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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to clarify the scope of the private right of action to enforce § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 394, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §794 (1982 ed.), that prohibits discrimination against the handicapped by federal grant recipients. There is a conflict among the Circuits.
I
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 establishes a comprehensive federal program aimed at improving the lot of the handicapped. Among its purposes, as originally stated, were to “promote and expand employment opportunities in the public and private sectors for handicapped individuals and to place such individuals in employment.” 29 U. S. C. §701(8). To further these purposes, Congress enacted § 504 of the Act. That section provides:
“No otherwise qualified handicapped individual . . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
The language of the section is virtually identical to that of § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d, that similarly bars discrimination (on the ground of race, color, or national origin) in federally assisted programs.
In 1978, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to specify the means of enforcing its ban on discrimination. In particular, § 505(a)(2), as added, 92 Stat. 2982, 29 U. S. C. §794a(a)(2) (1982 ed.), made available the “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964” to victims of discrimination in violation of § 504 of the Act.
Petitioner, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), was formed pursuant to Subchapter III of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 1004, 45 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. The Act, passed in response to the insolvency of a number of railroads in the Northeast and Midwest, established Conrail to acquire and operate the rail properties of the insolvent railroads and to integrate these properties into an efficient national rail transportation system. Under § 216 of the Act, 90 Stat. 89, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 726 (1976 ed. and Supp. V), the United States, actingthrough the United States Railway Association, purchases debentures and series A preferred stock of the corporation “at such times and in such amounts as may be required and requested by the Corporation,” but “in accordance with the terms and conditions . . . prescribed by the Association . . . .” § 726(b)(1). The statute permits the proceeds from these sales to be devoted to maintenance of rail properties, capital needs, refinancing of indebtedness, or working capital. Ibid. Under this statutory authorization, Conrail has sold the United States $3.28 billion in securities. See App. A-15.
Conrail also received federal funds under Subchapter V of the Act, now repealed, to provide for reassignment and retraining of railroad workers whose jobs were affected by the reorganization. And Conrail now receives federal funds under § 1143(a) of the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981, 95 Stat. 662, 45 U. S. C. §797a (1976 ed., Supp. V), that provides termination allowances of up to $25,000 to workers who lose their jobs as a result of reorganization.
rH I — I
In 1979, Thomas LeStrange filed suit against petitioner for violation of rights conferred by §504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The complaint alleged that the Erie Lackawanna Railroad, to which Conrail is the successor in interest, had employed the plaintiff as a locomotive engineer; that an accident had required amputation of plaintiff’s left hand and forearm in 1971; and that, after LeStrange was disabled, the Erie Lackawanna Railroad, and then Conrail, had refused to employ him although it had no justification for finding him unfit to work.
The District Court, following the decision of Trageser v. Libbie Rehabilitation Center, Inc., 590 F. 2d 87 (CA4 1978), cert. denied, 442 U. S. 947 (1979), granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not have “standing” to bring a private action under § 504. LeStrange v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 501 F. Supp. 964 (MD Pa. 1980). In Trageser, the Fourth Circuit had held that § 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act incorporated into that Act the limitation found in § 604 of Title VI, which provides that employment discrimination is actionable only when the employer receives federal financial assistance the “primary objective” of which is “to provide employment.” The District Court concluded that the aid provided to petitioner did not satisfy the “primary objective” test.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the District Court. LeStrange v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 687 F. 2d 767 (CA3 1982). There was no opinion for the court, but all three judges of the panel agreed that the cause of action for employment discrimination under § 504 was not properly limited to situations “where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment.” Judge Bloch, noting that North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U. S. 512 (1982), had construed Title IX to create a private cause of action for employment discrimination in all federally funded education programs, concluded that the language and legislative history of § 504 required the same broad construction of that section. Judge Adams, concurring in the judgment, found the result compelled by North Haven Board of Education and by the Third Circuit’s decision in Grove City College v. Bell, 687 F. 2d 684 (1982), aff’d, ante, p. 555. Judge Weis, concurring, argued that Congress had not intended the Rehabilitation Act to incorporate Title Vi’s “primary objective” limitation: that limitation was designed to temper the Government’s decision to terminate federal funds, a decision that has more drastic consequences for the funded programs than do private suits for individual relief.
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Circuits and to consider other questions under the Rehabilitation Act. 459 U. S. 1199 (1983). We affirm.
HH J-H I — I
We are met initially by petitioner’s contention that the death of the plaintiff LeStrange has mooted the case and deprives the Court of jurisdiction for that reason. Petitioner concedes, however, that there remains a case or controversy if LeStrange’s estate may recover money that would have been owed to LeStrange. Without determining the extent to which money damages are available under § 504, we think it clear that § 504 authorizes a plaintiff who alleges intentional discrimination to bring an equitable action for backpay. The case therefore is not moot.
In Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm’n of New York City, 463 U. S. 582 (1983), a majority of the Court expressed the view that a private plaintiff under Title VI could recover backpay; and no Member of the Court contended that back-pay was unavailable, at least as a remedy for intentional discrimination. It is unnecessary to review here the grounds for this interpretation of Title VI. It suffices to state that we now apply this interpretation to § 505(a)(2), which, as we have noted, provides to plaintiffs under §504 the remedies set forth in Title VI. Therefore, respondent, having alleged intentional discrimination, may recover backpay in the present §504 suit.
IV
A
The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that petitioner may be sued under § 504 only if the primary objective of the federal aid that it receives is to promote employment. Conrail relies particularly on § 604 of Title VI. This section limits the applicability of Title VI to “employment practiced] . . . where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment” (emphasis added). As noted above, § 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act, as added in 1978, adopted the remedies and rights provided in Title VI. Accordingly, Conrail’s basic position in this case is that §604’s limitation was incorporated expressly into the Rehabilitation Act. The decision of the Court of Appeals therefore should be reversed, Conrail contends, as the primary objective of the federal assistance received by Conrail was not to promote employment.
It is clear that § 504 itself contains no such limitation. Section 504 neither refers explicitly to § 604 nor contains analogous limiting language; rather, that section prohibits discrimination against the handicapped under “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” And it is unquestionable that the section was intended to reach employment discrimination. Indeed, enhancing employment of the handicapped was so much the focus of the 1973 legislation that Congress the next year felt it necessary to amend the statute to clarify whether § 504 was intended to prohibit other types of discrimination as well. See § 111(a), Pub. L. 93-516, 88 Stat. 1619, amending 29 U. S. C. § 706(6); S. Rep. No. 93-1297, p. 37 (1974). Thus, the language of § 504 suggests that its bar on employment discrimination should not be limited to programs that receive federal aid the primary purpose of which is to promote employment.
