accident between two vessels in navigable waters bears a sufficient relationship to traditional maritime activity to fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction. We affirm.
I
Two pleasure boats collided on the Amite River in Louisiana, resulting in the death of Clyde Richardson. The wife and children of the decedent brought this action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging, inter alia, that petitioner Shirley Eliser had negligently operated the boat that collided with the vessel occupied by the decedent. Respondents also named petitioner Foremost Insurance Co., Eliser’s insurer, as a defendant. Jurisdiction was claimed under 28 U. S. C. § 1333(1), which gives federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint did not state a cause of action within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the District Court.
In ruling on petitioners’ motion, the District Court found the following facts to be undisputed:
“(i) One boat was used for pleasure boating, such as boat riding and water skiing, and at the time of the accident the boat was actually pulling a skier on a zip sled;
“(2) The other boat was used exclusively for pleasure fishing and was described as a bass boat;
“(3) Neither boat had ever been used in any ‘commercial maritime activity’ before the accident;
“(4) At the time of the accident neither boat was involved in any ‘commercial maritime activity’ of any sort;
“(5) Neither of the two drivers of the boat were being paid to operate the boat nor was this activity in any way a part of their regular type of employment;
“(6) None of the passengers on either boat were engaged in any kind of ‘traditional maritime activity’ either before or at the time of the accident;
“(7) Neither of the boats involved were under hire in any traditional maritime form;
“(8) There is no evidence to indicate that any ‘commercial activity’, even in the broadest admiralty sense, had ever been previously engaged in by either of the boats in question, and in fact the two boats would have to be classified as ‘purely pleasure craft’, not in any way ‘involved in commerce’, and,
“(9) There was no other instrumentality involved in this accident that had even a minor relationship to ‘admiralty’ or ‘commerce’, i. e. a buoy, barge, oil drilling apparatus, etc.” 470 F. Supp. 699, 700 (1979).
After reviewing decisions of this Court and the Fifth Circuit, as well as relevant commentary, the District Court found that there must be some relationship with traditional maritime activity for an injury sustained on navigable water to fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction. The District Court held that commercial maritime activity is necessary to satisfy this relationship, and granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the collision of these two pleasure boats did not involve any commercial activity.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 641 F. 2d 314 (1981). The Court of Appeals agreed that Executive Jet, supra, and relevant Fifth Circuit decisions establish that “admiralty jurisdiction requires more than the occurrence of the tort on navigable waters — that additionally there must be a significant relationship between the wrong and traditional maritime activity.” 641 F. 2d, at 315. It disagreed with the District Court, however, on the application of this principle to the undisputed facts of this case. Relying on the fact that the “Rules of the Road” govern all boats on navigable waters, and on the uncertainty that would accompany a finding of no admiralty jurisdiction in this case, the Court of Appeals held that “two boats, regardless of their intended use, purpose, size, and activity, are engaged in traditional maritime activity when a collision between them occurs on navigable waters.” Id., at 316.
II
Prior to our opinion in Executive Jet, there, was little question that a complaint such as the one filed here stated a cause of action within federal admiralty jurisdiction. Indeed, the Executive Jet Court begins its opinion by observing that, under the traditional rule of admiralty jurisdiction, “[i]f the wrong occurred on navigable waters, the action is within admiralty jurisdiction.” 409 U. S., at 253 (citing Thomas v. Lane, 23 F. Cas. 957, 960 (No. 13,902) (CC Me. 1813) (Story, J., on Circuit). See also The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 36 (1866) (“Every species of tort, however occurring, and whether on board a vessel or not, if upon the high seas or navigable waters, is of admiralty cognizance”). Under this rule, an action arising out of a collision between two pleasure boats on navigable waters clearly falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts. When presented with this precise situation in the past, this Court has found it unnecessary even to discuss whether the district court’s admiralty jurisdiction had been properly invoked, instead assuming the propriety of such jurisdiction merely because the accident occurred on navigable waters. Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U. S. 648, 651 (1953). See also Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383 (1941) (injury to guest from carbon monoxide poisoning in the cabin of a pleasure boat). Cf. Coryell v. Phipps, 317 U. S. 406 (1943). In light of these decisions, we address here only the narrow question whether Executive Jet disapproved these earlier decisions sub silentio.
In Executive Jet, this Court held that a suit for property damage to a jet aircraft that struck a flock of sea gulls upon takeoff and sank in the navigable-waters of Lake Erie did not state a claim within the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that the mechanical application of the locality rule as the sole test for determining whether there is admiralty jurisdiction had been widely criticized by commentators, and that the federal courts and Congress had been compelled to make exceptions to this approach in the interests of justice in order to include certain torts with no maritime locality. The Court determined that claims arising from airplane accidents are cognizable in admiralty only when the wrong bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. 409 U. S., at 268. Given the realities of modern-day air travel, the Executive Jet Court held that, “in the absence of legislation to the contrary, there is no federal admiralty jurisdiction over aviation tort claims arising from flights by land-based aircraft between points within the continental United States.” Id., at 274.
The express holding of Executive Jet is carefully limited to the particular facts of that case. However, the thorough discussion of the theoretical and practical problems inherent in broadly applying the traditional locality rule has prompted several courts and commentators to construe Executive Jet as applying to determinations of federal admiralty jurisdiction outside the context of aviation torts. See, e. g., Kelly v. Smith, 485 F. 2d 520 (CA5 1973); Calamari, The Wake of Executive Jet — A Major Wave or a Minor Ripple, 4 Maritime Law. 52 (1979). We believe that this is a fair construction. Although Executive Jet addressed only the unique problems associated with extending admiralty jurisdiction to aviation torts, much of the Court’s rationale in rejecting a strict locality rule also applies to the maritime context. Indeed, the Executive Jet Court relied extensively on admiralty and maritime decisions of this Court and on congressional action extending admiralty jurisdiction to torts with a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity, but with no maritime locality.
We recognize, as did the Court of Appeals, that the Executive Jet requirement that the wrong have a significant connection with traditional maritime activity is not limited to the aviation context. We also agree that there is no requirement that “the maritime activity be an exclusively commercial one.” 641 F. 2d, at 316. Because the “wrong” here involves the negligent operation of a vessel on navigable waters, we believe that it has a sufficient nexus to traditional maritime activity to sustain admiralty jurisdiction in the District Court.
We are not persuaded by petitioners’ argument that a substantial relationship with commercial maritime activity is necessary because commercial shipping is at the heart of the traditional maritime activity sought to be protected by giving the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over all admiralty suits. This argument is premised on the faulty assumption that, absent this relationship with commercial activity, the need for uniform rules to govern conduct and liability disappears, and “federalism” concerns dictate that these torts be litigated in the state courts.
Although the primary focus of admiralty jurisdiction is unquestionably the protection of maritime commerce, petitioners take too narrow a view of the federal interest sought to be protected. The federal interest in protecting maritime commerce cannot be adequately served if admiralty jurisdiction is restricted to those individuals actually engaged in commercial maritime activity. This interest can be fully vindicated only if all operators of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct. The failure to recognize the breadth of this federal interest ignores the potential effect of noncommercial maritime activity on maritime commerce. For example, if these two boats collided at the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway, there would be a substantial effect on maritime commerce, without regard to whether either boat was actively, or had been previously, engaged in commercial activity. Furthermore, admiralty law has traditionally been concerned with the conduct alleged to have caused this collision by virtue of its “navigational rules — rules that govern the manner and direction those vessels may rightly move upon the waters.” Executive Jet, 409 U. S., at 270. The potential disruptive impact of a collision between boats on navigable waters, when coupled with the traditional concern that admiralty law holds for navigation, compels the conclusion that this collision between two pleasure boats on navigable waters has a significant relationship with maritime commerce.
Yet, under the strict commercial rule proffered by petitioners, the status of the boats as “pleasure” boats, as opposed to “commercial” boats, would control the existence of admiralty jurisdiction. Application of this rule, however, leads to inconsistent findings or denials of admiralty jurisdiction similar to those found fatal to the locality rule in Executive Jet. Under the commercial rule, fortuitous circumstances such as whether the boat was, or had ever been, rented, or whether it had ever been used for commercial fishing, control the existence of federal-court jurisdiction. The owner of a vessel used for both business and pleasure might be subject to radically different rules of liability depending upon whether his activity at the time of a collision is found by the court ultimately assuming jurisdiction over the controversy to have been sufficiently “commercial.” We decline to inject the uncertainty inherent in such line-drawing into maritime transportation. Moreover, the smooth flow of maritime commerce is promoted when all vessel operators are subject to the same duties and liabilities. Adopting the strict commercial rule would frustrate the goal of promoting the smooth flow of maritime commerce, because the duties and obligations of noncommercial navigators traversing navigable waters flowing through more than one State would differ “depending upon their precise location within the territorial jurisdiction of one state or another.” 641 F. 2d, at 316.
Finally, our interpretation is consistent with congressional activity in this area. First, Congress defines the term “vessel,” for the purpose of determining the scope of various shipping and maritime transportation laws, to include all types of waterborne vessels, without regard to whether they engage in commercial activity. See, e. g., 1 U. S. C. §3 (“‘vessel’ includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water”). Second, the federal “Rules of the Road,” designed for preventing collisions on navigable waters, see, e. g., 94 Stat. 3415,33 U. S. C. § 2001 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV), apply to all vessels without regard to their commercial or noncommercial nature. Third, when it extended admiralty jurisdiction to injuries on land caused by ships on navigable waters, Congress directed that “[t]he admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States shall extend to and include all cases of damage or injury . . caused by a vessel on navigable water. ...” Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 62 Stat. 496, 46 U. S. C. § 740.
In light of the need for uniform rules governing navigation, the potential impact on maritime commerce when two vessels collide on navigable waters, and the uncertainty and confusion that would necessarily accompany a jurisdictional test tied to the commercial use of a given boat, we hold that a complaint alleging a collision between two vessels on navigable waters properly states a claim within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The wife and children of the decedent also named respondent June Allen as a defendant. They alleged that Allen was operating the vessel at the time of the collision, and that the decedent’s death was caused by either the negligence of Allen or that of petitioner Eliser. Allen counterclaimed, alleging that the decedent had been operating the boat, and that her injuries were caused by his negligence. The factual dispute concerning whether the decedent or Allen was operating the boat is irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue. However, because of the divergent interests and claims of respondent Allen and the respondent family of the decedent below, we refer only to the decedent’s family when we use the term “respondents” throughout this opinion.
The District Court assumed that the Amite River is navigable at the site of the collision. Although the issue is not free from doubt, it appears from the opinion and the disposition of the Court of Appeals that the court found that the river is navigable at this site although seldom, if ever, used for commercial traffic. This opinion is premised on our understanding that the river at this point is navigable, see Brief for Petitioners 20, but we leave open the question whether petitioners have preserved the opportunity to argue this issue upon further development of facts in the District Court.
Judge Thornberry, concurring in part and dissenting in part, argued that federal admiralty jurisdiction could not be sustained if the river at the site of the accident, although navigable, did not also function as an integral or major “artery of commerce.” 641 F. 2d, at 317.
In addition to noting these examples where strict application of the locality rule would have deprived the courts of admiralty jurisdiction despite a clear connection to maritime activity, the Court noted the difficulties of extending jurisdiction to torts with a maritime locality, but absolutely no connection to maritime activity. See 409 U. S., at 255-256 (disapproving decisions sustaining admiralty jurisdiction over claims by swimmers injured by other swimmers or submerged objects in shallow waters near shore); id., at 256-257 (approving decisions requiring some connection with traditional maritime activity).
Not every accident in navigable waters that might disrupt maritime commerce will support federal admiralty jurisdiction. In Executive Jet, for example, we concluded that the sinking of the plane in navigable waters did not give rise to a claim in admiralty even though an aircraft sinking in the water could create a hazard for the navigation of commercial vessels in the vicinity. However, when this kind of potential hazard to maritime commerce arises out of activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity, as does the navigation of the boats in this case, admiralty jurisdiction is appropriate.
Petitioners argue that admiralty jurisdiction in the federal courts is unnecessary to ensure the uniform application of the Rules of the Road to boat navigation because state courts are bound by the construction federal courts give to statutes relating to navigation. Assuming that petitioners are correct, this fact does not negate the importance that Congress has attached to the federal interest in having all vessels operating on navigable waters governed by uniform rules and obligations, which is furthered by consistent application of federal maritime legislation under federal admiralty jurisdiction.
We refer to this language only to demonstrate that Congress did not require a commercial-activity nexus when it extended admiralty jurisdiction. We express no opinion on whether this Act could be construed to provide an independent basis for 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: | 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.
A federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Michigan returned a second superseding indictment charging respondent with, inter alia, the intentional firearm killings of two individuals. The United States filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Respondent, who is black, alleged that the Government had determined to seek the death penalty against him because of his race. He moved to dismiss the death penalty notice and, in the alternative, for discovery of information relating to the Government’s capital charging practices. The District Court granted the motion for discovery, and after the Government informed the court that it would not comply with the discovery order, the court dismissed the death penalty notice. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s discovery order. 266 F. 3d 532 (2001). We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and now summarily reverse.
In United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 465 (1996), we held that a defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. We need go no further in the present case than consideration of the evidence supporting discriminatory effect. As to that, Armstrong says, that the defendant must make a “credible showing” that “similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted.” Id., at 465, 470. The Sixth Circuit concluded that respondent had made such a showing based on nationwide statistics demonstrating that “[tjhe United States charges blacks with a death-eligible offense more than twice as often as it charges whites” and that the United States enters into plea bargains more frequently with whites than it does with blacks. 266 F. 3d, at 538-539 (citing U. S. Dept. of Justice, The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey (1988-2000), p. 2 (Sept. 12,2000)). Even assuming that the Armstrong requirement can be satisfied by a nationwide showing (as opposed to a showing regarding the record of the decisionmakers in respondent’s case), raw statistics regarding overall charges say nothing about charges brought against similarly situated defendants. And the statistics regarding plea bargains are even less relevant, since respondent was offered a plea bargain but declined it. See Pet. for Cert. 16. Under Armstrong, therefore, because respondent failed to submit relevant evidence that similarly situated persons were treated differently, he was not entitled to discovery.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision is contrary to Armstrong and threatens the “performance of a core executive constitutional function.” Armstrong, supra, at 465. For that reason, we reverse.
It is so ordered.
In January 1995, the Department of Justice (DOJ) instituted a policy, known as the death penalty protocol, that required the Attorney General to make the decision whether to seek the death penalty once a defendant had been charged with a capital-eligible offense. See Pet. for Cert. 3 (citing DOJ, United States Attorneys’ Manual § 9-10.010 et seq. (Sept. 1997)). The charging decision continued to be made by one of the 93 United States Attorneys throughout the country, but the protocol required that the United States Attorneys submit for review all cases in which they had charged a defendant with a capital-eligible offense. 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. Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, for the second time this Term, we are required to construe the complex portion of the Internal Revenue Code concerning life insurance companies. The issue in this case is the extent to which deferred and uncollected life insurance premiums are includable in “reserves,” “assets,” and “gross premium income,” as those concepts are used in the Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959.