The legislative history, executive interpretation, and purpose of the 1973 enactment all are consistent with this construction. The legislative history contains no mention of a “primary objective” limitation, although the legislators on numerous occasions adverted to §504’s prohibition against discrimination in employment by programs assisted with federal funds. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 93-318, pp. 4, 18, 50, 70 (1973); 119 Cong. Rec. 5862 (1973) (remarks of Sen. Cran-ston); id., at 24587-24588 (remarks of Sen. Williams, Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare). Moreover, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the agency designated by the President to be responsible for coordinating enforcement of §504, see Exec. Order No. 11914, 3 CFR 117 (1977), from the outset has interpreted that section to prohibit employment discrimination by all recipients of federal financial aid, regardless of the primary objective of that aid. This Court generally has deferred to contemporaneous regulations issued by the agency responsible for implementing a congressional enactment. See, e. g., NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267, 274-275 (1974). The regulations particularly merit deference in the present case: the responsible congressional Committees participated in their formulation, and both these Committees and Congress itself endorsed the regulations in their final form. Finally, application of § 504 to all programs receiving federal financial assistance fits the remedial purpose of the Rehabilitation Act to “promote and expand employment opportunities” for the handicapped. 29 U. S. C. §701(8).
B
Nor did Congress intend to enact the “primary objective” requirement of §604 into the Rehabilitation Act when it amended that Act in 1978. The amendments, as we have noted, make “available” the remedies, procedures, and rights of Title VI for suits under § 504 against “any recipient of Federal assistance.” § 505(a)(2), 29 U. S. C. §794a(a)(2) (1982 ed.). These terms do not incorporate § 604’s “primary objective” limitation. Rather, the legislative history reveals that this section was intended to codify the regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare governing enforcement of §504, see S. Rep. No. 95-890, p. 19 (1978), that prohibited employment discrimination regardless of the purpose of federal financial assistance. And it would be anomalous to conclude that the section, “designed to enhance the ability of handicapped individuals to assure compliance with [§ 504],” id,., at 18, silently adopted a drastic limitation on the handicapped individual’s right to sue federal grant recipients for employment discrimination.
V
Section 504, by its terms, prohibits discrimination only by a “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This Court on two occasions has considered the meaning of the terms “program or activity” as used in Title IX. Grove City College v. Bell, ante, p. 555; North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U. S. 512, 535-540 (1982). Clearly, this language limits the ban on discrimination to the specific program that receives federal funds. Neither opinion, however, provides particular guidance as to the appropriate treatment of the programs before us. Grove City College considered grants of financial aid to students. The Court specifically declined to analogize these grants to nonearmarked direct grants and, indeed, characterized them as “sui generis.” Ante, at 573. North Haven Board of Education did not undertake to define the term “program” at all, finding that, in the procedural posture of that case, that task should be left to the District Court in the first instance. 456 U. S., at 540.
The procedural posture of the case before us is the same as that of North Haven Board of Education. The District Court granted a motion for summary judgment on grounds unrelated to the issue of “program specificity.” That judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Thus, neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals below considered the question whether respondent’s decedent had sought and been denied employment in a “program . . . receiving Federal financial assistance.” Nor did the District Court develop the record or make the factual findings that would be required to define the relevant “program.” We therefore do not consider whether federal financial assistance was received by the “program or activity” that discriminated against LeStrange.
HH >
We conclude that respondent may recover backpay due to her decedent under § 504 and that this suit for employment discrimination may be maintained even if petitioner receives no federal aid the primary purpose of which is to promote employment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section 505(a)(2), as set forth in 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(2) (1982 ed.), provides in full: “The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance under section 794 of this title.”
Section 505(a)(1) generally makes available the remedies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to persons aggrieved by violation of § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which governs the Federal Government’s employment of the handicapped.
Respondent, the administratrix of LeStrange’s estate, was substituted as a party before this Court upon the death of LeStrange.
The District Court also dismissed constitutional claims raised by LeStrange.
Under the analysis of Trageser, a private plaintiff also may have “standing” to sue for employment discrimination if he can show “that discrimination in employment necessarily causes discrimination against” the intended beneficiaries of the federal aid, even where that aid itself was not intended to further employment. App. to Pet. for Cert. 33. The District Court found as well that this prong of the Trageser test was not satisfied here.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had held in Grove City College that an entire educational institution is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 if any department of the institution receives federal aid.
Three other Courts of Appeals have agreed substantially with the Fourth Circuit decision in Trageser. See Scanlon v. Atascadero State Hospital, 677 F. 2d 1271 (CA9 1982); United States v. Cabrini Medical Center, 639 F. 2d 908 (CA2 1981); Carmi v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 620 F. 2d 672 (CA8), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 892 (1980).
In addition, Conrail argued below, and again in its opening brief, that § 504 does not create a private right of action for employment discrimination. This argument was abandoned at page 3 of Conrail’s reply brief. See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 13. In view of this concession it is unnecessary to address the question here beyond noting that the courts below relied on Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 (1979), in holding that such a private right exists under § 504.
Petitioner also concedes that respondent, as representative of Le-Strange’s estate, may assert any right to monetary relief under § 504 that was possessed by LeStrange.
A majority of the Court agreed that retroactive relief is available to private plaintiffs for all discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional, that is actionable under Title VI. Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun, argued that both prospective and retroactive relief were fully available to Title VI plaintiffs. 463 U. S., at 624-634, 635-639. Justice O’Connor agreed that both prospective and retroactive equitable relief were available, while reserving judgment on the question whether there is a private cause of action for damages relief under Title VI. Id., at 612, n. 1. Justice White, joined by Justice Rehnquist, while contending that only relief ordering future compliance with legal obligations was available in other private actions under Title VI, put aside the situation of the private plaintiff who alleged intentional discrimination. Id., at 597. The Chief Justice and Justice Powell did not reach the question, as they would have held that petitioners in that case had no private right of action and'had not made the showing of intentional discrimination required to establish a violation of Title VI. Id., at 608-611.
Although the legislative history of the 1978 amendments does not explicitly indicate that Congress intended to preserve the full measure of courts’ equitable power to award backpay, the few references to the question are consistent with our holding. Congress clearly intended to make backpay available to victims of discrimination by the Federal Government, see S. Rep. No. 95-890, p. 19 (1978); and statements made in relation to subsequent legislation by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the Committee responsible for the 1978 amendments, endorse the availability of backpay. S. Rep. No. 96-316, pp. 12-13 (1979).
Section 604 provides in full: “Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to authorize action under this title by any department or agency with respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization except where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment.” 78 Stat. 253, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-3.
Congress recognized that vocational rehabilitation of the handicapped would be futile if those who were rehabilitated could not obtain jobs because of discrimination. Employment discrimination thus would have “a profound effect on the provision of relevant and effective [rehabilitation] services.” 119 Cong. Rec. 5862 (1973) (remarks of Sen. Cranston). See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 93-318, p. 4 (1973); 119 Cong. Rec. 24587 (1973) (remarks of Sen. Taft); id., at 24588 (remarks of Sen. Williams). Several other sections of Title V of the Rehabilitation Act also were aimed at discrimination in employment: § 501 and § 503 require all federal employers and federal contractors to adopt affirmative-action programs for the handicapped.