I
Premiums on respondent’s policies are often payable in installments. If an installment is not paid when due, the policy will lapse, generally after a grace period. However, there is no legally enforceable duty to pay the premiums. An installment falling due between the end of the tax year and the policy’s anniversary date is called a “deferred premium.” In 1961, the most recent year in issue, respondent had $1,572,763 of deferred premiums. Pet. for Cert. 4a. An installment which is overdue at the end of the tax year is called an “uncollected premium” if the policy has not yet lapsed. In 1961, respondent had $231,969 of uncollected premiums. Ibid. For convenience, we shall refer to both deferred and uncollected premiums simply as “unpaid premiums.”
The amount charged a policyholder — the “gross premium”^ — includes two components. Under state law, the company must add part of the premium to its reserves to ensure that it will have sufficient funds to pay death benefits. This amount, the “net valuation premium,” is determined under mortality and interest assumptions. The rest of the gross premium is called “loading,” and covers profits and expenses such as salesmen’s commissions, state taxes, and overhead.
Under normal accounting rules, unpaid premiums would simply be ignored. They would not be properly accruable since the company has no legal right to collect them. Nevertheless, for the past century, insurance companies have added an amount equal to the net valuation portion of unpaid premiums to their reserves, with an offsetting addition to assets. State law uniformly requires this treatment of unpaid premiums, as does the accounting form issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). This national organization of state regulatory officials, which acts on behalf of the various state insurance departments, performs audits on insurance companies like respondent which do business in many States. The NAIC accounting form, known in the industry as the “Annual Statement,” is used by respondent for its financial reporting. In effect, in calculating its reserves, the company must treat these premiums to some extent as if they had been paid.
This case involves the tax treatment of respondent’s unpaid premiums for the years 1958, 1959, and 1961. In its returns for each of those years, it included the net unpaid premiums in reserves, just as it did in its annual NAIC statement. In 1959 and 1961, it also followed the NAIC statement by including the net premiums in assets and premium income. In 1958, however, it excluded the entire unpaid premium from assets. The Commissioner assessed a deficiency because respondent did not, in any of these years, include the entire unpaid premium — loading as well as net premium — in calculating assets and income. In his view, if reserves are calculated on the fictional assumption that these premiums have been paid, the same assumption should apply to the calculation of assets and gross premium income. The Tax Court upheld the deficiency; but the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that respondent’s reserve calculation was correct because it was required by state law. The court further held that in accord with normal accounting practices, the premiums could not be considered as either assets or income before they were actually collected.
The Courts of Appeals have taken varying approaches to this problem. The position taken by the Tenth Circuit in this case conflicts with decisions of four other Circuits. For this reason, and because the question is important to the revenue, we granted certiorari. 429 U. S. 814.
Although the problem is a perplexing one, as indicated by the diversity of opinion among the Circuits, we find guidance in 26 U. S. C. § 818 (a), which governs the method of accounting by life insurance companies. In our view, § 818 (a) requires deference in this case to the established accounting procedures of the NAIC. In accordance with the NAIC procedures, we therefore hold that the net valuation portion of unpaid premiums, but not the loading, must be included in assets and gross premium income, as well as in reserves.
Resolution of the problem before us requires some understanding of how reserves, assets, and premium income enter into the calculation of a life insurance company's taxable income. We therefore begin with a summary of past legislation and of the method by which the tax is now calculated. We then turn to a discussion of § 818 (a) and its application to-this case.
II
Throughout the history of the federal income tax, Congress has taken the view that life insurance companies should not be taxed on the amounts collected for the purpose of paying death benefits. This basic theme has been implemented in different ways.
A
From 1913 to 1920, life insurance companies, like other companies, were taxed on their entire income, but were allowed a deduction for “the net addition . . . required by law to be made within the year to reserve funds . ..." In that period the Government first challenged, but then accepted, the industry practice of deducting additions to reserves based on unpaid premiums without taking those premiums into income.
Beginning with the Revenue Act of 1921, Congress taxed only the investment income of life insurance companies; premium income was not included in their gross income. The companies were allowed to deduct a fixed percentage of their total reserves from their total investment income. The computation of this deduction was based on the company’s entire policy reserves, including the portion attributed to unpaid premiums. This use of this portion of the reserves apparently was not questioned during that period. There was no occasion to consider whether unpaid premiums should be treated as “income” since all premium income was exempt from tax in this period.
The 1959 statute applies to all tax years after 1957. It preserves the basic concept of taxing only that portion of the life insurance company’s income which is not required to meet policyholder obligations. It makes two important changes, however, in the method of computing that amount. First, whereas the preceding statutes assumed an industrywide rate of return for the purpose of calculating the reserve deduction, the 1959 Act requires a calculation based on each company’s own earnings record. Second, in addition to imposing a tax on investment income, the new Act also taxes a portion of the company’s premium income. Although the computations are more complex, the basic approach of the 1959 Act is therefore somewhat comparable to the,pre-1921 “total income” concept.
B
In order to understand the implications of the Commissioner’s argument that unpaid premiums should be consistently treated in calculating “assets” and “gross premium income,” as well as “reserves,” it is necessary to explain how these concepts are employed in the present statute.
The 1959 Act adds §§801 through 820 to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U. S. C.). Section 802 (b) defines three components of “life insurance company taxable income,” of which only the first two are relevant to this case. Generally, the taxable income is the sum of (1) the company's “taxable investment income” and (2) 50% of its other income (defined as the difference between its total “gain from operations” and its taxable investment income) ,
A company’s total investment income is regarded as including a share for the company, which is taxable, and a “policyholders’ share,” which is not. The policyholders’ share is a percentage which is essentially determined by the ratio of the company’s reserves to its assets. An increase in reserves will therefore reduce the company’s taxable investment income, whereas an increase in its assets will increase its tax.
The company’s “gain from operations” includes, in addition to its share of investment income, the “gross amount of premiums,” § 809 (c) (1). Obviously, if unpaid premiums are regarded as part of this gross amount, the company’s gain from operations will be increased to that extent. Moreover, since a deduction is allowed for the net increase in reserves, §809 (d)(2), the contribution of unpaid premiums to the reserves diminishes the company’s gain.
h — I hH I — I
In a sense the case presents a question of timing. Respondent claims the right to treat unpaid premiums as creating reserves, and therefore a tax deduction, in one year, but wishes not to recognize the unfavorable tax consequences of increased “assets” and “premium income” until the year in which the premiums are actually paid. As the Commissioner forcefully argues, the respondent’s position lacks symmetry and the lack thereof redounds entirely to its benefit.
A
We start from the premise that unpaid premiums must be reflected in a life insurance company’s reserves. This has been the consistent and unbroken practice since the inception of the federal income tax on life insurance companies in 1913. Moreover, the uniform practice of the States since before 1913 has been to require that reserves reflect unpaid premiums. State law is relevant to the statutory definition of reserves, since life insurance reserves generally must be required by state law in order to be recognized for tax purposes. § 801 (b) (2). As a matter of state law, a genuine contingent liability exists and must be reflected on the company’s financial records. This liability has effects on the company’s business which transcend its income tax consequences. In view of the critical importance of the definition of reserves in the entire statutory scheme, as well as in the conduct of the company’s business, the practice of including net unpaid premiums in reserves cannot have been unknown to Congress. It is clear, we think, that no radical departure from past law was intended.
Having decided that unpaid premiums must be treated to some extent as though they had actually been paid, the more difficult question is how far to apply this fictional assumption. Since this is essentially an accounting problem, our inquiry is governed by § 818. As its title indicates, § 818 contains the “Accounting provisions” relating to this portion of the Code. Section 818 (a) provides:
“(a) Method of accounting.
“All computations entering into the determination of the taxes imposed by this part shall be made—
“(1) under an accrual method of accounting, or
“(2) to the extent permitted under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, under a combination of an accrual method of accounting with any other method permitted by this chapter (other than the cash receipts and disbursements method).
“Except as provided in the preceding sentence, all such computations shall be made in a manner consistent with the manner required for purposes of the annual statement approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.”
The legislative history makes it clear that the accounting procedures established by the NAIC apply if they are “not inconsistent” with accrual accounting rules. In other words, except when the rules of accrual accounting dictate a contrary-result, NAIC procedures “shall” apply.
With the statutory test in mind, we consider the various proposed solutions to this accounting problem.
B
Essentially, the problem in this case is to decide the scope to be given a fictional assumption. Four solutions have been proposed.
First, as the company argues, the assumption of prepayment could be applied in calculating the reserves, but ignored when calculating assets and income. This was the position taken by the Court of Appeals in this case. That position significantly distorts the tax equation in favor of the taxpayer and against the Government. Although we do not accept the notion that there must be perfect symmetry in the tax laws, there should be a measure of consistency in the accounting treatment of an item affecting interrelated elements in a formula such as that used to calculate the policyholders’ share of investment income. We think the Commissioner, and the other Courts of Appeals, see n. 4, supra, properly rejected the entirely one-sided use of the fictional assumption proposed by the taxpayer in this case.
Second, we could assume that the entire premium has been paid, but that none of the associated expenses have been incurred. Thus, the fictional assumption would be applied when determining reserves, assets, and gross premium income, but not when determining expenses. This is the position taken by the Commissioner. See Treas. Regs. §§ 1.805,1.809-4, 26 CFR §§ 1.805-5, 1.809-4 (1976). It is obvious that requiring the companies to treat the premium (including loading) as an asset and as income would improperly accelerate their tax payments; for a major share of loading is applied, when it is received, to deductible items such as sales commissions. Thus, to tax the entire loading portion of an unpaid premium is doubly objectionable: It imposes a tax on income the company has not received; and it treats the entire loading as income even though most of it will be disbursed for deductible expenses. The result of accepting the Commissioner’s position would be that the insurance company would have a greater tax liability on unpaid premiums than if the premiums had actually been paid. This result is also unacceptable.
Third, some Courts of Appeals have extended the fiction somewhat further to include an assumption that certain expenses associated with the unpaid premiums have been incurred. These courts allow a deduction for some expenses such as salesmen’s commissions, which are payable upon receipt of the premium. It is not clear, however, precisely what expenses would receive this treatment. The approach adopted by these courts eliminates much of the unfairness of the Commissioner’s position. But their approach would take us far from the statute. Since there is nothing in the statute directing that any portion of unpaid loading be treated as an asset or as income, the statute obviously cannot provide guidance in fashioning a set of deductions to be credited against the fictional assumption that such loading is income.
The fourth approach, in contrast, does have support in the statute. This approach has been adopted by the NAIC for the purpose of preparing the Annual Statement, and therefore is firmly anchored in the text of § 818 (a) which establishes a preference for NAIC accounting methods. Under this view, the net valuation portion of the unpaid premiums is included in reserves, assets, and gross premium income, while the loading portion is entirely excluded. This approach might be described as adopting the fictional assumption that the net valuation portion of the premium has been paid, but that the loading portion has not. This accounting treatment has been consistently applied throughout the industry for decades, and was regarded as the correct approach by the Tax Court when it first confronted this problem area. Western Nat. Life Ins. Co. of Texas v. Commissioner, 51 T. C. 824 (1969), modifying 50 T. C. 285 (1968), rev’d, 432 F. 2d 298 (CA5 1970). By including the net valuation portion of the unpaid premium — and only that portion — on both sides of the relevant equations, it satisfies in large measure the Commissioner’s quest for symmetry. It also avoids the uncertainty and confusion that would attend any attempt to segregate unpaid loading into deductible and nondeductible parts. Finally, it provides a practical rule which should minimize the likelihood of future disputes.
Under § 818 (a), rejection of the NAIC approach would be justified only if it were found inconsistent with the dictates of accrual accounting. But the general rules of accrual accounting simply do not speak to the question of the scope to be given the entirely fictional assumption required by this statute. Any one of the four approaches has an equally good — or equally bad — claim to being “an accrual method.” Since general accounting rules are not controlling, the statute requires use of the NAIC approach to fill the gap.
Accordingly, we conclude that unpaid premiums must be reflected in the computation of respondent’s tax liabilities “in a manner consistent with the manner required for purposes of the annual statement approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.” To the extent that the Secretary’s regulations require different treatment of unpaid premiums, we hold that they are inconsistent with § 818 (a) and therefore invalid.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MR. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See United States v. Consumer Life Ins. Co., 430 U. S. 725.
26 U. S. C. §§801-820.
525 F. 2d 786 (CA10 1975).
See Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 408 F. 2d 842 (CA4 1969), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 828; Western Nat. Life Ins. Co. of Texas v. Commissioner, 432 F. 2d 298 (CA5 1970); Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 460 F. 2d 8 (CA6 1972), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1063; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 399 F. 2d 757 (CA7 1968), cert denied, 393 U. S. 1118.
We are informed that substantially more than $100 million is in dispute. Pet. for Cert, 8.
See, e. g., Tariff Act of 1913, § II (G)(b), 38 Stat. 173; Revenue Act of 1916, § 12 (a) Second, 39 Stat. 768; Revenue Act of 1918, § 234 (a) (10), 40 Stat. 1079.
In Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Herold, 247 F. 681 (NJ 1918), the Government argued that the taxpayer was not entitled to credit for the full value of its reserves because the deferred and uncollected premiums had not been included in its taxable income. The court examined and rejected the argument:
“The question to be decided, therefore, is whether the plaintiff, in figuring its net addition to the reserve funds which it was required by law to make, was justified in including the value of such policies. The argument upon which the defendant’s contention in this respect is based seems to be that as part of the assets making up the plaintiff’s 'reserve’ consisted of these uncollected and deferred premiums, and as they are not included in the plaintiff’s gross income (as, clearly, they should not be so included, Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold [198 F. 199 (NJ 1912)]; Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Eaton [218 F. 188 (Conn. 1914)]), that the value of such policies should not be included, for purposes of taxation, in its net addition to reserve funds. But this argument, I think, begs the question, which is, as clearly defined by the Supreme Court in McCoach v. Insurance Co. of North America, 244 U. S. 585, . . . what sum or sums in the aggregate did the state laws require the plaintiff to maintain as a reserve fund, not the character of the assets making up the actual 'reserve funds’. No matter what their character, they were as effectively withdrawn from the plaintiff’s use as if they had been expended. If therefore the law of New Jersey, or any other state in which it did business, made it obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to maintain a ‘reserve’ on account of the policies of the character in question, it is of no materiality what the ‘reserve funds’ actually consisted of, whether cash, securities, real estate, or due and uncollected premiums.” Id., at 685-686.
Subsequently, the Bureau of Internal Revenue acquiesced. In a bulletin issued to its employees the Bureau said: “The legal reserves . . . can not be reduced by the net uncollected and deferred premiums.” Treas. Dept., Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bulletin H, Income Tax Rulings Peculiar to Insurance Companies (1921), Ruling 14, p. 9. See also Ruling 8, p. 7.
See, e. g., Revenue Act of 1921, §244 (a), 42 Stat. 261.
The tax was levied only on net investment income, that is, the excess over the amount deemed necessary to pay death claims. If, for example, the amount of the net valuation premium had been calculated on the assumption that the company would receive a 4% return on its investment of premiums between the time of its payment and the death of the policyholder, and it actually realized 5%, the tax applied to the net of 1%. This deduction reflects the assumption that interest on net premiums, as well as the premiums themselves, would be needed to satisfy death claims, and that only investment income greater than the amount projected in the determination of net premiums should be taxed. Revenue Act of 1921, §245 (a)(2), 42 Stat. 261; Revenue Act of 1924, §245 (a) (2), 43 Stat. 289; Revenue Act of 1926, § 245 (a) (2), 44 Stat. (pt. 2) 47; Revenue Act of 1928, § 203 (a) (2), 45 Stat. 843; Revenue Act of 1932, §203 (a)(2), 47 Stat. 224; Revenue Act of 1934, §203 (a)(2), 48 Stat. 732; Revenue Act of 1936, §203 (a)(2), 49 Stat. 1711; Revenue Act of 1938, § 203 (a) (2), 52 Stat. 523; Internal Revenue Code of 1939, § 203 (a), 26 Ü. S. G §203 (a) (1952 ed.).
Like the parties, we will emphasize the role of these concepts in the relevant calculations. Other factors involved in the calculations, such as pension plan reserves and real estate transactions, have little significance for the purpose of decision of this case.
Section 802 (b) provides:-
“Life insurance company taxable income defined.
“For purposes of this part, the term ‘life insurance company taxable income’ means the sum of—
“(1) the taxable investment income (as defined in section 804) or, if smaller, the gain from operations (as defined in section 809),
“(2) if the gain from operations exceeds the taxable investment income, an amount equal to 50 percent of such excess, plus
“(3) the amount subtracted from the policyholders surplus account for the taxable year, as determined under section 815.”
For the purpose of this discussion, we assume that the gain from operations is greater than investment income. As the statute makes clear, §802 (b)(1), only the gain from operations is taxed if that figure is less than the taxable investment income, a situation which would probably arise only if the company lost money on its noninvestment operations.
“The 1959 Act defines life insurance company reserves, provides a rather intricate method for establishing the amount which for tax purposes is deemed to be added each year to these reserves and in § 804 prescribes a division of the investment income of an insurance company into two parts, the policyholders’ share and the company’s share. More specifically, the total amount to be added to the reserve — the policy and other contract liability requirements — is divided by the total investment yield and the resulting percentage is used to allocate each item of investment income, including tax-exempt interest, partly to the policyholders and partly to the company. In this case, approximately 85% of each item of income was assigned to the policyholders and was, as the Act provides, excluded from the company’s taxable income.” United States v. Atlas Ins. Co., 381 U. S. 233, 236-237 (footnotes omitted).
Actually, the computation is made in two steps. An earnings rate is determined by dividing the company’s investment yield by its assets (§ 805 (b) (2)). This earnings rate must be derived from a four-year average of earnings if such an average is lower than the current earnings rate (§805 (b)(1) and (3)). The adjusted life insurance reserves are determined by comparing the company’s actual earnings rate with the rate which was assumed when the reserves were calculated; for each one point of additional earnings rate there is a 10% decrease in the value of the reserve account, and vice versa (§805 (c)(1)). The earnings rate is multiplied by the adjusted life insurance reserve (§805 (a)(1)), and added with some other factors not germane here to yield the “policy and other contract liability requirements” (§ 805 (a)).
In the second step of the computation, the “policy and other contract liability requirements” are divided by the investment yield to determine the percentage which is the policyholders’ share (§ 804 (a) (1)). The investment yield is the gross investment income less deductible expenses, depreciation and depletion (§ 804 (e)).
For purposes of determining gain from operations, the company’s share is determined under §§ 809 (a) and (b) (3). Section 809 (a) defines the policyholder's share as the percentage obtained by dividing the required interest (the rate of interest used to calculate the reserves, multiplied by the amount of the reserves) by the investment yield. This formula is somewhat simpler than that used in §§ 804 and 805 for purposes of caculating taxable investment income.
In this case, although the Commissioner recomputed respondent’s tax for the entire period from 1958 through 1961, the adjustments resulted in no deficiency for 1960.
We therefore reject the Commissioner’s alternative position, that unpaid premiums should be ignored in calculating reserves, assets, and gross premium income.
The Commissioner does not contend otherwise. Tr. of Oral Arg. 19.
For example, the definition is also controlling on the question whether a company qualifies as a “life insurance company” within the meaning of the statute. See United States v. Consumer Life Ins. Co., 430 U. S. 725.
The Senate Report describes the provision as follows:
“(a) Method of accounting. — Subsection (a) of section 818, which is identical with the House bill, provides the general rule that all computations entering into the determination of taxes imposed by the new part I of subchapter L shall be made under an accrual method of accounting. This subsection further provides that, to the extent permitted under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, a life insurance company may determine its taxes under a combination of an accrual method of accounting with any other method permitted by chapter 1 (other than the cash receipts and disbursements method). For example, the Secretary or his delegate may determine that the use of the installment method for reporting sales of realty and casual sales of personalty (see sec. 453 (b)) may, in combination with an accrual method of accounting, properly reflect life insurance company taxable income. To the extent not inconsistent with the provision of the 1954 Code and an accrual method of accounting, all computations entering into the determination of taxes imposed by the new part I shall be made in a manner consistent with the manner required for purposes of the annual statement approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.” S. Rep. No. 291, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 72-73 (1959).
The same language is used in the House Report. H. R. Rep. No. 34, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 42 (1959).
The mandatory language contained in the provision requiring consistency with the NAIC statement is to be contrasted with the permissive language used to describe accounting methods covered by the Secretary’s regulations. Section 818 (a) (2) merely allows the Secretary to permit deviations from accrual accounting. Since this case does not concern any optional method allowed by the Secretary, this provision does not concern us here.
These Regulations cite unpaid premiums as examples of assets (§ 1.805-5, Example (1)) and include these premiums as part of the “gross premiums” used in calculating gain from operations (§ 1.809-4 (a)(1)).
In addition, § 1.801-4 (f) provides that "[i]n the event it is determined on the basis of the facts of a particular case that [unpaid premiums] are not properly accruable for the taxable year . . . and, accordingly, are not properly includible under assets . . . appropriate reduction shall be made in the life insurance reserves.” Based on the latter Regulation, the Commissioner makes an alternative argument that unpaid premiums should be disregarded for all purposes, including computations of reserves. We reject this argument for the reasons stated in Part III-A.
Great Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 491 F. 2d 109 (CA5 1974); Federal Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 527 F. 2d 1096 (CA7 1975); North American Life & Cas. Co. v. Commissioner, 533 F. 2d 1046 (CA8 1976).
Evidence of congressional respect for NAIC accounting methods is not limited to the portion of the Code concerning life insurance companies. In defining “gross income” and “expenses incurred” for purposes of taxing certain other insurance companies, Congress expressly requires computations to follow “the annual statement approved by the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners.” 26 U. S. C. §§832 (b)(1)(A), (b)(6).
The American Council of Life Insurance has filed a brief as amicus curiae and made oral argument urging adoption of this position.
The first Court of Appeals to consider this argument rejected it on the ground that Congress would not have intended “to relegate the substantive matter of offsetting or excluding loading on deferred and uncollected premiums, with its concomitant impact on the resulting tax, to the NAIC.” Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 399 F. 2d, at 760. We think that § 818 (a) gives the NAIC precisely this role of filling the gaps in the statutory treatment of accounting problems like this one.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joins.
In 1994, all registered voters in Virginia who were willing to declare their intent to support the Republican Party’s nominees for public office at the next election could participate in the nomination of the Party’s candidate for the office of United States Senator if they paid either a $35 or $45 registration fee. Appellants contend that the imposition of that fee as a condition precedent to participation in the candidate selection process was a poll tax prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The questions we must decide are whether § 5 of the Act required preclearance of the Party’s decision to exact the fee and whether appellants were permitted to challenge it as a poll tax prohibited by § 10.
HH
On December 16, 1993, the Republican Party of Virginia (Party) issued a call for a state convention to be held on June 3, 1994, to nominate the Republican candidate for United States Senator. The call invited all registered voters in Virginia to participate in local mass meetings, canvasses, or conventions to be conducted by officials of the Party. Any voter could be certified as a delegate to the state convention by a local political committee upon payment of a registration fee of $35 or $45 depending on the date of certification. Over 14,000 voters paid the fee and took part in the convention.
In response to the call, appellants Bartholomew, Enderson, and Morse sought to become delegates to the convention. As a registered voter in Virginia willing to declare his or her intent to support the Party’s nominee, each was eligible to participate upon payment of the registration fee. Bartholomew and Enderson refused to pay the fee and did not become delegates; Morse paid the fee with funds advanced by supporters of the eventual nominee.
On May 2, 1994, appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia alleging that the imposition of the registration fee violated §§5 and 10 of the Voting Rights Act, 79 Stat. 439, 442, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973c and 1973h, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution. They sought an injunction preventing the Party from imposing the fee and ordering it to return the fee paid by Morse. As §§ 5 and 10 require, a three-judge District Court was convened to consider the statutory claims. See Morse v. Oliver North for U. S. Senate Comm., Inc., 853 F. Supp. 212 (WD Va. 1994). That court remanded the two constitutional claims to a single-judge District Court, and, after expedited briefing and argument, granted the Party’s motion to dismiss the § 5 and § 10 claims.
After noting “a general rule” that political parties are subject to § 5 to the extent that they are empowered to conduct primary elections, the court gave two reasons for concluding that the rule did not apply to the selection of delegates to a state nominating convention. First, it read a regulation promulgated by the Attorney General as disavowing §5 coverage of political party activities other than the conduct of primary elections. Second, it relied on our summary af-firmance of the District Court’s holding in Williams v. Democratic Party of Georgia, Civ. Action No. 16286 (ND Ga., Apr. 6, 1972), that §5 does not cover a party’s decision to change its method of selecting delegates to a national convention. See 409 U. S. 809 (1972). Its dismissal of the § 10 claim rested on its view that only the Attorney General has authority to enforce that section of the Act. 853 F. Supp., at 215-217.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 513 U. S. 1125 (1995), and now reverse.
II
In the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress enacted a complex scheme of remedies for racial discrimination in voting that were to be applied in areas where such discrimination had been most flagrant. Section 4 of the Act sets forth the formula for identifying the jurisdictions in which such discrimination had occurred, see South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 317-318 (1966), and § 5 prescribes the most stringent of those remedies. It prohibits the enactment or enforcement by any covered jurisdiction of voting qualifications or procedures that differ from those in effect on November 1, 1964, or two later dates, unless they have been precleared by the Attorney General or approved by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 548-550 (1969). Virginia is one of the seven States to which the § 4 coverage formula was found applicable on August 7, 1965. The entire Commonwealth has been subject to the preclearance obligation of § 5 ever since.
' It is undisputed that the Party’s practice of charging a registration fee as a prerequisite to participation in the process of selecting a candidate for United States Senator was not in effect on November 1,1964. It is also undisputed that if the candidate had been selected in a primary election, the Party could not have enforced a voting qualification or procedure different from those in effect on November 1, 1964, without first preclearing it under §5. Finally, we understand the Party to agree that if the registration fee had been mandated by state law, or by a state election official, pre-clearance would have been required.
What is in dispute is whether the coverage of § 5 encompasses the Party’s voting qualifications and procedures when its nominees are chosen at a convention. In answering that question, we first note that the District Court’s decision is not supported either by the Attorney General’s regulation or by the narrow holding in the Williams case. We then explain why coverage is mandated by our consistent construction of the text and history of the Act. Finally, we discuss the § 10 private cause of action issue.
III
The Party does not question the validity of the Attorney General’s regulation. That regulation unambiguously provides that when a political party makes a change affecting voting, § 5 requires preclearance if two conditions are satisfied: The change must relate to “a public electoral function of the party” and the party must be “acting under authority explicitly or implicitly granted by a covered jurisdiction.” The Party does not deny that the delegate fee is a change that relates to a public electoral function of the Party. It argues, instead, that the regulation did not apply when it selected its nominee for United States Senator at a convention because it was not "acting under authority” granted by Virginia. We disagree. The District Court erred in its application of the regulation, because the Party exercised delegated state power when it certified its nominee for automatic placement on Virginia’s general election ballot.
Virginia law creates two separate tracks for access to the ballot, depending on the affiliation of the candidate. An independent candidate for a statewide office must comply with several requirements. The candidate must file a declaration of candidacy with the State Board of Elections. He or she must also file a petition signed by a predetermined number of qualified voters. For elections to the United States Senate, that number is equal to one-half of one percent of the registered voters in the Commonwealth, with at least 200 signatures from each of the 11 congressional districts. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-506 (1993). In 1994, the required number of signatures was 14,871.
By contrast, the election code provides that the nominees of the two major political parties shall automatically appear on the general election ballot, without the need to declare their candidacy or to demonstrate their support with a nominating petition. §24.2-511. Party nominees are listed sequentially on the ballot before independent candidates, all of whom are grouped together in a separate row or column or spaced apart from the former. §§24.2-613, 24.2-640. Virginia law authorizes the two parties to determine for themselves how they will select their nominees — by primary, by nominating convention, or by some other method. § 24.2-509(A). The Republican Party has taken advantage of these options in past elections. Its nominee has sometimes been selected by the Party’s State Central Committee, sometimes by statewide convention, and sometimes by primary election. Whatever method is chosen, state law requires the Commonwealth to place the name of the nominee on the general election ballot.
In this dual regime, the parties “ac[t] under authority” of Virginia when they decide who will appear on the general election ballot. 28 CFR §51.7 (1995). It is uncontested that Virginia has sole authority to set the qualifications for ballot access. Pursuant to that authority, the Commonwealth has prescribed stringent criteria for access with which nearly all independent candidates and political organizations must comply. But it reserves two places on its ballot — indeed, the top two positions — for the major parties to fill with their nominees, however chosen. Those parties are effectively granted the power to enact their own qualifications for placement of candidates on the ballot, which the Commonwealth ratifies by adopting their nominees. By holding conventions, for example, the Party does not need to assemble thousands of signatures on a petition for its nominee. In some years, as few as 550 nominators have selected the Party’s candidate for United States Senate. Even in 1994, when the Party convention had its largest attendance to date, fewer nominators were present than would have been necessary to meet the petition requirement. In any event, state law permits the Party to allow as many or as few delegates as it sees fit to choose the Party nominee.
The Party is thus delegated the power to determine part of the field of candidates from which the voters must choose. Correspondingly, when Virginia incorporates the Party’s selection, it “endorses, adopts and enforces” the delegate qualifications set by the Party for the right to choose that nominee. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 664 (1944). The major parties have no inherent right to decide who may appear on the ballot. That is a privilege conferred by Virginia law, not natural law. If the Party chooses to avail itself of this delegated power over the electoral process, it necessarily becomes subject to the regulation.
In concluding that the regulation applies to the Party, we are guided by the reasoning of Smith v. Allwright, decided more than half a century ago. There, Texas gave automatic ballot access to the nominee of any party that polled a certain number of votes at the preceding general election, and required independent candidates to file nominating petitions. Id., at 653, n. 6, 663. We explained that “recognition of the place of the primary in the electoral scheme,” rather than the degree of state control over it, made clear that “state delegation to a party of the power to fix the qualifications of primary elections is delegation of a state function that may make the party’s action the action of the State.” Id., at 660. The only difference here is that Virginia has not required its political parties to conduct primary elections to nominate their candidates. But the right to choose the method of nomination makes the delegation of authority in this case more expansive, not less, for the Party is granted even greater power over the selection of its nominees. See generally L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law §13-24, p. 1121, and n. 3 (2d ed. 1988); Rotunda, Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Political Parties in the Wake of Cousins v. Wigoda, 53 Texas L. Rev. 935, 953-954 (1975); Developments in the Law—Elections, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1111, 1159-1163 (1975). By the logic of Smith, therefore, the Party acted under authority of the Commonwealth.