We note further that the Court in an analogous statutory context rejected the contention that the terms used in § 504 implicitly contain a “primary objective” limitation. Section 901 of Title IX, like § 504, borrowed the language of § 601 of Title VI. North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U. S. 512 (1982), found, however, that Title IX’s prohibition of employment discrimination did not incorporate § 604’s “primary objective” requirement. The Court stated that, had Congress wished so to limit Title IX, it would have enacted in that Title counterparts to both § 601 and §604. Id., at 530.
Petitioner suggests that North Haven is inapplicable to the construction of § 504 because the Congress considered but rejected a provision explicitly incorporating the language of § 604 of Title VI into Title IX. And other aspects of the legislative history also supported the Court’s interpretation of §901, see id,., at 523-529. In contrast, Congress did not advert to a “primary objective” limitation when drafting § 504.
Clearly, petitioner’s observations do not touch on that aspect of North Haven — its analysis of the language of §601 — that is relevant to the present case. But even without the analysis of North Haven, petitioner’s interpretation of § 504’s language is unfounded. For language as broad as that of § 504 cannot be read in isolation from its history and purposes. See, e. g., Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U. S. 600, 608 (1979); Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U. S. 707, 713 (1975). In these respects, § 504 differs from Title VI in ways that suggest that § 504 cannot sensibly be interpreted to ban employment discrimination only in programs that receive federal aid the “primary objective” of which is to promote employment. The “primary objective” limitation of Title VI gave the anti-discrimination provision of that Title a scope that well fits its underlying purposes — to ensure that “funds of the United States are not used to support racial discrimination” but “are spent in accordance with the Constitution and the moral sense of the Nation.” 110 Cong. Rec. 6544 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey). As the Court of Appeals observed, it was unnecessary to extend Title VI more generally to ban employment discrimination, as Title VII comprehensively regulates such discrimination.
In contrast, the primary goal of the Act is to increase employment of the handicapped, see supra, at 632, and n. 12. However, Congress chose to ban employment discrimination against the handicapped, not by all employers, but only by the Federal Government and recipients of federal contracts and grants. As to the latter, Congress apparently determined that it would require contractors and grantees to bear the costs of providing employment for the handicapped as a quid pro quo for the receipt of federal funds. Cf. 118 Cong. Rec. 32305 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Javits). But this decision to limit § 504 to the recipients of federal aid does not require us to limit that section still further, as petitioner urges.
See 39 Fed. Reg. 18562, 18582 (1974) (revising pre-existing provisions to implement § 504); 41 Fed. Reg. 29548, 29552, 29563 (1976) (proposed Department regulations), promulgated, 42 Fed. Reg. 22678 (§84.2), 22680 (§84.11), 22688 (“Employment Practices”) (1977); 43 Fed. Reg. 2132, 2138 (1978) (final coordinating regulations).
The Department of Justice, now responsible for coordinating agency implementation of § 504, see Exec. Order No. 12250, 3 CFR 298 (1981), adopted the HEW guidelines, 46 Fed. Reg. 40686 (1981). The Department of Transportation, from which Conrail receives federal aid, also has construed § 504 to prohibit employment discrimination in all programs receiving federal financial assistance. 44 Fed. Reg. 31442, 31468 (1979), codified at 49 CFR pt. 27 (1983). See § 27.31.
See S. Rep. No. 93-1297, p. 25 (1974). In adopting § 505(a)(2) in the amendments of 1978, Congress incorporated the substance of the Department’s regulations into the statute. See n. 16, infra.
The Committee noted: “[T]he regulations promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to procedures, remedies, and rights under § 504 conform with those promulgated under title VI. Thus, this amendment codifies existing practice as a specific statutory requirement.” S. Rep. No. 95-890, p. 19 (1978). Although these Department regulations incorporated Title VI regulations governing “complaint and enforcement procedures,” see 42 Fed. Reg. 22685, 22694-22701 (1977), the regulations implementing §504 did not incorporate §80.3 of the Title VI regulations, which limit Title VPs application to employment discrimination in federal programs to increase employment. The §504 regulations banned employment discrimination in programs receiving any form of federal financial assistance. See n. 14, supra.
The Court held that the Court of Appeals in that case had erroneously suggested that HEW regulations issued under Title XI to govern employment discrimination need not be program specific. See 456 U. S., at 536.
Although Judge Adams cited the Third Circuit opinion in Grove City College, he did so merely to support his rejection of the Trageser “standing” analysis. See supra, at 629.
Conrail does not contest that it receives federal financial assistance within the meaning of § 504. Apparently, the Government’s payments to Conrail exceed the fair market value of the securities issued by Conrail to the Government. Tr. of Oral Arg. 18.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA or Act), 92 Stat. 322,15 U. S. C. § 2801 et seq., limits the circumstances in which petroleum franchisors may “terminate” a franchise or “fail to renew” a franchise relationship. §2802. In these consolidated cases, service-station franchisees brought suit under the Act, alleging that a franchisor had constructively “terminate!)!]” their franchises and had constructively “fail[ed] to renew” their franchise relationships. They asserted these claims even though the conduct of which they complained had not compelled any of them to abandon their franchises and even though they had been offered and had accepted renewal agreements. We hold that a franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the PMPA if the franchisor’s allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise. Additionally, we conclude that a franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a claim for constructive nonrenewal. We therefore reverse in part and affirm in part.
I
A
Petroleum refiners and distributors supply motor fuel to the public through service stations that often are operated by independent franchisees. In the typical franchise arrangement, the franchisor leases the service-station premises to the franchisee, grants the franchisee the right to use the franchisor’s trademark, and agrees to sell motor fuel to the franchisee for resale. Franchise agreements remain in effect for a stated term, after which the parties can opt to renew the franchise relationship by executing a new agreement.
Enacted in 1978, the PMPA was a response to widespread concern over increasing numbers of allegedly unfair franchise terminations and nonrenewals in the petroleum industry. See, e. g., Comment, 1980 Duke L. J. 522, 524-531. The Act establishes minimum federal standards governing the termination and nonrenewal of petroleum franchises. Under the Act's operative provisions, a franchisor may “terminate” a “franchise” during the term stated in the franchise agreement and may “fail to renew” a “franchise relationship” at the conclusion of that term only if the franchisor provides written notice and takes the action in question for a reason specifically recognized in the statute. 15 U. S. C. §§2802, 2804. Consistent with the typical franchise arrangement, a “franchise” is defined as “any contract” that authorizes a franchisee to use the franchisor’s trademark, as well as any associated agreement providing for the supply of motor fuel or authorizing the franchisee to occupy a service station owned by the franchisor. §2801(1). The Act defines a “franchise relationship” in more general terms: the parties’ “respective motor fuel marketing or distribution obligations and responsibilities” that result from the franchise arrangement. § 2801(2).
To enforce these provisions, a franchisee may bring suit in federal court against any franchisor that fails to comply with the Act’s restrictions on terminations and nonrenewals. See § 2805. Successful franchisees can benefit from a wide range of remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and expert costs, and equitable relief. See §§ 2805(b), (d). The Act also requires district courts to grant preliminary injunctive relief to aggrieved franchisees, if there are “sufficiently serious questions going to the merits” that present “a fair ground for litigation” and the balance of hardships favors such relief. § 2805(b)(2).
B
This litigation involves a dispute between Shell Oil Company (Shell), a petroleum franchisor, and several Shell franchisees in Massachusetts. Pursuant to their franchise agreements with Shell, each franchisee was required to pay Shell monthly rent for use of the service-station premises. For many years, Shell offered the franchisees a rent subsidy that reduced the monthly rent by a set amount for every gallon of motor fuel a franchisee sold above a specified threshold. Shell renewed the subsidy annually through notices that “explicitly provided for cancellation [of the rent subsidy] with thirty days’ notice.” Marcoux v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 524 F. 3d 33, 38 (CA1 2008). Nonetheless, Shell representatives made various oral representations to the franchisees “that the [s]ubsidy or something like it would always exist.” Ibid.
In 1998, Shell joined with two other oil companies to create Motiva Enterprises LLC (Motiva), a joint venture that combined the companies’ petroleum-marketing operations in the eastern United States. Id., at 37. Shell assigned to Motiva its rights and obligations under the relevant franchise agreements. Motiva, in turn, took two actions that led to this lawsuit. First, effective January 1, 2000, Motiva ended the volume-based rent subsidy, thus increasing the franchisees’ rent. Id., at 38. Second, as each franchise agreement expired, Motiva offered the franchisees new agreements that contained a different formula for calculating rent. For some (but not all) of the franchisees, annual rent was greater under the new formula.
C
In July 2001, 63 Shell franchisees (hereinafter dealers) filed suit against Shell and Motiva in Federal District Court. Their complaint alleged that Motiva’s discontinuation of the rent subsidy constituted a breach of contract under state law. Additionally, the dealers asserted two claims under the PMPA. First, they maintained that Shell and Motiva, by eliminating the rent subsidy, had “constructively terminated” their franchises in violation of the Act. Second, they claimed that Motiva’s offer of new franchise agreements that calculated rent using a different formula amounted to a “constructive nonrenewal” of their franchise relationships. 524 F. 3d, at 47.
After a 2-week trial involving eight of the dealers, the jury found against Shell and Motiva on all claims. Both before and after the jury’s verdict, Shell and Motiva moved for judgment as a matter of law on the dealers’ two PMPA claims. They argued that they could not be found liable for constructive termination under the Act because none of the dealers had abandoned their franchises in response to Motiva’s elimination of the rent subsidy — something Shell and Motiva said was a necessary element of any constructive termination claim. Similarly, they argued that the dealers’ constructive nonrenewal claims necessarily failed because seven of the eight dealers had signed and operated under renewal agreements with Motiva, and the eighth had sold his franchise prior to the expiration of his franchise agreement. The District Court denied these motions, and Shell and Motiva appealed.
The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. In affirming the judgment on the dealers’ constructive termination claims, the Court of Appeals held that a franchisee is not required to abandon its franchise to recover for constructive termination under the PMPA. See id., at 45-47. Instead, the court ruled, a simple breach of contract by an assignee of a franchise agreement can amount to constructive termination under the Act, so long as the breach resulted in “such a material change that it effectively ended the lease, even though the [franchisee] continued to operate [its franchise].” Id., at 46 (internal quotation marks omitted). Turning to the dealers’ constructive nonrenewal claims, the First Circuit agreed with Shell and Motiva that a franchisee cannot maintain a claim for unlawful nonrenewal under the PMPA “where the franchisee has signed and operates under the renewal agreement complained of.” Id., at 49. The court thus reversed the judgment on those claims.
We granted certiorari. 557 U. S. 903 (2009).
II
The first question we are asked to decide is whether a service-station franchisee may recover for constructive termination under the PMPA when the franchisor’s allegedly wrongful conduct did not force the franchisee to abandon its franchise. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that a necessary element of any constructive termination claim under the Act is that the franchisor’s conduct forced an end to the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark, purchase of the franchisor’s fuel, or occupation of the franchisor’s service station.
A
When given its ordinary meaning, the text of the PMPA prohibits only that franchisor conduct that has the effect of ending a franchise. As relevant here, the Act provides that “no franchisor... may... terminate any franchise,” except for an enumerated reason and after providing written notice. 15 U. S. C. §§2802(aMb). The Act specifies that “[t]he term ‘termination’ includes cancellation,” §2801(17), but it does not further define the term “terminate” or the incorporated term “cancel.” We therefore give those terms their ordinary meanings. See Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U. S. 179, 187 (1995).
The word “terminate” ordinarily means “put an end to.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2605 (2d ed. 1957); see also The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1465 (1967). The term “cancel” carries a similar meaning: to “annul or destroy.” Webster’s, supra, at 389; see also Random House, supra, at 215 (“to make void; revoke; annul”). The object of the verb “terminate” is the noun “franchise,” a term the Act defines as “any contract” for the provision of one (or more) of the three elements of a typical petroleum franchise. §2801(1). Thus, when given its ordinary meaning, the Act is violated only if an agreement for the use of a trademark, purchase of motor fuel, or lease of a premises is “put [to] an end” or “annul[ed] or destroyed].” Conduct that does not force an end to the franchise, in contrast, is not prohibited by the Act’s plain terms.
The same conclusion follows even if Congress was using the words “terminate” and “cancel” in their technical, rather than ordinary, senses. When Congress enacted the PMPA, those terms had established meanings under the Uniform Commercial Code. Under both definitions, however, a “termination” or “cancellation” occurs only when a contracting party “puts an end to the contract.” U. C. C. §§2-106(3)-(4) (1972); see also U. C. C. §§ 2-106(3)-(4), 1 U. L. A. 695,695-696 (2004). Thus, a franchisee who continues operating a franchise — occupying the same premises, receiving the same fuel, and using the same trademark — has not had the franchise “ terminate [d]” in either the ordinary or technical sense of the word.
Requiring franchisees to abandon their franchises before claiming constructive termination is also consistent with the general understanding of the doctrine of constructive termination. As applied in analogous legal contexts — both now and at the time Congress enacted the PMPA — a plaintiff must actually sever a particular legal relationship in order to maintain a claim for constructive termination. For example, courts have long recognized a theory of constructive discharge in the field of employment law. See Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U. S. 129, 141-143 (2004) (tracing the doctrine to the 1930’s). To recover for constructive discharge, however, an employee generally is required to quit his or her job. See 1B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 1449 (4th ed. 2007); 3 L. Larson, Labor and Employment Law § 59.05[8] (2009); 2 EEOC Compliance Manual § 612.9(a) (2008); cf. Suders, supra, at 141-143, 148; Young v. Southwestern Savings & Loan Assn., 509 F. 2d 140, 144 (CA5 1975); Muller v. United States Steel Corp., 509 F. 2d 923, 929 (CA10 1975). Similarly, landlord-tenant law has long recognized the concept of constructive eviction. See Rapacz, Origin and Evolution of Constructive Eviction in the United States, 1 DePaul L. Rev. 69 (1951). The general rule under that doctrine is that a tenant must actually move out in order to claim constructive eviction. See id., at 75; Glendon, The Transformation of American Landlord-Tenant Law, 23 Boston College L. Rev. 503, 513-514 (1982); 1 H. Tiffany, Real Property §§141,143 (3d ed. 1939).