It is true that the example set forth in the Attorney General’s regulation describes changes in the conduct of primary elections. That example, however, does not purport to define the outer limits of the coverage of § 5. Moreover, both in its brief amicus curiae supporting appellants in this case and in its prior implementation of the regulation, the Department of Justice has interpreted it as applying to changes affecting voting at a party convention. We are satisfied that the Department’s interpretation of its own regulation is correct. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U. S. 36, 45 (1993); Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945). Accordingly, we conclude that the regulation required preclearance of the Party’s delegate filing fee.
The decision in Williams v. Democratic Party of Georgia, upon which the District Court relied in dismissing this complaint, is not to the contrary. The fact that Virginia statutes grant the nominee of the Party a position on the general election ballot graphically distinguishes the two cases. Wil- Hams did not concern the selection of nominees for state elective office, but rather a political party’s compliance with a rule promulgated by the Democratic National Party governing the selection of delegates’ to its national convention. According to the District Court’s interpretation of Georgia law, the State exercised no control over, and played no part in, the state Party’s selection of delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Because the Commonwealth delegated no authority to the Party to choose the delegates, the Party did not act under the authority, implicit or explicit, of the Commonwealth.
If anything, the logic of Williams supports application of the preclearance requirement. The District Court stated that it was “convinced that voting rights connected with the delegate election process are the type of rights Congress intended to safeguard” by passage of the Act. Civ. Action No. 16286, at 4. It declined to require the party to preclear changes in its nominating methods only because there were no administrative procedures for submission of such changes at the time of the decision. Id., at 5. Since then, however, the Attorney General has clarified that “an appropriate official of the political party” may submit party rules affecting voting for preclearance, 28 CFR § 51.23(b) (1993), thereby eliminating this one practical obstacle. Other lower courts have subsequently required preclearance of internal party rules, even when those rules do not relate to the conduct of ■primary elections. Indeed, if the rationale of Williams were still valid, § 5 would not cover party primaries either, for the party (by hypothesis) would likewise have no means of preclearing changes. But it is firmly established— and the Party does not dispute — that changes affecting primaries carried out by political parties must be precleared.
The District Court was therefore incorrect to base its decision on either the Attorney General’s regulation or on our summary affirmance in Williams. The Party’s activities fall directly within the scope of the regulation. We next conclude, based on the language and structure of the Act, and the historical background which informed the Congress that enacted it, that § 5 of its own force covers changes in electoral practices such as the Party’s imposition of a filing fee for delegates to its convention.
IV
Section 5 of the Act requires preclearance of changes in “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.” Section 14 defines the terms “vote” or “voting” to include “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, registration, listing pursuant to this subchapter, or other action required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having such ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973Z(c)(l).
Although a narrow reading of the text of the Voting Rights Act might have confined the coverage of §5 to changes in election practices that limit individual voters’ access to the ballot in jurisdictions having authority to register voters, see United States v. Sheffield Bd. of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 140-150 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 892, 914 (1994) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment), the Court has squarely rejected that construction. Shortly after the statute was passed, the Court thoroughly reviewed its legislative history and found that Congress intended § 5 to have “the broadest possible scope” reaching “any state enactment which altered the election law of a covered State in even a minor way.” Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S., at 566-567. Similarly, in Sheffield, the Court concluded that “the language of the Act does not require such a crippling interpretation, but rather is susceptible of a reading that will fully implement the congressional objectives.” 435 U. S., at 117. We expressly held that “§ 5, like the constitutional provisions it is designed to implement, applies to all entities having power over any aspect of the electoral process within designated jurisdictions, not only to counties or to whatever units of state government perform the function of registering voters.” Id., at 118. More recently we noted that §5 is “expansive within its sphere of operation” and “comprehends all changes to rules governing voting.” Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 501 (1992).
We have consistently construed the Act to require pre-clearance of any change in procedures or practices that may bear on the “effectiveness” of a vote cast in “any primary, special, or general election.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973i(c)(l). Rules concerning candidacy requirements and qualifications, we have held, fall into this category because of their potential to “undermine the effectiveness of voters who wish to elect [particular] candidates.” Allen, 393 U. S., at 570; see also Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 40 (1978). Changes in the composition of the electorate that votes for a particular office — that is, situations that raise the specter of vote dilution — also belong to this class because they could “nullify [voters’] ability to elect the candidate of their choice just as would prohibiting some of them from voting.” 393 U. S., at 569. This nexus between the changed practice and its impact on voting in the general election has been a recurring theme in our cases interpreting the Act. See Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U. S. 380, 397 (1991) (“Any abridgment of the opportunity of members of a protected class to participate in the political process inevitably impairs their ability to influence the outcome of an election”). In its reenactments and extensions of the Act, moreover, Congress has endorsed these broad constructions of § 5. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 97-417, pp. 6-7, and n. 8 (1982).
A filing fee for party delegates operates in precisely the same fashion as these covered practices. By limiting the opportunity for voters to participate in the Party’s convention, the fee undercuts their influence on the field of candidates whose names will appear on the ballot, and thus weakens the “effectiveness” of their votes cast in the general election itself. As an elementary fact about our Nation’s political system, the significance of the nominating convention to the outcome in the general election was recognized as long ago as Justice Pitney’s concurrence in Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232 (1921). Joined by Justices Brandéis and Clarke, he wrote: “As a practical matter, the ultimate choice of the mass of voters is predetermined when the nominations [by the major political parties] have been made.” Id., at 286 (opinion concurring in part). See also United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 319 (1941) (endorsing the Newberry concurrence). Just like a primary, a convention narrows the field of candidates from a potentially unwieldy number to the serious few who have a realistic chance to win the election. We have held, in fact, that the State’s compelling interest in winnowing down the candidates justifies substantial restrictions on access to the ballot. American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U. S. 767, 782, and n. 14 (1974). Virginia, no doubt, would justify its own ballot access rules — including those for the major parties — on just this basis.
We have previously recognized that § 5 extends to changes affecting nomination processes other than the primary. In Whitley v. Williams, one of the companion cases decided with Allen, this Court affirmed § 5 coverage of a scheme that placed new burdens on voters who wished to nominate independent candidates by petition. The Court was unconcerned that the changes did not directly relate to the conduct of a primary, because they had an effect on the general election. See Allen, 393 U. S., at 570. One of those changes was a requirement that each nominator sign the petition personally and state his or her polling precinct and county. See id., at 551. Like the filing fee in this case, that condition made it more difficult for voters to participate in the nomination process, and therefore properly fell within §5’s scope. A fee of $45 to cast a vote for the Party nominee is, if anything, a more onerous burden than a mere obligation to include certain public information about oneself next to one’s name on a nominating petition. In dissent, Justice Harlan agreed that “the nominating petition is the functional equivalent of the political primary.” Id., at 592 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Delegate qualifications are in fact more closely tied to the voting process than practices that may cause vote dilution, whose coverage under § 5 we have repeatedly upheld. Virginia, like most States, has effectively divided its election into two stages, the first consisting of the selection of party candidates and the second being the general election itself. See United States v. Classic, 313 U. S., at 316. Exclusion' from the earlier stage, as two appellants in this case experienced, does not merely curtail their voting power, but abridges their right to vote itself. To the excluded voter who cannot cast a vote for his or her candidate, it is all the same whether the party conducts its nomination by a primary or by a convention open to all party members except those kept out by the filing fee. Each is an “integral part of the election machinery.” Id., at 318.
The reference to “party office” in § 14, which defines the terms “vote” and “voting” as they appear throughout the Act, reinforces this construction of §5. Section 14 specifically recognizes that the selection of persons for “party office” is one type of action that may determine the effectiveness of a vote in the general election. Delegates to a party convention are party officers. See H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 32 (1965) (“Thus, for example, an election of delegates to a State party convention would be covered by the act”). The phrase “votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office” in § 14 is broad enough to encompass a variety of methods of voting beyond a formal election. Cf. Classic, 313 U. S., at 318. The Party itself recognizes this point, for both in its brief to this Court and in its Plan of Organization, it repeatedly characterizes its own method of selecting these delegates as an “election.”
The legislative history of § 14 supports this interpretation. Representative Bingham proposed addition of the term “party office” to the language of the section for the express purpose of extending coverage of the Act to the nominating activities of political parties. See Hearings on H. R. 6400 before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 466-457 (1965) (proposing coverage of “political party meetings, councils, conventions, and referendums which lead to endorsement or selection of candidates who will run in primary or general elections”). Congressional concern that the Act reach the selection of party delegates was not merely speculative. On the floor of the House, Representative Bingham expressed the importance of preventing a reprise of the fiasco of the previous year, 1964, “when the regular Democratic delegation from Mississippi to the Democratic National Convention was chosen through a series of Party caucuses and conventions from which Negroes were excluded.” Ill Cong. Rec. 16273 (1965); see also Hearings on H. R. 6400, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 456 (“The events of 1964 demonstrate the need” to expand § 14). As he later explained, the solution that was reached to this problem was “to add to the definition of the word ‘vote’ in section 14(c)(1).” Ill Cong. Rec. 16273. The Party’s delegates to its 1994 convention were chosen through precisely the same methods Representative Bingham described: mass meetings, conventions, and canvasses. Exempting the Party from the scope of § 14 would thus defeat the purpose for which the House and eventually Congress as a whole adopted Representative Bingham’s amendment.
The text of § 2 also makes apparent the Act’s intended coverage of nonprimary nomination methods. Section 2, which bans any “voting qualification or prerequisite” that discriminates on account of race or color, considers a violation to have occurred if “the 'political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of [groups protected by the Act] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b) (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). Under the broad sweep of this language, exclusion from a nominating convention would qualify as a violation. Section 2 “adopts the functional view of 'political process’” and applies to “any phase of the electoral process.” S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 30, and n. 120.
If such practices and procedures fall within the scope of § 2, they must also be subject to § 5. In recent cases, some Members of this Court have questioned whether §2 is as broad as § 5, see Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U. S., at 416-417 (Scalia, J., dissenting); Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S., at 882-885 (opinion of Kennedy, J.); id., at 930 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment), but there has never been any doubt about the converse — that changes in practices within covered jurisdictions that would be potentially objectionable under §2 are also covered under §5. The purpose of preclearance is to prevent all attempts to implement discriminatory voting practices that change the status quo. If § 5 were narrower than § 2, then a covered jurisdiction would not need to pre-clear changes in voting practices known to be illegal. “It is unlikely that Congress intended such an anomalous result.” Chisom, 501 U. S., at 402.
A fair reading of the text of § 5 unquestionably supports the conclusion that by imposing its filing fee the Party sought to administer a “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, 1968.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1988 ed.).
V
Consideration of the history that led to passage of the Act confirms our construction of § 5. The preamble to the statute expressly identifies the “fifteenth amendment” as the constitutional provision the Act was designed to implement. Our cases dealing with the applicability of that Amendment to the selection of party candidates in States that engaged in the sort of voting discrimination that § 5 was designed to remedy are therefore directly relevant. See McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S. 236, 246 (1984) (interpreting Act “in light of its prophylactic purpose and the historical experience which it reflects”); Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S., at 37 (seeking “guidance from the history and purpose of the Act”). In a series of decisions known as the White Primary Cases, this Court applied the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to strike down a succession of measures by authorities in Texas to exclude minority voters from their nomination processes. These cases demonstrate that electoral practices implemented by political parties have the potential to “den[y] or abridg[e] the right to vote on account of race or color,” which § 5 prohibits. 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1988 ed.).
Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 (1927), involved the validity of a Texas statute enacted in 1923 that flatly provided “‘in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas,’” id., at 540. It took only a paragraph for Justice Holmes to conclude that it was “unnecessary to consider the Fifteenth Amendment, because it seems to us hard to imagine a more direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth.” Id., at 540-541. Promptly after the announcement of that decision, the Texas Legislature responded to what it regarded as an emergency by replacing the invalid provision with a substitute that authorized the executive committee of every political party to determine “in its own way” who shall be “qualified to vote or otherwise participate in such political party.” Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73, 82 (1932). The State Executive Committee of the Democratic Party adopted a rule that only “white democrats” could participate in the party’s primary elections. Pursuant to that rule, Mr. Nixon was again refused a primary ballot and again persuaded this Court that the authors of the discriminatory rule should be “classified as representatives of the State to such an extent and in such a sense that the great restraints of the Constitution set limits to their action.” Id., at 89.
The decision in Nixon v. Condon relied on the fact that a state statute authorized the Party’s Executive Committee to determine the qualifications of voters. Thereafter the Party implemented the same discriminatory policy without statutory authorization by adopting a resolution at a state convention restricting party membership to “white persons.” When it first confronted the issue, the Court held that implementation of that rule was not state action. Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U. S. 45 (1935). A few years later, however, Grovey was overruled and the Court decided that the resolution adopted by the party’s state convention constituted state action violative of the Fifteenth Amendment even though it was not expressly authorized by statute. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944). We wrote:
“The United States is a constitutional democracy. Its organic law grants to all citizens a right to participate in the choice of elected officials without restriction by any State because of race. This grant to the people of the opportunity for choice is not to be nullified by a State through casting its electoral process in a form which permits a private organization to practice racial discrimination in the election. Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be thus indirectly denied. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 275 [(1939)].” Id., at 664.
The same policy of excluding all nonwhite voters from the electoral process was thereafter implemented in certain Texas counties by a private organization known as the Jaybird Democratic Association. It conducted a so-called “Jaybird primary” at which white voters selected candidates who thereafter ran in and nearly always won the Democratic Party’s primary and the general election. Although the Jaybirds had no official status, received no state funds, and conducted a purely private election, the Court readily concluded that this voluntary association’s exclusion of black voters from its primaries on racial grounds was prohibited by the Fifteenth Amendment. Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953). Citing our earlier cases, Justice Clark tersely noted that an “old pattern in new guise is revealed by the record.” Id., at 480 (concurring opinion).
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1964 because it concluded that case-by-case enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment, as exemplified by the history of the white primary in Texas, had proved ineffective to stop discriminatory voting practices in certain areas of the country on account of the intransigence of officials who “resorted to the extraordinary stratagem of contriving new rules of various kinds for the sole purpose of perpetuating voting discrimination in the face of adverse federal court decrees.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 335 (citing H. R. Rep. No. 439, at 10-11; S. Rep. No. 162, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, pp. 8, 12 (1965)). The preclearance system of § 5 was designed to end this evasion once and for all. By prohibiting officials in covered jurisdictions from implementing any change in voting practices without prior approval from the District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General, it sought to “shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 328.
The distinction between a primary and a nominating convention is just another variation in electoral practices that §5 was intended to cover. The imposition of a $45 fee on the privilege of participating in the selection of the Party’s nominee for the United States Senate is equally a practice or procedure relating to voting whether the selection is made by primary election or by a “convention” in which every voter willing to pay the fee is eligible to cast a vote. A primary election would not cease to be a practice relating to voting if the Party imposed such a high fee that only 14,000 voters cast ballots; nor should a “convention” performing the same electoral function as a primary avoid coverage because fewer voters participate in the process than normally vote in a primary. As was true in Sheffield, “the District Court’s interpretation of the Act... makes § 5 coverage depend upon a factor completely irrelevant to the Act’s purposes, and thereby permits precisely the kind of circumvention of congressional policy that §5 was designed to prevent.” 435 U. S., at 117. It would undermine the Act to permit “ ‘[s]uch a variation in the result from so slight a change in form.’ ” Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S., at 465, n. 1 (quoting Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S., at 661).