As generally understood in these and other contexts, a termination is deemed “constructive” because it is the plaintiff, rather than the defendant, who formally puts an end to the particular legal relationship — not because there is no end to the relationship at all. There is no reason why a different understanding should apply to constructive termination claims under the PMPA. At the time when it enacted the statute, Congress presumably was aware of how courts applied the doctrine of constructive termination in these analogous legal contexts. Cf. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Comm., 555 U. S. 246, 258-259 (2009). And in the absence of any contrary evidence, we think it reasonable to interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with this well-established body of law.
The Court of Appeals was of the view that analogizing to doctrines of constructive termination in other contexts was inappropriate because “sunk costs, optimism, and the habit of years might lead franchisees to try to make the new arrangements work, even when the terms have changed so materially as to make success impossible.” 524 F. 3d, at 46. But surely these same factors compel employees and tenants — no less than service-station franchisees — to try to make their changed arrangements work. Nonetheless, courts have long required plaintiffs asserting such claims to show an actual severance of the relevant legal relationship. We see no reason for a different rule here.
Additionally, allowing franchisees to obtain PMPA relief for conduct that does not force an end to a franchise would extend the reach of the Act much further than its text and structure suggest. Prior to 1978, the regulation of petroleum franchise agreements was largely a matter of state law. See Dersch Energies, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F. 3d 846, 861 (CA7 2002); Comment, 32 Emory L. J. 273, 277-283 (1983). In enacting the PMPA, Congress did not regulate every aspect of the petroleum franchise relationship but instead federalized only the two parts of that relationship with which it was most concerned: the circumstances in which franchisors may terminate a franchise or decline to renew a franchise relationship. See 15 U. S. C. § 2802; Dersch Energies, supra, at 861-862. Congress left undisturbed state-law regulation of other types of disputes between petroleum franchisors and franchisees. See § 2806(a) (pre-empting only those state laws governing franchise terminations or nonrenewals).
The dealers would have us interpret the PMPA in a manner that ignores the Act’s limited scope. On their view, and in the view of the Court of Appeals, the PMPA prohibits, not just unlawful terminations and nonrenewals, but also certain serious breaches of contract that do not cause an end to the franchise. See Brief for Respondents in No. 08-372, pp. 28-35 (hereinafter Respondents’ Brief); 524 F. 3d, at 44-47. Reading the Act to prohibit simple breaches of contract, however, would be inconsistent with the Act’s limited purpose and would further expand federal law into a domain traditionally reserved for the States. Without a clearer indication that Congress intended to federalize such a broad swath of the law governing petroleum franchise agreements, we decline to adopt an interpretation of the Act that would have such sweeping consequences. See, e. g., United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 349 (1971).
Finally, important practical considerations inform our decision. Adopting the dealers’ reading of the PMPA would require us to articulate a standard for identifying those breaches of contract that should be treated as effectively ending a franchise, even though the franchisee in fact continues to use the franchisor’s trademark, purchase the franchisor’s fuel, and occupy the service-station premises. We think any such standard would be indeterminate and unworkable. How is a court to determine whether a breach is serious enough effectively to end a franchise when the franchisee is still willing and able to continue its operations? And how is a franchisor to know in advance which breaches a court will later determine to have been so serious? The dealers have not provided answers to these questions. Nor could they. Any standard for identifying when a simple breach of contract amounts to a PMPA termination, when all three statutory elements remain operational, simply evades coherent formulation.
B
The dealers suggest that this interpretation of the PMPA fails to provide franchisees with much-needed protection from unfair and coercive franchisor conduct that does not force an end to the franchise. That argument, however, ignores the fact that franchisees still have state-law remedies available to them. The pre-emptive scope of the PMPA is limited: The Act pre-empts only those state or local laws that govern the termination of petroleum franchises or the nonrenewal of petroleum franchise relationships. See 15 U. S. C. § 2806(a). Outside of those areas, therefore, franchisees can still rely on state-law remedies to address wrongful franchisor conduct that does not have the effect of ending the franchise. Indeed, that happened in this very lawsuit. The dealers argued in the District Court that Motiva’s elimination of the rent subsidy not only constructively terminated their franchises in violation of the PMPA but also amounted to a breach of contract under state law. The jury found in their favor on their state-law claims and awarded them almost $1.3 million in damages. See App. 376-379. Thus, the dealers’ own experience demonstrates that franchisees do not need a PMPA remedy to have meaningful protection from abusive franchisor conduct.
The dealers also charge that this interpretation of the PMPA cannot be correct because it renders other provisions of the Act meaningless. Respondents’ Brief 21-22, 24-25. While we agree that we normally should construe statutes “in a manner that gives effect to all of their provisions,” we believe our interpretation is faithful to this “well-established principle] of statutory interpretation.” United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U. S. 928, 933 (2009).
To begin, the dealers insist that our reading of the term “terminate” will require franchisees to go out of business before they can obtain preliminary relief and thus will render useless the Act’s preliminary injunction mechanism. We disagree. To obtain a preliminary injunction, it is true, a franchisee must show, among other things, that “the franchise of which he is a party has been terminated.” 15 U. S. C. §2805(b)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added). But that does not necessarily mean that a franchisee must go out of business before obtaining an injunction. For example, in cases of actual termination, the Act requires franchisors to provide franchisees with written notice of termination well in advance of the date on which the termination "takes effect.” § 2804(a). A franchisee that receives notice of termination “has been terminated” within the meaning of §2805(b)(2)(A)(i), even though the termination “takes effect” on a later date, just as an employee who receives notice of discharge can be accurately described as having been discharged, even though the employee’s last day at work may perhaps be weeks later. Thus, franchisees that receive notice of impending termination can invoke the protections of the Act’s preliminary injunction mechanism well before having to go out of business. Contrary to the dealers’ assertions, therefore, our interpretation of the Act gives meaningful effect to the PMPA’s preliminary injunction provisions.
Our interpretation also gives effect to the Act’s alternative statute-of-limitations accrual dates. The 1-year limitations period governing PMPA claims runs from the later of either (1) “the date of termination of the franchise” or (2) “the date the franchisor fails to comply with the requirements of” the Act. § 2805(a). Some violations of the PMPA, however, cannot occur until after a franchise has been terminated. See, e. g., § 2802(d)(1) (franchisor must share with a franchisee certain parts of a condemnation award when the termination was the result of a condemnation or taking); § 2802(d)(2) (franchisor must grant a franchisee a right of first refusal if the franchise was terminated due to the destruction of the service station and the station subsequently is rebuilt). The second accrual date listed in § 2805(a), therefore, shows only that the limitations period runs from the date of these types of post-termination violations. It does not suggest that Congress intended franchisees to maintain claims under the PMPA to redress franchisor conduct that does not force an end to the franchise.