Section 5 coverage of nominating conventions follows directly from our decision in Terry. Although called a “primary,” the Jaybird election was the equivalent of the Party’s nominating convention, for it did not involve the State’s electoral apparatus in even the slightest way — neither to supply election officials, nor ballots, nor polling places. See 345 U. S., at 471 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). In fact, the Jaybirds went far beyond the Party in immunizing their nomination process from the State’s control. The Jaybird nominee did not receive any form of automatic ballot access. He filed individually as a candidate in the Democratic primary, paid the filing fee, and complied with all requirements to which other candidates were subject
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An information was filed against the respondent Geraldine Little in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia charging that she had interfered with a District Health Department inspector in the performance of his official duties. The evidence showed that respondent had told the health officer, who had no search warrant, not to enter her home to inspect its sanitary condition; she had also refused to unlock her door. She was convicted and fined $25. The Municipal Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures forbade the health officer to enter respondent’s private home without a search warrant. 62 A. 2d 874. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed on the same grounds. 85 U. S. App. D. C. 242, 178 F. 2d 13. The case raises important questions concerning legal provisions for protecting the health of the people by special and periodic inspection and elimination of potential sources of disease. We granted certiorari, 338 U. S. 866.
In this Court the constitutional arguments have extended far beyond the comparatively narrow issues involved in the particular case. At one extreme the District argues that the Fourth Amendment has no application whatever to inspections and investigations made by health officers; that to preserve the public health, officers may without judicial warrants enter premises, public buildings and private residences at any reasonable hour, with or without the owner’s consent. At the opposite extreme, it is argued that no sanitary inspection can ever be made by health officers without a search warrant, except with a property owner’s consent. Between these two extremes are suggestions that the Fourth Amendment requires search warrants to inspect premises where the object of inspections is to obtain evidence for criminal punishment or where there are conditions imminently dangerous to life and health, but that municipalities and other governing agencies may lawfully provide for general routine inspections at reasonable hours without search warrants. An impressive array of facts is also presented concerning the uniform practices of agencies of local governments to provide for such general routine inspections in connection with sanitation, plumbing, buildings, etc.
Neither the facts of this case, nor the District law on which the prosecution rests, provide a basis for a sweeping determination of the Fourth Amendment’s application to all these varied types of investigations, inspections and searches. Yet a decision of the constitutional requirement for a search in this particular case might have far-reaching and unexpected implications as to closely related questions not now before us. This is therefore an appropriate case in which to apply our sound general policy against deciding constitutional questions if the record permits final disposition of a cause on non-constitutional grounds. See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 568-575, and cases there cited. Applying this policy, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the Fourth Amendment required a search warrant here. For even if the Health Officer had a lawful right to inspect the premises without a warrant, we are persuaded that respondent’s statements to the officer were not an “interference” that made her guilty of a misdemeanor under the controlling District law.
The District regulation which respondent was convicted of violating is set out in part below. It requires that occupants of premises in the District shall keep them “clean and wholesome”; that Health Officers shall “examine or cause to be examined any building supposed or reported to be in an unsanitary condition”; and that “any person violating . . . any of the provisions of these regulations, or interfering with or preventing any inspection authorized thereby, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .” An occupant of respondent’s house reported to the Health Officer that conditions inside her home were very far from “clean and wholesome.” The Health Officer then went to respondent’s home. She was away and the doo'r was locked. The officer had no search warrant. While he was standing outside the door, respondent returned. She protested the right of the inspector to enter her private home, claiming that his entry would violate her constitutional rights. She neither used nor threatened force of any kind. In view of these facts found by the courts below, the question boils down to whether respondent’s mere refusal to unlock the door accompanied by remonstrances on substantial constitutional grounds was the kind of interference prohibited by the regulation. We hold that it was not.
Although force or threatened force is not always an indispensable ingredient of the offense of interfering with an officer in the discharge of his duties, mere remonstrances or even criticisms of an officer are not usually held to be the equivalent of unlawful interference. Nor does any express language in the District regulation controlling here impose any duty on home owners to assist health officers to enter and inspect their homes. It does not even prohibit “hindering” or “refusing to permit any lawful inspection,” in sharp contrast with a separate inspection statute enacted by Congress for the District which adds these phrases to prohibitions against “interference” and “prevention.” The word “interfere” in this regulation cannot fairly be interpreted to encompass respondent’s failure to unlock her door and her remonstrances on constitutional grounds.
Had the respondent not objected to the officer’s entry of her house without a search warrant, she might thereby have waived her constitutional objections. The right to privacy in the home holds too high a place in our system of laws to justify a statutory interpretation that would impose a criminal punishment on one who does nothing more than respondent did here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the Municipal Court of Appeals judgment setting aside the conviction is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Burton,
with whom
Mr. Justice Reed concurs, dissenting.
If this Court is to interpret an ordinance of the District of Columbia, it seems to me that the action of the respondent was an effective interference with an inspector of the District Health Department in the performance of his official duties, and that such conduct of the respondent violated the ordinance that is before us. In my opinion, also, the duties which the inspector was seeking to perform, under the authority of the District, were of such a reasonable, general, routine, accepted and important character, in the protection of the public health and safety, that they were being performed lawfully without such a search warrant as is required by the Fourth Amendment to protect the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Accordingly, the conviction of the respondent should be sustained, and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court of Appeals setting aside that conviction should be reversed.
The lower courts, apparently preoccupied with the constitutional issue, did not refer to this question. Ordinarily we would hesitate to decide questions of District law on which the courts of the District have not spoken. See, e. g., Griffin v. United States, 336 U. S. 704, 718, and cases there cited. Here, however, the interpretative question is so enmeshed with constitutional issues that complete disposition by this Court is in order.
“2. That it shall be the duty of every person occupying any premises, or any part of any premises, in the District of Columbia, or if such premises be not occupied, of the owner thereof, to keep such premises or part . . . clean and wholesome; if, upon inspection by the Health Officer or an Inspector of the Health Department it be ascertained that any such premises, or any part thereof, or any building, yard, ... is not in such condition as herein required, the occupant or occupants of such premises or part, or the owner thereof, as hereinbefore specified, shall be notified thereof and required to place the same in a clean and wholesome condition; and in case any person shall fail or neglect to place such premises or part in such condition within the time allowed by said notice he shall be liable to the penalties hereinafter provided.
“10. That the Health Officer shall examine or cause to be examined any building supposed or reported to be in an unsanitary condition, and make a record of such examination; . . . .
“12. That any person violating, or aiding or abetting in violating, any of the provisions of these regulations, or interfering with or preventing any inspection authorized thereby, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction in the Police Court, be punished by a fine of not less than $5 nor more than $45.” Commissioners’ Regulations Concerning the'Use and Occupancy of Buildings and Grounds, promulgated April 22, 1897, amended July 28, 1922.
The complaint was that “there was an accumulation of loose and uncovered garbage and trash in the halls of said premises and that certain of the persons residing therein had failed to avail themselves of the toilet facilities.”
There was evidence that some distance away from the home respondent attempted to grab some papers from the officer. The Municipal Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the District both held that the information on which respondent was convicted was not based on this incident. Those courts and the Municipal Court in which respondent was convicted all treated the conviction as having been based on respondent’s refusal to unlock the door on the ground that the officer was without constitutional right to enter.
The information charged that respondent “did . . . hinder, obstruct, and interfere with an inspector of the Health Department . . . .” The regulation on which the prosecution was based does not include the words “hinder” and “obstruct.” These words do appear in an Act of Congress which provides for an abatement of nuisances in the District and specifically authorizes persons delegated by the District Commissioners to enter premises “during all reasonable hours, to inspect the same and to do whatever may be necessary to correct” a condition amounting to a nuisance. 34 Stat. 115. But that Act is not involved in this case.
See cases collected in Notes, 48 A. L. R. 746, 749, 755; Ann. Cas. 1914B, 814.
“Sec. 11. That no person shall interfere with any member of the board for the condemnation of insanitary buildings or with any person acting under authority and by direction of said board in the discharge of his lawful duties, nor hinder, prevent, or refuse to permit any lawful inspection or the performance of any work authorized by this Act to be done by or by authority and direction of said board.” 34 Stat. 157, 159.
There is another interesting difference between the above statute and the regulation here involved. The statute expressly limits inspection to the hours between 8 a. m. and 5 p. m.; the regulation has no limitation of this or indeed of any other type, though petitioner admits that a requirement of “reasonableness” should be read into it. See also 49 Stat. 1917,1919, § 10.
See collections cited in note 6 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.
Me. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These appeals present questions concerning the constitutionality of the so-called Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (Act), and the implementing regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Act, Pub. L. 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114, 12 U. S. C. §§ 1730d, 1829b, 1951-1959, and 31 Ü. S. C. §§ 1051-1062, 1081-1083, 1101-1105, 1121-1122, was enacted by Congress in 1970 following extensive hearings concerning the unavailability of foreign and domestic bank records of customers thought to be engaged in activities entailing criminal or civil liability. Under the Act, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe by regulation certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements for banks and other financial institutions in this country. Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.
The express purpose of the Act is to require the maintenance of records, and the making of certain reports/ which “have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings.” 12 U. S. C. §§ 1829b (a)(2), 1951; 31 U. S. C. §1051. Congress was apparently concerned with two major problems in connection with the enforcement of the regulatory, tax, and criminal laws of the United States.
First, there was a need.to insure that domestic banks and financial institutions continue to maintain adequate records of their financial transactions with their customers. Congress found that the recent growth of financial institutions in the United States had been paralleled by an increase in criminal activity which made use of these institutions.. While mány of the records which the Secretary by regulation ultimately required to be kept had been traditionally maintained by the voluntary action of many domestic fináncial institutions, Congress noted that in recent years some larger banks had abolished or limited the practice of photocopying checks, drafts, and similar instruments drawn on them and presented for payment. The absence of such records, whether through failure to make them in the, first instance or through failure to retain them, was thought to seriously impair the ability of the Federal Government to enforce the myriad criminal, tax, and regulatory provisions of laws which Congress had enacted. At the same time, it was recognized by Congress that such required records would “not be made automatically available for law enforcement purposes [but could] only be obtained through existing legal process.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-975, p. 10 (1970); see S. Rep. No. 91-1139, p. 5 (1970).
In addition, Congress felt that there were situations where the deposit and withdrawal of large amounts of currency or of monetary instruments which were the equivalent of currency should be actually reported to the Government. While reports of this nature had been required by previous regulations issued by the Treasury Department, it was felt that more precise and detailed reporting requirements were needed. The Secretary was therefore authorized to require the reporting of what may be described as large domestic financial transactions in. currency or its equivalent.
Second, Congress was concerned about a serious and widespread use of foreign financial institutions, located in jurisdictions with strict laws of secrecy as to bank activity, for the purpose of violating or evading-domestic criminal, tax, and regulatory enactments. The House Report on the bill, No. 91-975, supra, at 12-13, described the situation in these words:
“Considerable testimony was received by the Committee from the Justice Department, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Defense Department and the Agency for International Development about serious and wide-, spread use of foreign financial facilities located in secrecy jurisdictions for the purpose of violating American law. Secret foreign bank accounts and secret foreign financial institutions have permitted proliferation of ‘white collar’ crime; have served as the financial underpinning of organized criminal operations in the United States; have been.utilized by Americans to evade income taxes, conceal assets illegally and purchase gold; have allowed Americans and others to avoid the law and regulations governing securities and exchanges; have served as essential ingredients in frauds including schemes to defraud the United States; have served as the ultimate depository of black market proceeds from Vietnam; have served as a source of questionable financing for conglomerate and other corporate stock acquisitions, mergers and takeovers; have covered conspiracies to steal from the U. S. defense and foreign aid. funds; and have sérved as the cleansing agent for ‘hot’ or illegally obtained monies.
“The debilitating effects of the use of these secret institutions on Americans and the American economy are vast. It' has been estimated that hundreds of millions in tax revenues have been lost. Unwarranted and unwanted credit is being pumped into our markets. There have been some cases of corporation directors,, officers and employees who, through deceit and violation of law, enriched themselves or endangered the financial soundness of their companies to the detriment of their.stockholders. Criminals engaged in illegal gambling, skimming, and narcotics traffic are opérating their financial affairs with an impunity that approaches statutory exemption.
“When law enforcement personnel are confronted with the secret foreign bank account or the secret financial institution they are placed in an impossible position. In order to receive evidence and testimony regarding activities in the' secrecy jurisdiction they must subject themselves to a time consuming and ofttimes fruitless foreign legal process. Even when procedural obstacles are overcome, the foreign jurisdictions rigidly' enforce their secrecy laws against.their own domestic institutions and employees.
“One of the most damaging effects of an American’s-use of secret foreign financial facilities is its undermining of the fairness of our tax laws. Secret foreign financial facilities, particularly in Switzerland, are available only to the wealthy. • To open a secret Swiss account normally requires a substantial deposit, but such an account offers a convenient means of evading U. S. taxes, in these days when the citizens of this country are crying out for tax reform and relief, it is grossly unfair to leave the secret foreign bank account open as a convenient avenue of tax evasion. The former U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has characterized the secret foreign bank account as the largest single tax loophole permitted by American law.”' '
While most of the recordkeéping requirements imposed by the Secretary under the Act merely require the banks to keep records which, most of them had in the past voluntarily kept and retained, and while much, of the required reporting of domestic transactions had been required by earlier Treasury regulations in effect for nearly 30 years, there is no denying the impressive sweep of the authority conferred upon the Secretary by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. While an. Act conferring such broad authority over transactions such as these might well surprise or even shock those who. lived in an earlier era, the latter did not live to see. the time when bank accounts would join. chocolate, cheese, and watches as a symbol of the Swiss economy. Nor did they live to see the heavy utilization of our domestic banking system by the minions of organized crime as well as by millions of legitimate businessmen. The challenges made here to, the Bank Secrecy Act are directed not to any want of legislative authority in Congress to treat the subject,.but instead to the Act’s asserted violation of specific constitutional prohibitions.
I
- Title I of the Act, and the implementing regulations promulgatedfherei mder "by the Secretary of the Treasury, require financial institutions t' maintain records of the identities of. their customers, to make microfilm copies of certain checks drawn on them, and to keep records of certain other items.. Title II of the Act and its'implementing regulations require reports of certain domestic and foreign currency transactions.
A. Title I — The Recordkeeping Requirements
. Title I of the Act contains the general record-keeping requirements for banks and other financial institutions, as provided by the Secretary by regulation. Section 101 of the Act, 12 U. S. C. § 1829b, applies by its terms only to federally insured banks. It contains congressional, findings “that adequate records maintained by insured banks have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations and proceedings.” :The major requirements of the section are that insured banks record the identities of persons having accounts with them and of persons having signature authority thereover, in such form as the Secretary may require. To the extent that the Secretary determines by regulation that süch records would have the requisite “high degree of usefulness,” the banks must make and maintain microfilm or other reproductions of each check, draft, or other instrument drawn on it and presented to it for payment, and must maintain a record of each check, draft, or other instrument received by it for deposit or collection, together with an identification-of the party for whose account it is to be deposited or collected. Section 101 further authorizes the Secretary to require insured banks to maintain a record of the identity of all individuals who engage in transactions which are reportable by the bank under Title II of the Act, and authorizes the Secretary to prescribe the required retention period for such records. Section 102, 12 U. S. C. § I730d, amends the National Housing Act to authorize the Secretary to apply similar recordkeeping requirements to. institutions insured thereunder. Sections 122-123 of the Act, 12 U. S..'C. §§ 1952-1953, authorize the Secretary 'to issue regulations applying similar recordkeeping requirements to additional domestic financial, institutions.