* * *
We therefore hold that a necessary element of any constructive termination claim under the PMPA is that the complained-of conduct forced an end to the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark, purchase of the franchisor's fuel, or occupation of the franchisor’s service station. Because none of the dealers in this litigation abandoned any element of their franchise operations in response to Motiva's ehmination of the rent subsidy, they cannot maintain a constructive termination claim on the basis of that conduct.
III
The second question we are asked to decide is whether a franchisee who is offered and signs a renewal agreement can nonetheless maintain a claim for “constructive nonrenewal” under the PMPA. For reasons similar to those given above, we agree with the Court of Appeals that a franchisee that chooses to accept a renewal agreement cannot thereafter assert a claim for unlawful nonrenewal under the Act.
The plain text of the statute leaves no room for a franchisee to claim that a franchisor has unlawfully declined to renew a franchise relationship — constructively or otherwise — when the franchisee has in fact accepted a new franchise agreement. As relevant here, a franchisor violates the PMPA only when it “fail[s] to renew” a franchise relationship for a reason not provided for in the Act or after not providing the required notice. See 15 U. S. C. § 2802. The Act defines the term “fail to renew,” in turn, as a “failure to reinstate, continue, or extend the franchise relationship.” §2801(14). Thus, the threshold requirement of any unlawful nonrenewal action — a requirement the franchisee bears the burden of establishing, see § 2805(c) — is that the franchisor did not “reinstate, continue, or renew” the franchise relationship once a franchise agreement expired. But if a franchisee signs a renewal agreement, the franchisor clearly has “reinstated], continued], or extend[ed]” the franchise relationship. True, the franchisee might find some of the terms in the new agreement objectionable. But the Act prohibits only unlawful “fail[ures] to renew” a franchise relationship, not renewals of a franchise relationship on terms that are less than favorable to the franchisee. A franchisee that signs a renewal agreement, in short, cannot carry the threshold burden of showing a “nonrenewal of the franchise relationship,” § 2805(c), and thus necessarily cannot establish that the franchisor has violated the Act.
The dealers point out that several of them signed then-renewal agreements “under protest,” and they argue that they thereby explicitly preserved their ability to assert a claim for unlawful nonrenewal under the PMPA. That argument misunderstands the legal significance of signing a renewal agreement. Signing a renewal agreement does not constitute a waiver of a franchisee’s legal rights — something that signing “under protest” can sometimes help avoid. See, e. g., U. C. C. § 1-207, 1 U. L. A. 318. Instead, signing a renewal agreement negates the very possibility of a violation of the PMPA. When a franchisee signs a renewal agreement — even “under protest” — there has been no “fail[ure] to renew,” and thus the franchisee has no cause of action under the Act. See 15 U. S. C. § 2805(a).
The Act’s structure and purpose confirm this interpretation. By requiring franchisors to renew only the “franchise relationship,” as opposed to the same franchise agreement, see §2802; see also §2801(2), the PMPA contemplates that franchisors can respond to market demands by proposing new and different terms at the expiration of a franchise agreement. To that end, the Act authorizes franchisors to decline to renew a franchise relationship if the franchisee refuses to accept changes or additions that are proposed “in good faith and in the normal course of business” and that are not designed to convert the service station to direct operation by the franchisor. § 2802(b)(3)(A). Additionally, the Act creates a procedural mechanism for resolving disputes over the legality of proposed new terms. If the parties cannot agree, the franchisor has the option of either modifying the objectionable terms or pursuing nonrenewal, in which case it must provide the franchisee with written notice well in advance of the date when the nonrenewal takes effect. § 2804(a)(2). Once the franchisee receives notice of nonrenewal, it can seek a preliminary injunction under the Act’s relaxed injunctive standard, maintaining the status quo while a court determines the lawfulness of the proposed changes. See § 2805(b)(2); supra, at 188-189.
Allowing franchisees to pursue nonrenewal claims even after they have signed renewal agreements would undermine this procedural mechanism and, in the process, would frustrate franchisors’ ability to propose new terms. Under the dealers’ theory, franchisees have no incentive to object to burdensome new terms and seek a preliminary injunction if a franchisor pursues nonrenewal. Instead, a franchisee eould simply sign the new franchise agreement and decide later whether to sue under the PMPA. Franchisees would then have the option of either continuing to operate under the new agreement or, if the terms of the agreement later proved unfavorable, bringing suit under the PMPA alleging that the newly imposed terms are unlawful. And because the PMPA has a 1-year statute of limitations, see § 2805(a), franchisees would retain that option for the entire first year of a new franchise agreement. Accepting the dealers’ argument, therefore, would cast a cloud of uncertainty over all renewal agreements and could chill franchisors from proposing new terms in response to changing market conditions and consumer needs.
Finally, accepting the dealers’ argument would greatly expand the PMPA’s reach. Under the balance struck by the plain text of the statute, a franchisee faced with objectionable new terms must decide whether challenging those terms is worth risking the nonrenewal of the franchise relationship; if the franchisee rejects the terms and the franchisor seeks nonrenewal, the franchisee rims the risk that a court will ultimately determine that the proposed terms were lawful under the PMPA. See § 2802(b)(3)(A). That risk acts as a restraint, limiting the scope of franchisor liability under the Act to that with which Congress was most concerned: the imposition of arbitrary and unreasonable new terms on a franchisee that are designed to force an end to the petroleum franchise relationship. See, e: g., ibid.; Comment, 32 Emory L. J., at 277-283. Allowing franchisees both to sign a franchise agreement and to pursue a claim under the PMPA would eliminate that restraint and thus permit franchisees to challenge a much broader range of franchisor conduct — conduct to which the dealer might object but not consider so serious as to risk the nonrenewal of the franchise by mounting a legal challenge. As explained, the PMPA was enacted to address the narrow areas of franchise terminations and nonrenewals, not to govern every aspect of the petroleum franchise relationship. See supra, at 186; Derseh Energies, 314 F. 3d, at 861. We thus decline to adopt an interpretation that would expand the Act in such a fashion.
* * *
We hold that a franchisee who is offered and signs a renewed franchise agreement cannot maintain a claim for unlawful nonrenewal under the PMPA. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to the dealers' nonrenewal claims.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Courts sometimes describe these three types of agreements as the “statutory elements” of a petroleum franchise. See, e.g., Marcoux v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 524 P. 3d 33, 37, n. 1 (CA1 2008).
Shell Oil Products Company LLC, another party in this litigation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shell Oil Company. See Brief for Petitioners in No. 08-372, p. iii.