Although an initial draft of Title I, see H. R. 15073, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., would have compelled the Secretary to promulgate regulations requiring banks to maintain copies of all items received for collection or presented for payment, the Act as- finally passed required the maintenance only of such records and microfilm copies as the Secretary determined to have a “high degree of usefulness.” Upon passage of the Act, the • Treasury Department established a task force which consulted with representatives from financial institutions, trade associations, and governmental agencies to determine the type of records whicn.should be maintained. Whereas the original regulations promulgated by the Secretary had. required the copying of all checks, the task force decided, and the regulations were accordingly.amended, to require check copying only as to checks in excess of $100. The regulations also require the copying of-only “on us” checks: checks drawn on the bank or issued and payable by it. 31 CFR § 103.34 (b) (3). The regulations exempt from the copying requirements certain “on us” checks such as dividend, payroll, and employee benefit checks, provided they are drawn on an account expected to average at least one hundred checks per month. The regulations also require banks to maintain records of the identity and taxpayer identification number of each person maintaining a financial interest in each deposit or share account opened after June 30, 1972, and to microfilm various other financial documents. 31 CFR § 103.34. In addition, the Secretary’s regulations require all financial institutions to maintain a microfilm, or other copy of each extension of credit in an amount exceeding $5,000 except those secured by interest in real property, and to microfilm each advice, request, or instruction given or received regarding the transfer of funds, currency, or other money or credit in amounts exceeding $10,000 to a person, account, or place outside the United States.' 31 CFR § 103.33.
Reiterating the stated intent of the Congress, see, e. g., H, R. Rep.-No. 91-975, supra, at 10;' S. Rep. No. 91-1139, supra, at 5, the regulations provide that inspection, review, or access to the records required by the Act to be maintained is governed by existing legal process. 31 CFR § 103.51. Finally, §§ 125-127 of the Act provide for civil and criminal penalties for willful violations of the recordkeeping requirements. 12 U. S. C. §§ 1955-1957.
B. Title II — Foreign Financial Transaction. •Reporting Requirements
Chapter 3 of Title II of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder generally require persons to report the transportation of monetary instruments into or out of the United States, or receipts of such instruments in the United States from places outside the United States, if the transportation or receipt involves instruments of a value greater than $5,000. Chapter 4 of Title II of the Act and the implementing regulations generally require United States citizens, residents, and businessmen to file- reports of their relationships with foreign financial institutions. The legislative history of the foreign-transaction reporting provisions indicates that the Congress was concerned with the circumvention of United States regulatory, tax, and criminal laws which United States citizens and residents were accomplishing through the medium of secret foreign bank transactions. S. Rep. No. 91-1139, supra, at 7; H. R. Rep. No..91-975, supra, at 13.
Section 231 of the Act, 31 U. S. C. § 1101, requires anyone connected with the transaction to report, in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, the transportation into or out' of the country of monetary instruments exceeding $5,000 on any one occasion. As prQvided by the Secretary’s regulations, the report must include information as to the amount of the instrument, the date of receipt, the form of instrument, and the person'from whom it was réceived. See 31 CFR §§ 103.23, 103.25. The regulations exempt various Glasses of persons from this reporting requirement, including banks, brokers of other dealers in securities, common carriers, and others engaged in the business of transporting currency •for banks. 31 CFR § 103.23 (c). Monetary instruments which are transported without the filing of a required report, or with a materially erroneous report, are subject to forfeiture under § 232 of the Act, • 31. U. S. C. §1102; a person who has failed to file the required report or who has filed a false report is subject to civil penalties Under §§ 207 and 233, 31 U. S. C. §§ 1056 and 1103, as well as criminal penalties under §§ 209 and 210, 31 U. S. C. §§ 1058 and 1059.
Section 241 of the Act, 31 U. S. C. § 1121, authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations requiring residents and citizens of the United States, as well as nonresidents iri the United States and doing business therein, to maintain records and file reports with respect to their transactions and relationships with foreign financial agencies. Pursuant to this authority, the regulations require each person subject to. the jurisdiction of. the United States to make a report on yearly tax returns of ány “financial interest in, or signature" or other authority over, a bank, securities or other financial account in a foreign country.” 31 CFR §103.24. Violations of the reporting requirement of § 241 as implemented by the regulations are also subject to civil and criminal penalties under §§ 207, 209, and- 210 of the Act, 31 U. S. C. §§ 1056, 1058, and 1059. -
C. Title II — Domestic Financial Transaction Reporting Requirements
In addition to the foreign transaction reporting requirements discussed above, Title II of the Act provides for certain reports of domestic transactions where such reports have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations-or proceedings. Prior to the enactment of the Act, financial institutions had been providing reports of their customers’ large currency transactions pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Treasury which had required reports of all currency transactions that, in the judgment of the institution, exceeded those “commensurate with the customary conduct of the business, industry ■ or profession of the person or organization concerned.” In passing the Act, Congress recognized that the use of financial institutions, both domestic and foreign, in furtherance of activities designed to evade the regulatory mechanisms of" the United States, had markedly increased. H. R. Rep. No. 91-975, supra, at 10; S. Rep. No. 91-1139,, supra, at 2-3. Congress recognized the importance of reports of large and unusual currency transactions in ferreting out criminal activity and desired to strengthen the statutory basis for requiring such reports. H. R., Rep. No. 91-975, supra, at 11-12. in particular, Congress intended to authorize.more definite standards for determining what constitutes the type of unusual transaction that should be reported.. S. Rep. No. 91-1139, supra, at 6.
Section 221 of the Act, 31 U. S. C. § 1081, therefore delegates to the Secretary the authority for specifying the currency transactions which should be reported, “if they involve the payment, receipt, or transfer of United States currency, or such other monetary instruments as the Secretary may specify.” Section 222 of -the Act, 31 U. S. C. § 1082, provides that the Secretary may require such reports from the domestic financial institution involved or the parties to the transactions or both. Section 223 of the Act, 31 U. S. C. § 1083, authorizes the Secretary to designate financial institu- • tions to receive such reports.
In the implementing regulations promulgated under this authority, the Secretary has required only that financial institutions file certain reports with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The regulations require that a report be made for each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other. payment or transfer “which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000.” 31 CFR § 103.22. The regulations exempt from the reporting requirement certain intrabank transactions and “transactions with an established customer maintaining a deposit. relationship [in amounts] commensurate with the customary conduct of the business, industry, or profession of the customer concerned.” Ibid. Provision is also made in the regulations whereby information obtained by tlie Secretary may in some instances and in confidence be available to other departments or agencies of the United States. 31 CFR § 103.43; see 31 U. S. C. § 1061. There is also provision made in the regulations whereby the Secretary may in his sole discretion make exceptions to or grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulation. 31 CFR § 103.45 (a). Failure to file the required report or the.filing of a false report subjects the banks to criminal and civil penalties. 31 U. S. C. §§ 1056, 1058, 1059.
II
This litigation began- in June 1972 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Various plaintiffs applied for a temporary-restraining order prohibiting the defendants, including the Secretary of the Treasury and heads of other federal agencies, from enforcing the provisions of -the Bank Secrecy Act, enacted by Congress on October 26, 1970, and thereafter implemented by the Treasury regulations. The plaintiffs below included- several named individual bank customers, the Security National Bank, the California Bankers Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), suing on behalf of itself and its various bank customer members.
The plaintiffs’ principal contention in the District Court was that the Act and the regulations were violative of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. The complaints also alleged that the Act violated the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the enforcement of the foreign and domestic reporting provisions of Title II of the Act, and requested the convening of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284 to entertain the myriad of constitutional challenges to the Act.
The three-judge District Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the recordkeeping requirements of. Title 1 of the Act and the accompanying regulations, and the requirements of Title II of the Act and the regulations for reports concerning the import and export of currency and monetary instruments and relationships with foreign financial institutions. The District Court concluded, however, with one judge dissenting, that the domestic reporting provisions of §§ 221-223 of Title II of the Act, 31 U. S. C. §§ 1081-1083, were repugnant to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. 347 F. Supp. 1242 (1972). The court held that since the domestic reporting provisions oflthe Act permitted the Secretary of the Treasury to require detailed reports of virtually ¿11 domestic financial transactions, including those involving personal Checks and drafts, and since the Act could conceivably be administered in such a manner- as to compel disclosure of all details of a customer’s financial affairs, the domestic reporting provisions must fall as facially violative of the Fourth Amendment. Their enforcement was. enjoined.
. Both the plaintiffs and the Government defendants filed timely notices of appeal from the portions of the District Court judgment adverse to them. We noted probable jurisdiction oyer three separate appeals from the. decision below pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1252 and 1253. 414 ü. S. 816 (1973): k
No. 72-985. The apDellant i» this appeal is the California.Bankers Association, an association of all state and national banks doing business in California! The Association challenges the constitutionality of the record-keeping provisions of Title I, as implemented by the regulations, on two grounds. First, the Association contends that the Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because there is no rational relationship between the objectives of the Act and the recordkeeping required, and because the Act places an unreasonable burden on the Association’s member banks. Second, the Association contends that the recordkeeping requirements of Title I violate the First Amendment right of privacy and anonymity of the member' banks’ customers.
No. 72-1196. This appeal was filed on behalf of a number of plaintiffs in the original suit in the District Court: on behalf of the Security National Bank, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union as a depositor in a bank subject to the recordkeeping requirements, and as a representative of its bank customer members, and on behalf of certain bank customers. The appeal first challenges the constitutionality of the recordkeeping requirements of Title I of the Act and the implementing regulations, as does the appeal in No. 72-985, supra. Second, the appeal challenges the constitutionality of the foreign financial transaction reporting requirements of Title II of the Act and the implementing regulations. These recordkeeping and foreign reporting requirements are challenged on three grounds: first, that the.requirements constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; second, that the requirements constitute a coerced creation and retention of documents in violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege- against compulsory self-incrimination; and third, that the requirements violate the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association.
No. 72-1073. In this appeal, the Secretary of the Treasury, as appellant, challenges that portion of the District Court’s order holding the domestic financial transaction reporting requirements of Title II to violate the Fourth Amendment. The Government contends that the District Court erred in holding these provisions of Title If to be unconstitutional on their face, without considering the actual implementation of the statute by the Treasury. regulations. The Government' urges that since only those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulations issued by th,e Secretary of the Treasury, and not the broad authorizing language of the statute, which are to be tested against the standards of the Fourth Amendment; and that when so tested they are valid.
For convenience, we will refer throughout the remainder of this opinion to the District Court plaintiffs as plaintiffs, since they are both appellants and appellees in. the appeals filed in this Court.
Ill
We entertain serious doubt as to the standing of the plaintiff California Bankers Association to litigate the claims which it asserts here. Its complaint alleged that it is an unincorporated association consisting of 158 state and national banks doing business in California. So far. as appears from the complaint, the Association is not in any way engaged in the banking business, and is not even subject to the Secretary’s regulations-which it challenges. While the District Court found that the Association sued on behalf of its member banks, the Association’s complaint contains no such allegation. The Association seeks to litigate, not only claims on behalf of its member banks, but also claims of injury to the depositors of its member banks.. Since the Government has not questioned the standing of. the Association to litigate the claims peculiar to banks, and more importantly since plaintiff Security National Bank has standing as an affected bank, and therefore determination of the Association’s standing would in no way avoid resolution of any constitutional issues, we assume without deciding that the Association does have standing. See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179, 189 (1973); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 739 (1972); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428 (1963).
We proceed then to consider the initial contention of the bank plaintiffs that the recordkeeping requirements imposed by the Secretary’s regulations under the authority of Title I deprive the banks of due process by imposing unreasonable burdens upon them, and by seeking to make the banks the agents of the Government in surveillance of its citizens. Such recordkeeping requirements are scarcely a novelty. The Internal Revenue Code, for example, contains a general authorization to th$ Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe by regulation records to be kept by both business and individual taxpayers, 26 U. S. C. § 6001, which has been implemented by the Secretary in various regulations. And this Court has been faced with numerous cases involving similar recordkeeping requirements. Similar requirements imposed on the countless businesses subject to the Emergency Price Control Act during the Second World War were upheld in Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1 (1948), the Court observing that there was “a sufficient relation between the activity sought to be regulated and the public concern so that the Government can constitutionally regulate or forbid the basic activity concerned, and can constitutionally require the keeping of particular records, subject to inspection....” Id., at 32. In United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100 (1941), the Court held that employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act could be required to keep records of wages paid and hours worked:
“Since, as we have held, Congress may require production foyinterstate commerce to conform to [wage and hour] conditions, it may require the employer, as a means of enforcing the valid law, to keep a record showing whether he has in fact complied with it.” Id., at 125.
We see no. reason to reach a different result here. The plenary authority of Congress over both interstate and-foreign commerce is not open to dispute, and that body was not limited to any one particular approach to effectuate its concern that negotiable instruments moving in the channels of that commerce were significantly aiding criminal enterprise. The Secretary of the Treasury, authorized by Congress, concluded that copying and retention of certain negotiable instruments by the bank upon which they were drawn would facilitate the detec-' tion and apprehension of participants in such criminal enterprises. Congress could have closed the channels of commerce entirely to negotiable instruments, had it thought that so drastic a solution were warranted; it could have made the transmission of the proceeds of any criminal activity by negotiable instruments in interstate or foreign commerce a separate criminal offense. Had it chosen to do the latter, under the precise authority of Darby or Shapiro, supra, it could have required that each individual engaging in the sending of negotiable instruments through the channels of commerce maintain a record of such action: the ban^; plaintiffs concede as much.
The bank plaintiffs contend, however, that the Act does not have as its primary purpose regulation of the banks themselves, arid therefore the requirement that the banks keep the records is an unreasonable burden on the banks. Shapiro and Darby, which involved legislation imposing recordkeeping requirements in aid of substantive regulation, are therefore said not to control. But provisions requiring reporting or recordkeeping by the paying institution, rather than the individual who receives the payment, are by no means unique. The Internal Revenue Code and its regulations, for example, contain provisions which require businesses to report income payments to third parties (26 U. S. C. § 6041 (a)), employers to keep records of certain payments made to employees (Treas. Reg. § 31.6001 et seq.)f corporations to report dividend payments made to third parties (26 U. S. C. § 6042), cooperatives to report patronage dividend payments (26 U. S. C. § 6044), brokers to report customers’ gains and losses (26 U. S. C. § 6045), and banks to report payments of interest made to depositors (26 U; S, C. | 6049).
In Darby an identifiable class of employer was made subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and in Shapiro an identifiable class of business had been placed under the Price Control Act; in each of those instances, Congress found that the purpose of its regulation was adequately secured by requiring records to be kept by the persons subject to the substantive'commands of the legislation. In this case, however, Congress determined that recordkeeping alone would suffice for its purposes, and that no correlative substantive legislation was required. Neither this fact, nor the fact that the principal' congressional concern is with the activities of the banks' customers, rather than with the activities of the banks themselves, serves to invalidate the legislation on due process grounds.
The bank plaintiffs proceed from the premise that they are complete bystanders with respect to transactions involving drawers and drawees of their negotiable instruments. But such is hardly the case. A voluminous body of law has grown up defining the rights of the drawer, the payee, and the drawee bank with respect to various kinds of negotiable instruments. The recognition of such rights, both in the various States of this. country and in other countries, is itself a part of the reason why the banking business has flourished and played so prominent a part in commercial transactions. The bank is a party to any negotiable instrument drawn upon it by a depositor, and upon acceptance or payment of an instrument incurs obligations to the payee. While it obviously is not privy to the background of a. transaction in which a negotiable instrument is used, the existing wide acceptance and availability of negotiable instruments is of inestimable benefit to the banking industry as well as to commerce in general.
Banks are therefore not consgripted neutrals in transactions involving negotiable instruments, but parties to the instruments with a substantial stake in their con-, tinued availability and acceptance. Congress not illogically decided that if records of transactions of negotiable instruments were to be kept and maintained, in order to be available as evidence under customary legal process if the occasion warranted, the bank was the most easily identifiable party to the instrument and therefore should do the recordkeeping. We believe this conclusion is consistent with Darby and Shapiro, and that there is a sufficient connection between the evil Congress sought to address and the recordkeeping procedure it required to pass muster under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The bank plaintiffs somewhat halfheartedly argue, on the basis of the costs which they estimate will be incurred by the banking industry in complying with 'the Secretary’s recordkeeping requirements, that this cost burden alone deprives them of due process of law. They cite no cases for this proposition, and it does not warrant extended treatment. In its complaint filed in the District Court, plaintiff Security National Bank asserted that it was an “insured” national bank; to the extent that Congress has acted to require records on the part of banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or of financial institutions insured under the National Housing Act, Congress is simply imposing a condition on the spending of public funds. See, e. g., Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548 (1937); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619 (1937). Since there was no allegation in the complaints filed in the District Court, and since it is not contended here that any bank plaintiff is not covered by FDIC or Housing Act insurance, it is unnecessary to consider what questions would arise had Congress relied solely upon its power over interstate commerce to impose the recordkeeping requirements. The cost burdens imposed on the banks by the record-keeping requirements are far from unreasonable, and we hold that such burdens do not deny the banks due process of law.
• The bank plaintiffs also contend that the record-keeping requirements imposed by the Secretary pursuant to the Act undercut a depositor’s right to effectively challenge a third-party summons issued by the Intérnal. Revenue Service. See Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440 (1964); Donaldson v. United States, 400 U. S. 517 (1971); Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322 (1973). Whatever wrong such a result might work on a depositor, it works no injury on his bank. It is true that in a limited class of cases this Court has permitted a party who suffered injury as a result of the operation of a law to assert his rights even though the sanction of the law was borne by another, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), and conversely, the Court has allowed a party upon whom the sanction falls to rely.on the wrong done to a third party in obtaining relief, Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972). Whether the bank might in other circumstances rely on an injury to its depositors, or whether, instead, this case is governed by the general rule that one has standing only to vindicate his own rights, e. g., Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163, 166 (1972), need not now be decided, since, in any event, the claim is premature. Claims of depositors against the compulsion by lawful process of bank records involving the depositors’ own transactions must wait until such process issues.
Certain of the plaintiffs below, appellants in No. 72-1196, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Security National Bank,- and various individual plaintiff depositors; argue that if “the dominant purpose of the Bank Secrecy Act is the creation, preservation, and collection of evidence of crime :.. [i]t is against the standards applicable to the criminal law, then, that its constitutionality must be measured.” They contend that the recordkeeping requirements violate the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and First Amendments to the Constitution. At this point, we deal only with such constitutional challenges as they relate to the recordkeeping provisions of Title I of the Act.
We see nothing in the Act which violates the Fourth Amendment rights of any of these plaintiffs. Neither the provisions of Title I nor thé implementing regulations require that any information contained in the records be disclosed to the Government; both the legislative history and the regulations make specific reference to the fact that access to the records is to be controlled by existing legal process.
Plaintiffs urge that when the bank makes and keeps records under the compulsion of the Secretary’s regulations it acts as an agent of the Government, and thereby engages in a “seizure” of the records of its customers. But all of the records which the Secretary requires to be kept pertain to transactions to which the bank was itself a party. - See United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311, 316 (1972). The fact that a large number of banks voluntarily kept records of this sort before they were required to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 41 Stat. 1066, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 797(e), authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to issue licenses for the construction, operation and maintenance of hydroelectric project works located on the public lands and reservations of the United States, including lands held in trust for Indians. The conditions upon which such licenses may issue are contained in §4(e) and other provisions of the FPA. The present case involves a dispute among the Commission, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), and several Bands of the Mission Indians over the role each is to play in determining what conditions an applicant must meet in order to obtain a license to utilize hydroelectric facilities located on or near six Mission Indian Reservations.
I
The San Luis Rey River originates near the Palomar
Mountains in northern San Diego County, Cal. In its natural condition, it flows through the reservations of the La Jolla, Rincon, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians. The reservations of the Pauma, Yuima, and three-quarters of the reservation of the San Pasqual Bands of Mission Indians are within the river’s watershed. These six Indian reservations were permanently established pursuant to the Mission Indian Relief Act of 1891 (MIRA), ch. 65, 26 Stat. 712.
Since 1895, petitioner Escondido Mutual Water Co. (Mutual) and its predecessor in interest have diverted water out of the San Luis Rey River for municipal uses in and around the cities of Vista and Escondido. The point of diversion is located within the La Jolla Reservation, upstream from the other reservations. Mutual conveys the water from the diversion point to Lake Wohlford, an artificial storage facility, by means of the Escondido canal, which crosses parts of the La Jolla, Rincon, and San Pasqual Reservations.
In 1915, Mutual constructed the Bear Valley powerhouse downstream from Lake Wohlford. Neither Lake Wohlford nor the Bear Valley plant is located on a reservation. In 1916, Mutual completed construction of the Rincon powerhouse, which is located on the Rincon Reservation. Both of these powerhouses generate electricity by utilizing waters diverted from the river through the canal.
Following the enactment of the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063 (codified as Part I of the FPA, 16 U. S. C. §791a et seq.), Mutual applied to the Commission for a license covering its two hydroelectric facilities. In 1924, the Commission issued a 50-year license covering the Escondido diversion dam and canal, Lake Wohlford, and the Rincon and Bear Valley powerhouses.
The present dispute began when the 1924 license was about to expire. In 1971, Mutual and the city of Escondido filed an application with the Commission for a new license. In 1972, the Secretary requested that the Commission recommend federal takeover of the project after the original license expired. Later that year, the La Jolla, Rincon, and San Pasqual Bands, acting pursuant to § 15(b) of the FPA, applied for a nonpower license under the supervision of Interior, to take effect when the original license expired. The Pauma and Pala Bands eventually joined in this application.
After lengthy hearings on the competing applications, an Administrative Law Judge concluded that the project was not subject to the Commission’s licensing jurisdiction because the power aspects of the project were insignificant in comparison to the project’s primary purpose — conveying water for domestic and irrigation consumption. 6 FERC ¶ 63,008 (1977). The Commission, however, reversed that decision and granted a new 30-year license to Mutual, Escondido, and the Vista Irrigation District, which had been using the canal for some time to convey water pumped from Lake Henshaw, a lake located some nine miles above Mutual’s diversion dam. 6 FERC ¶ 61,189 (1979).
In its licensing decision, the Commission made three rulings that are the focal point of this case. First, the Commission ruled that §4(e) of the FPA did not require it to accept without modification conditions which the Secretary deemed necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservations. Accordingly, despite the Secretary’s insistence, the Commission refused to prohibit the licensees from interfering with the Bands’ use of a specified quantity of water, id., at 61,415, and n. 146, or to require that water pumped from a particular groundwater basin not be transported through the licensed facilities without the written consent of the five Bands, id., at 61,145, and n. 147. Other conditions proposed by the Secretary were similarly rejected or modified. See id., at 61,414-61,417. Second, although it imposed some conditions on the licensees in order to “preclude any possible interference or inconsistency of the power license... with the purpose for which the La Jolla, Rincon, and San Pasqual reservations were created,” id., at 61,424-61,425, the Commission refused to impose similar conditions for the benefit of the Pala, Pauma, and Yuima Reservations, ruling that its § 4(e) obligation in that respect applies only to reservations that are physically occupied by project facilities. Finally, the Commission rejected the arguments of the Bands and the Secretary that a variety of statutes, including § 8 of the MIRA, required the licensees to obtain the “consent” of the Bands before the license could issue.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed each of these three rulings. Escondido Mutual Water Co. v. FERC, 692 F. 2d 1223, amended, 701 F. 2d 826 (1983). The court held that § 4(e) requires the Commission to accept without modification any license conditions recommended by the Secretary, subject to subsequent judicial review of the propriety of the conditions, that the Commission is required to satisfy its § 4(e) obligations with respect to all six of the reservations affected by the project and not just the three through which the canal passes, and that §8 of the MIRA requires the licensees to obtain right-of-way permits from the La Jolla, Rincon, and San Pasqual Bands before using the licensed facilities located on the reservations. Mutual, Escondido, and Vista filed the present petition for certiorari, which we granted, 464 U. S. 913 (1983), challenging all three of the Court of Appeals’ rulings. We address each in turn.
II
Section 4(e) provides that licenses issued under that section “shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the department under whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservations.” 16 U. S. C. § 797(e). The mandatory nature of the language chosen by Congress appears to require that the Commission include the Secretary’s conditions in the license even if it disagrees with them. Nonetheless, petitioners argue that an examination of the statutory scheme and legislative history of the Act shows that Congress could not have meant what it said. We disagree.
We first note the difficult nature of the task facing petitioners. Since it should be generally assumed that Congress expresses its purposes through the ordinary meaning of the words it uses, we have often stated that “ ‘[ajbsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, [statutory] language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.’” North Dakota v. United States, 460 U. S. 300, 312 (1983) (quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980)). Congress’ apparent desire that the Secretary’s conditions “shall” be included in the license must therefore be given effect unless there are clear expressions of legislative intent to the contrary.
Petitioners initially focus on the purpose of the legislation that became the relevant portion of the FPA. In 1920, Congress passed the Federal Water Power Act in order to eliminate the inefficiency and confusion caused by the “piecemeal, restrictive, negative approach” to licensing prevailing under prior law. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 328 U. S. 152, 180 (1946). See H. R. Rep. No. 61, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., 4-5 (1919). Prior to passage of the Act, the Secretaries of the Interior, War, and Agriculture each had authority to issue licenses for hydroelectric projects on lands under his respective jurisdiction. The Act centralized that authority by creating a Commission, consisting of the three Secretaries, vested with exclusive authority to issue licenses. Petitioners contend that Congress could not have intended to empower the Secretary to require that conditions be included in the license over the objection of the Commission because that would frustrate the purpose of centralizing licensing procedures.
Congress was no doubt interested in centralizing federal licensing authority into one agency, but it is clear that it did not intend to relieve the Secretaries of all responsibility for ensuring that reservations under their respective supervision were adequately protected. In a memorandum explaining the administration bill, the relevant portion of which was enacted without substantive change, O. C. Merrill, one of the chief draftsmen of the Act and later the first Commission Secretary, explained that creation of the Commission “will not interfere with the special responsibilities which the several Departments have over the National Forests, public lands and navigable rivers.” Memorandum on Water Power Legislation from O. C. Merrill, Chief Engineer, Forest Service, dated October 31, 1917, App. 371. With regard to what became § 4(e), he wrote:
“4. Licenses for power sites within the National Forests to be subject to such provisions for the protection of the Forests as the Secretary of Agriculture may deem necessary. Similarly, for parks and other reservations under the control of the Departments of the Interior and of War. Plans of structures involving navigable streams to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War.
“This provision is for the purpose of preserving the administrative responsibility of each of the three Departments over lands and other matters within their exclusive jurisdiction.” Id., at 373-374.
Similarly, during hearings on the bill, Secretary of Agriculture Houston explained that the Grand Canyon did not need to be exempted from the licensing provisions, stating:
“I can see no special reason why the matter might not be handled safely under the provisions of the proposed measure, which requires that developments on Government reservations may not proceed except with the approval of the three heads of departments — the commission — with such safeguards as the head of the department immediately charged with the reservation may deem wise.” Water Power: Hearings before the House Committee on Water Power, 65th Cong., 2d Sess., 677 (1918) (emphasis added).
The Members of Congress understood that under the Act the Secretary of the Interior had authority with respect to licenses issued on Indian reservations over and above that possessed by the other Commission members. Senator Walsh of Montana, a supporter of the Act, explained:
“[W]hen an application is made for a license to construct a dam within an Indian reservation, the matter goes before the commission, which consists of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture. They all agree that it is in the public interest that the license should be granted, or a majority of them so agree. Furthermore, the head of the department must agree; that is to say, the Secretary of the Interior in the case of an Indian reservation must agree that the license shall be issued.” 59 Cong. Rec. 1564 (1920) (emphasis added).
It is thus clear enough that while Congress intended that the Commission would have exclusive authority to issue all licenses, it wanted the individual Secretaries to continue to play the major role in determining what conditions would be included in the license in order to protect the resources under their respective jurisdictions. The legislative history concerning §4(e) plainly supports the conclusion that Congress meant what it said when it stated that the license “shall... contain such conditions as the Secretary... shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservations.”
Petitioners next argue that a literal reading of the conditioning proviso of §4(e) cannot be squared with other portions of the statutory scheme. In particular, they note that the same proviso that grants the Secretary the authority to qualify the license with the conditions he deems necessary also provides that the Commission must determine that “the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created or acquired.” 16 U. S. C. § 797(e). Requiring the Commission to include the Secretary’s conditions in the license over its objection, petitioners maintain, is inconsistent with granting the Commission the power to determine that no interference or inconsistency will result from issuance of the license because it will allow the Secretary to “veto” the decision reached by the Commission. Congress could not have intended to “‘paralyze with one hand what it sought to promote with the other,”’ American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., 461 U. S. 402, 421 (1983) (quoting Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G., 332 U. S. 480, 489 (1947)), petitioners contend.
This argument is unpersuasive because it assumes the very question to be decided. All parties agree that there are limits on the types of conditions that the Secretary can require to be included in the license: the Secretary has no power to veto the Commission’s decision to issue a license and hence the conditions he insists upon must be reasonably related to the protection of the reservation and its people. The real question is whether the Commission is empowered to decide when the Secretary’s conditions exceed the permissible limits. Petitioners’ argument assumes that the Commission has the authority to make that decision. However, the statutory language and legislative history conclusively indicate that it does not; the Commission “shall” include in the license the conditions the Secretary deems necessary. It is then up to the courts of appeals to determine whether the conditions are valid.
Petitioners contend that such a scheme of review is inconsistent with traditional principles of judicial review of administrative action. If the Commission is required to include the conditions in the license even though it does not agree with them, petitioners argue, the courts of appeals will not be in a position to grant deference to the Commission’s findings and conclusions because those findings and conclusions will not be included in the license. However, that is apparently exactly what Congress intended. If the Secretary concludes that the conditions are necessary to protect the reservation, the Commission is required to adopt them as its own, and the court is obligated to sustain them if they are reasonably related to that goal, otherwise consistent with the FPA, and supported by substantial evidence. The fact that in reality it is the Secretary’s, and not the Commission's, judgment to which the court is giving deference is not surprising since the statute directs the Secretary, and not the Commission, to decide what conditions are necessary for the adequate protection of the reservation. There is nothing in the statute or the review scheme to indicate that Congress wanted the Commission to second-guess the Secretary on this matter.