The dealers also claimed that Shell and Motiva had violated the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in Massachusetts, by setting unreasonable prices under the open-price terms of their fuel-supply agreements with the dealers. The jury found in favor of the dealers on this claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 524 F. 3d, at 51. That issue is not before us.
Because resolving this question is sufficient to decide these cases, we need not address Shell and Motiva's alternative argument that the PMPA does not embrace claims for constructive termination at all. Several Courts of Appeals have held that the Act does create a cause of action for constructive termination. See, e. g., 524 F. 3d, at 44-45 (case below); Clark v. BP Oil Co., 137 F. 3d 386, 390-391 (CA6 1998); Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F. 3d 849, 852-853 (CA11 1997). Others have reserved judgment on the issue. See, e. g., Abrams Shell v. Shell Oil Co., 343 F. 3d 482, 486-488 (CA5 2003); Portland 76 Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 153 F. 3d 938, 948 (CA9 1998). We leave the question for another day.
The difference between a “termination” and a “cancellation” under the Uniform Commercial Code relates to how the contracting party justifies its ending of the contractual relationship. A “termination” occurs when “either party pursuant to a power created by agreement or law puts an end to the contract otherwise than for its breach.” U. C. C. §2-106(3) (1972). By contrast, a “cancellation” occurs when “either party puts an end to the contract for breach by the other.” § 2-106(4).
That difference might well explain why Congress felt compelled to specify that “cancellationjs],” no less than “termmation[s],” are covered by the Act. Prior to the PMPA, franchisors often leveraged their greater bargaining power to end franchise agreements for minor or technical breaches by the franchisee. See, e. g., Chestnut Hill Gulf, Inc. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 940 F. 2d 744, 746-747 (CA1 1991). By specifying that the Act eovers “cancellation[s]” as well as “termination[s],” Congress foreclosed any argument that a termination for breach is not covered by the Act because it is technically a “cancellation” rather than a “termination.”
Before Congress enacted the PMPA, at least one court, it is true, had held that a tenant asserting constructive eviction could obtain declaratory.relief without abandoning the premises — although the court observed that the tenant still would have to abandon the premises in order to obtain rescission. See Charles E. Burt, Inc. v. Seven Grand Corp., 340 Mass. 124, 129-130, 163 N. E. 2d 4, 7-8 (1959). But as even the dealers concede, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38, the clear majority of authority required a tenant to leave the premises before claiming constructive eviction.
For similar reasons, the Second Restatement of Property is of no help to the dealers. Although it would allow a tenant to bring a constructive eviction claim without moving out, it noted that this proposition was “contrary to the present weight of judicial authority.” 1 Restatement (Second) of Property § 6.1, Reporter’s Note 1, p. 230 (1976).
Adopting such a broad reading of the PMPA also would have serious implications for run-of-the-mill franchise disputes., The Act requires courts to award attorney’s fees and expert-witness fees in any case in which a plaintiff recovers more than nominal damages. See 15 U. S. C. § 2805(d)(1)(C). The Act also permits punitive damages, § 2805(d)(1)(B), a remedy ordinarily not available in breach-of-contract actions, see Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U. S. 181, 187-188 (2002). Accepting the dealers’ reading of the statute, therefore, would turn everyday contract disputes into high-stakes affairs.
The First Circuit, for example, approved of a test that asks whether the breach resulted in “such a material change that it effectively ended the lease, even though the plaintiffs continued to operate [their franchises].” 524 F. 3d, at 46 (internal quotation marks omitted). That standard, it seems to us, does little more than restate the relevant question. While we do not decide whether the PMPA contemplates claims for constructive termination, we observe that the Court of Appeals’ unwillingness or inability to establish a more concrete standard underscores the difficulties and inherent contradictions involved in crafting a standard for finding a “termination” when no termination has in fact occurred.
The Government reads the Act to permit a dealer to seek preliminary injunctive relief if a franchisor announces its “intent to engage in conduct that would leave the franchisee no reasonable alternative but to abandon” one (or more) of the franchise elements. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21. Because we do not decide whether the PMPA permits constructive termination claims at all, see n. 4, supra, we need not address this argument.
After Motiva withdrew the rent subsidy, seven of the dealers continued operating their franchises for the Ml terms of their franchise agreements and then signed new agreements that did not include the subsidy. See App. 161, 164, 316-321 (Mac’s Shell Service, Inc.); id., at 138-139, 314-315 (Cynthia Karol); id., at 154-155, 310-311 (Akmal, Inc.); id., at 185-186, 268-269 (Sid Prashad); id., at 190, 312-313 (J & M Avramidis, Inc.); id., at 179-182, 322-323 (RAM Corp., Inc.); id., at 148-153, 324
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, from an order of the District Court dismissing an indictment. The indictment contains 101 counts. Each count alleges that appellee made payment of a sum in excess of $600 a year to a named individual— some in 1948, some in 1949, and the rest in 1950. The offense charged as to each such payment is a wilful failure to make a return on Treasury Form 1099 in violation of § 145 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, § 5 (c), Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 126, 26 U. S. C. § 145 (a).
Section 147 of the Act, as amended by § 202 (c) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 110, provides that any person making a payment to another of $600 or more in any calendar year “shall render a true and accurate return to the Commissioner, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by him with the approval of the Secretary.”
Treasury Regulations 111, § 29.147-1, as amended T. D. 5313, 1944 Cum. Bull. 308, T. D. 5687, 1949-1 Cum. Bull. 9, provides that all persons making any such payment in any calendar year (with exceptions not relevant here) shall make a “return” on Form 1099, “accompanied by transmittal Form 1096 showing the number of returns filed.” Form 1099 is required to be prepared and filed for each payee, showing the name and address of the payee, the kind and amount of income paid, and the name and address of the person making the payment. Form 1099 on its face is called an “Information Return”; and its instructions say that it is to be forwarded “with return Form 1096.” Form 1099 contains no formal declaration by the payor nor any signature by him. Those are provided in Form 1096.
Form 1096 is called “Annual Information Return.” It must be signed by the payor with a statement of the number of reports on Form 1099 which are attached. It contains a declaration that “to the best of my knowledge and belief the accompanying reports on Form 1099” constitute “a true and complete return of payments” of the prescribed character made during the specified calendar year.
Section 145 (a) of the Act provides that any person required by law or regulations “to make a return ... for the purposes of the computation, assessment, or collection of any estimated tax or tax imposed by this chapter, who willfully fails to . . . make such return” shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
The District Court ruled that the “return” specified in § 145 (a) was that provided in Form 1096, not the one provided in Form 1099, and that since the only offenses charged in the 101 counts were failures to file Form 1099 the indictment should be dismissed.
The question is not without difficulty. But we conclude that the District Court reached the correct result.