In short, nothing in the legislative history or statutory scheme is inconsistent with the plain command of the statute that licenses issued within a reservation by the Commission pursuant to §4(e) “shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary... shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservations.” Since the Commission failed to comply with this statutory command when it issued the license in this case, the Court of Appeals correctly reversed its decision in this respect.
Í — t l-H f — (
The Court of Appeals also concluded that the Commission’s §4(e) obligations to accept the Secretary’s proposed conditions and to make findings as to whether the license is consistent with the reservation’s purpose applied to the Pala, Yuima, and Pauma Reservations even though no licensed facilities were located on these reservations. Petitioners contend that this conclusion is erroneous. We agree.
Again, the statutory language is informative and largely dispositive. Section 4(e) authorizes the Commission:
“To issue licenses... for the purpose of constructing... dams... or other project works... upon any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States... Provided, That licenses shall be issued within any reservation only after a finding by the Commission that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created or acquired, and shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the department under whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservations....”
If a project is licensed “within” any reservation, the Commission must make a “no interference or inconsistency” finding with respect to “such” reservation, and the Secretary may impose conditions for the protection of “such” reservation. Nothing in the section requires the Commission to make findings about, or the Secretary to impose conditions to protect, any reservation other than the one within which project works are located. The section imposes no obligation on the Commission or power on the Secretary with respect to reservations that may somehow be affected by, but will contain no part of, the licensed project works.
The Court of Appeals, however, purported to discover an ambiguity in the term “within. ” Positing that the term “reservations” includes not only tribal lands but also tribal water rights, the Court of Appeals reasoned that since a project could not be “within” a water right, the term must have a meaning other than its literal one. This effort to circumvent the plain meaning of the statute by creating an ambiguity where none exists is unpersuasive.
There is no doubt that “reservations” include “interests in lands owned by the United States” and that for many purposes water rights are considered to be interests in lands. See 1 R. Clark, Waters and Water Rights §53.1 p. 345 (1967). But it does not follow that Congress intended the “reservations” spoken of in § 4(e) to include water rights. The section deals with project works to be located “upon” and “within” a reservation. As the Court of Appeals itself indicated, the section does tend to “paint a geographical picture in the mind of the reader,” 692 F. 2d, at 1236, and we find the Court of Appeals’ and respondents’ construction of the section to be quite untenable. Congress intended the obligation of the Commission and the conditioning power of the Secretary to apply only with respect to the specific reservation upon which any project works were to be located and not to other reservations that might be affected by the project.
The Court of Appeals sought to bolster its conclusion by noting that a literal reading of the term “within” would leave a gap in the protection afforded the Bands by the FPA because “a project may turn a potentially useful reservation into a barren waste without ever crossing it in the geographical sense — e. g., by diverting the waters which would otherwise flow through or percolate under it.” Ibid. This is an unlikely event, for in this respect the Bands are adequately protected by other provisions of the statutory scheme. First, the Bands cannot be deprived of any water to which they have a legal right. The Commission is expressly forbidden to adjudicate water rights, 16 U. S. C. § 821, and the license applicant must submit satisfactory evidence that he has obtained sufficient water rights to operate the project authorized in the license, 16 U. S. C. § 802(b). Second, if the Bands are using water, the rights to which are owned by the license applicant, the Commission is empowered to require that the license applicant continue to let the Bands use this water as a condition of the license if the Commission determines that the Bands’ use of the water constitutes an overriding beneficial public use. 16 U. S. C. § 803(a). See California v. FPC, 345 F. 2d 917, 923-924 (CA9), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 941 (1965). The Bands’ interest in the continued use of the water will accordingly be adequately protected without requiring the Commission to comply with § 4(e) every time one of the reservations might be affected by a proposed project.
Respondents additionally contend that under other provisions of the FPA the § 4(e) proviso at issue applies any time a reservation is “affected” by a licensed project even if none of the licensed facilities is actually located on the reservation. They rely in particular on § 23(b), which provides that project works can be constructed without a license on nonnavigable waters over which Congress has jurisdiction under its Commerce Clause powers only if, among other things, “no public lands or reservations are affected.” 16 U. S. C. §817. Respondents argue that it would make no sense to conclude that Congress intended to require the Commission to exercise its licensing jurisdiction when a reservation is “affected” by such a project if it did not also intend to afford those reservations all of the protections outlined in § 4(e). However, that is exactly the conclusion that the language of §4(e) compels, and, contrary to respondents’ argument, there is nothing illogical about such a scheme.
Under §4(e), the Commission is authorized to license projects in two general types of situations — when the project is located on waters (navigable or nonnavigable) over which Congress has jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause and when the project is located upon any public lands or reservations. It is clear that the Commission’s obligations to make a “no inconsistency or no interference” determination and to include the Secretary’s conditions in the license apply only in the latter situation — when the license is issued “within any reservation.” The fact that a person is required to obtain a license in the former situation any time a project on non-navigable waters affects a reservation indicates only that Congress concluded that in such circumstances the possible disruptive effects of such a project were so great that the Commission should regulate the project through its licensing powers. That is not, as respondents seem to imply, a meaningless gesture if all of the provisions of § 4(e) do not apply.
Even if the Commission is not required to comply with all of the requirements of § 4(e) when it issues such a license, it is still required to shape the license so that the project is best adapted, among other things, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development and for “other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes.” 16 U. S. C. § 803(a). In complying with that duty, the Commission is clearly entitled to consider how the project will affect any federal reservations and to require the licensee to structure the project so as to avoid any undue injury to those reservations. See Udall v. FPC, 387 U. S. 428, 450 (1967). As noted supra, at 782, the Commission can even require that, as a condition of the license, the licensee surrender some of its water rights in order to protect such reservations if the Commission determines that such action would be in the public interest. However, it is clear that Congress concluded that reservations were not entitled to the added protection provided by the proviso of § 4(e) unless some of the licensed works were actually within the reservation.
The scheme crafted by Congress in this respect is sufficiently clear to require us to hold that the Commission must make its “no inconsistency or interference” determination and include the Secretary’s conditions in the license only with respect to projects located “within” the geographical boundaries of a federal reservation.
C
The final issue presented for review is whether § 8 of the MIRA requires licensees to obtain the consent of the Bands before they operate licensed facilities located on reservation lands. Section 8 provides in relevant part:
“Subsequent to the issuance of any tribal patent or of any individual trust patent.. any citizen of the United States, firm, or corporation may contract with the tribe, band, or individual for whose use and benefit any lands are held in trust by the United States, for the right to construct a flume, ditch, canal, pipe, or other appliances for the conveyance of water over, across, or through such lands, which contract shall not be valid unless approved by the Secretary of the Interior under such conditions as he may see fit to impose.” 26 Stat. 714.
The Court of Appeals concluded that this provision, which by its terms authorizes private parties to enter into a contract with the Bands, precludes the Commission from licensing those parts of the project that occupy reservation land without the consent of the Indians. When the legislative histories of § 8 and of the FPA are considered, however, the Court of Appeals’ interpretation cannot stand.
Section 8 appeared in the MIRA just prior to its passage. Several irrigation companies were seeking rights-of-way across the reservations. The Secretary had concluded that irrigation ditches and flumes would benefit both the settlers and the Indians. H. R. Rep. No. 3282, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., 3-4 (1888). Two Attorneys General, however, had ruled that only Congress could authorize the alienation of Indian lands. Lemhi Indian Reservation, 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 563 (1887); Dam at Lake Winnibigoshish, 16 Op. Atty. Gen. 552 (1880). In fight of these opinions, the Secretary prepared an amendment to the bill, authorizing the Bands to contract for the sale of rights-of-way, subject to Interior’s approval. H. R. Rep. No. 3282, supra, at 2. Section 8 was therefore designed to authorize the Indians and the Secretary to grant rights-of-way to third parties; it was not intended to act as a limit on the sovereign authority of the Federal Government to acquire or grant rights-of-way over public lands and reservations.
In essence, § 8 increased the Bands’ authority over its land so that they had almost the same rights as other private landowners. The Bands were authorized to negotiate with any private party wishing to acquire rights-of-way and to enter into any agreement with those parties, something they were previously unable to do. And, until some overriding authority was invoked, the Bands, like private landowners, had complete discretion whether to grant rights-of-way for hydroelectric project facilities. However, there is no indication that once Congress exercised its sovereign authority to use the land for such purposes the Bands were to have more power to stop such action than would a private landowner in the same situation — both are required to permit such use upon payment of just compensation. Therefore, the only question is whether Congress decided to exercise that authority with respect to Indian lands when it enacted the FPA. The answer to that inquiry was clearly articulated in a somewhat different context more than 20 years ago.
“The Federal Power Act constitutes a complete and comprehensive plan... for the development, transmission and utilization of electric power in any of the streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its commerce powers, and upon the public lands and reservations of the United States under its property powers. See § 4(e). It neither overlooks nor excludes Indians or lands owned or occupied by them. Instead, as has been shown, the Act specifically defines and treats with lands occupied by Indians— ‘tribal lands embraced within Indian reservations.’ See §§3(2) and 10(e). The Act gives every indication that, within its comprehensive plan, Congress intended to include lands owned or occupied by any person or persons, including Indians.” FPC v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U. S. 99, 118 (1960).
It is equally clear that, when enacting the FPA, Congress did not intend to give Indians some sort of special authority to prevent the Commission from exercising the licensing authority it was receiving from Congress. Indeed, Congress squarely considered and rejected such a proposal. During the course of the debate concerning the legislation, the Senate amended the bill to require tribal consent for some projects. Section 4(e) of the Senate version of the bill provided that “in respect to tribal lands embraced within Indian reservations, which said lands were ceded to Indians by the United States by treaty, no license shall be issued except by and with the consent of the council of the tribe.” 59 Cong. Rec. 1534 (1920). However, that amendment was stricken from the bill by the Conference, the conferees stating that they “saw no reason why waterpower use should be singled out from all other uses of Indian reservation land for special action of the council of the tribe.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 910, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 8 (1920).
In short, while § 8 of the MIRA gave the Bands extensive authority to determine whether to grant rights-of-way for water projects, that authority did not include the power to override Congress’ subsequent decision that all lands, including tribal lands, could, upon compliance with the provisions of the FPA, be utilized to facilitate licensed hydroelectric projects. Under the FPA, the Secretary, with the duty to safeguard reservations, may condition, but may not veto, the issuance of a license for project works on an Indian reservation. We cannot believe that Congress nevertheless intended to leave a veto power with the concerned tribe or tribes. The Commission need not, therefore, seek the Bands’ permission before it exercises its licensing authority with respect to their lands.
V
The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the Commission was required to include in the license any conditions which the Secretary of the Interior deems necessary for the protection and utilization of the three reservations in which project works are located. It was in error, however, in concluding that the Commission was required to fulfill this and its other §4(e) obligations with respect to the other three reservations affected by the project and that §8 of the MIRA empowered the Bands to prevent the licensing of facilities on their lands. The court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The term “Commission” refers to the Federal Power Commission prior to October 1, 1977, and to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission thereafter. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 7172(a), 7295(b).
The Yuima tracts of land are under the jurisdiction of the Pauma Band. Thus, while there are six Mission Indian Reservations involved in the present dispute, only five Indian Bands are represented.
Various agreements, dating back to 1894, among the Secretary, the Bands whose land the canal traverses, and Mutual and its predecessor purportedly grant Mutual rights-of-way for the canal in exchange for supplying certain amounts of water to the Bands. The validity of these agreements is the subject of separate, pending litigation instituted by the Bands in 1969. Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. Escondido Mutual Water Co., Nos. 69-217S, 72-276-S, and 72-271-S (SD Cal.).
In addition, the Bands have sued the United States pursuant to the Indian Claims Commission Act, ch. 959, 60 Stat. 1049, 25 U. S. C. §70 et seq. (1976 ed.), for failure to protect their water rights. Long v. United States, No. 80-A1 (Cl. Ct.). That proceeding is also pending.
Section 14(b), 16 U. S. C. § 807(b), of the FPA authorizes the Commission to recommend to Congress that the Federal Government take over a project following expiration of the license. If Congress enacts legislation to that effect, the project is operated by the Government upon payment to the original licensee of its net investment in the project and certain severance damages.
Section 15(b), 16 U. S. C. § 808(b), authorizes the Commission to grant a license for use of a project as a “nonpower” facility if it finds the project no longer is adapted to power production. In that event, the new licensee must make the same payments to the original licensee that are required of the United States pursuant to § 14(b). See n. 4, supra.
Earlier, the Secretary and the La Jolla, Rincon, and San Pasqual Bands filed complaints with the Commission, alleging that Mutual violated the provisions of the 1924 license by permitting the Vista Irrigation District to use the project facilities and by using the canal to divert water pumped from a lake created by Vista nine miles above Mutual’s diversion dam. They sought, among other things, an increase in the annual charges paid to the Bands under the license. These complaints were considered in conjunction with the competing applications, and the Commission awarded readjusted annual charges to the three Bands. The Commission’s resolution of that issue is not before us.
The Bear Valley powerhouse has a generating capacity of only 520 kilowatts. The Rincon powerhouse is capable of producing only 240 kilowatts. The Administrative Law Judge noted that “[t]he horsepower generated by the entire project is not even the equivalent to that produced by a half dozen modern automobiles.” 6 FERC, at 65,093.
The Commission concluded that § 4(e) required it “to give great weight to the judgments and proposals of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture” but that under § 10(a) it retained ultimate authority for determining “the extent to which such conditions will in fact be included in particular licenses.” 6 FERC, at 61,414.
Groundwater is water beneath the surface of the earth. The condition suggested by the Secretary applied to water which Vista pumped from the Warner groundwater basin underlying Lake Henshaw and its headwaters in order to augment the natural flows into the lake.
For example, the Commission required the licensees to permit the three Bands to use certain quantities of water under certain circumstances. See id., at 61,424-61,432.
Judge Anderson dissented from the order entered on petition for rehearing, 701 F. 2d, at 827-831, concluding that neither § 8 of the MIRA nor § 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U. S. C. § 476, requires that tribal consent be obtained before the Bands’ lands can be used for a hydroelectric project licensed under the FPA. He also concluded that the Secretary’s §4(e) conditions have to be included in the license only to the extent they are reasonable and that the reasonableness determination is to be made initially by the Commission.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s conclusion that it had jurisdiction over the project, and the parties have not sought review of that ruling.
The Commission did not petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision but filed a brief and appeared at oral argument urging reversal. Since the Commission’s arguments largely parallel those presented by Mutual, Escondido, and Vista, our use of the term petitioners includes the Commission.
In 1930, the Commission was reorganized as a five-person body, independent from the Secretaries. Act of June 23,1930, ch. 572, 46 Stat. 797.
Between 1914 and 1917, four bills dealing with the licensing of hydroelectric projects were introduced into Congress, none successfully. In 1918, a bill prepared by the Secretaries of War, the Interior, and Agriculture, at the direction of President Wilson, was introduced. H. R. 8716, 65th Cong., 2d Sess. (1918). It contained the language of the §4(e) proviso basically as it is now framed. Because of the press of World War I and other concerns, the legislation was not enacted until 1920. See J. Kerwin, Federal Water-Power Legislation 217-263 (1926).
Petitioners note that in 1930, when the structure of the Commission was changed, see n. 14, supra, James Lawson, then Acting Chief Counsel of the Commission, stated that under the structure then in existence, “[t]he Commission now has power to override the head of a department as to the consistency 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: | B | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.