The “return” required by § 147 (a) is to be made “in such form and manner” as are prescribed in the Regulations. The Regulations provide in § 29.147-1, as we have noted, that a “return shall be made in each case on Form 1099, accompanied by transmittal Form 1096 showing the number of returns filed.” The “form and manner” prescribed therefore seem to consist of the verified Form 1096 together with the Forms 1099. All of them together apparently constitute the “return” referred to in § 147 (a). The various Forms 1099 seem to have the same relation to Form 1096 as schedules have to an ordinary income tax return. Form 1099 supplies the details which underlie Form 1096. That conclusion is supported by the fact that Form 1096 is the only one which is signed and verified.
We hesitate to conclude that a failure to file an unverified schedule is given the same dignity as the failure to file the verified return. We are dealing with criminal sanctions in the complicated, technical field of the revenue law. The code and the regulations must be construed in light of the purpose to locate and check upon recipients of income and the amounts they receive. See S. Rep. No. 103, 65th Cong., 1st Sess. 20. But at the same time every citizen is entitled to fair warning of the traps which the criminal law lays. Where the “return” prescribed is a verified Form 1096 together with all the unverified Forms 1099 it does not seem fair warning to charge a person for more than the failure to make that return. To multiply the crimes by the number of Forms 1099 required to be filed is to revise the regulatory scheme. So far as these information returns are concerned, the purpose of § 145 (a) seems to us to be fulfilled when the sanction is applied only to a failure to file Form 1096.
Affirmed.
We postponed the question of jurisdiction to a hearing on the merits in view of appellee’s contention in his statement opposing jurisdiction that the dismissal was based not only upon the “construction of the statute” within the meaning of the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, but also, as respects the first 45 counts, on a question of venue. We do not read the oral opinion of the District Court that way. We think the District Court rested its decision as respects all 101 counts on the construction of the statute. Whether there are other objections to the indictment which might also lead to dismissal is therefore not properly here on this appeal. See United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 193.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether Massachusetts may require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey. We hold that such a mandate violates the First Amendment.
I
March 17 is set aside for two celebrations in South Boston. As early as 1737, some people in Boston observed the feast of the apostle to Ireland, and since 1776 the day has marked the evacuation of royal troops and Loyalists from the city, prompted by the guns captured at Ticonderoga and set up on Dorchester Heights under General Washington’s command. Washington himself reportedly drew on the earlier tradition in choosing “St. Patrick” as the response to “Boston,” the password used in the colonial lines on evacuation day. See J. Crimmins, St. Patrick’s Day: Its Celebration in New York and other American Places, 1737-1845, pp. 15, 19 (1902); see generally 1 H. Commager & R. Morris, The Spirit of ’Seventy Six, pp. 138-183 (1958); The American Book of Days 262-265 (J. Hatch ed., 3d ed. 1978). Although the General Court of Massachusetts did not officially designate March 17 as Evacuation Day until 1938, see Mass. Gen. Laws §6:12K (1992), the City Council of Boston had previously sponsored public celebrations of Evacuation Day, including notable commemorations on the centennial in 1876, and on the 125th anniversary in 1901, with its parade, salute, concert, and fireworks display. See Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the Evacuation of Boston by the British Army (G. Ellis ed. 1876); Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston v. City of Boston et al., Civ. Action No. 92-1518A (Super. Ct., Mass., Dec. 15, 1993), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. Bl, B8-B9.
The tradition of formal sponsorship by the city came to an end in 1947, however, when Mayor James Michael Curley himself granted authority to organize and conduct the St. Patrick’s Day-Evacuation Day Parade to the petitioner South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, an unincorporated association of individuals elected from various South Boston veterans groups. Every year since that time, the Council has applied for and received a permit for the parade, which at times has included as many as 20,000 marchers and drawn up to 1 million watchers. No other applicant has ever applied for that permit. Id., at B9. Through 1992, the city allowed the Council to use the city’s official seal, and provided printing services as well as direct funding.
In 1992, a number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual descendants of the Irish immigrants joined together with other supporters to form the respondent organization, GLIB, to march in the parade as a way to express pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, to demonstrate that there are such men and women among those so descended, and to express their solidarity with like individuals who sought to march in New York’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade. Id., at B3; App. 51. Although the Council denied GLIB’s application to take part in the 1992 parade, GLIB obtained a state-court order to include its contingent, which marched “uneventfully” among that year’s 10,000 participants and 750,000 spectators. App. to Pet. for Cert. B3, and n. 4.
In 1993, after the Council had again refused to admit GLIB to the upcoming parade, the organization and some of its members filed this suit against the Council, the individual petitioner John J. “Wacko” Hurley, and the city of Boston, alleging violations of the State and Federal Constitutions and of the state public accommodations law, which prohibits “any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of... sexual orientation... relative to the admission of any person to, or treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement.” Mass. Gen. Laws §272:98 (1992). After finding that “[f]or at least the past 47 years, the Parade has traveled the same basic route along the public streets of South Boston, providing entertainment, amusement, and recreation to participants and spectators alike,” App. to Pet. for Cert. B5-B6, the state trial court ruled that the parade fell within the statutory definition of a public accommodation, which includes “any place... which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public and, without limiting the generality of this definition, whether or not it be... (6) a boardwalk or other public highway [or]... (8) a place of public amusement, recreation, sport, exercise or entertainment,” Mass. Gen. Laws §272:92A (1992). The court found that the Council had no written criteria and employed no particular procedures for admission, voted on new applications in batches, had occasionally admitted groups who simply showed up at the parade without having submitted an application, and did “not generally inquire into the specific messages or views of each applicant.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B8-B9. The court consequently rejected the Council’s contention that the parade was “private” (in the sense of being exclusive), holding instead that “the lack of genuine selectivity in choosing participants and sponsors demonstrates that the Parade is a public event.” Id., at B6. It found the parade to be “eclectic,” containing a wide variety of “patriotic, commercial, political, moral, artistic, religious, athletic, public service, trade union, and eleemosynary themes,” as well as conflicting messages. Id., at B24. While noting that the Council had indeed excluded the Ku Klux Klan and ROAR (an antibusing group), id., at B7, it attributed little significance to these facts, concluding ultimately that “[t]he only common theme among the participants and sponsors is their public involvement in the Parade,” id., at B24.
The court rejected the Council’s assertion that the exclusion of “groups with sexual themes merely formalized [the fact] that the Parade expresses traditional religious and social values,” id., at B3, and found the Council’s “final position [to be] that GLIB would be excluded because of its values and its message, i. e., its members’ sexual orientation,” id., at B4, n. 5, citing Tr. of Closing Arg. 43, 51-52 (Nov. 23,1993). This position, in the court’s view, was not only violative of the public accommodations law but “paradoxical” as well-, since “a proper celebration of St. Patrick’s and Evacuation Day requires diversity and inclusiveness.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B24. The court rejected the notion that GLIB’s admission would trample on the Council’s First Amendment rights since the court understood that constitutional protection of any interest in expressive association would “requir[e] focus on a specific message, theme, or group” absent from the parade. Ibid. “Given the [Council’s] lack of selectivity in choosing participants and failure to circumscribe the marchers’ message,” the court found it “impossible to discern any specific expressive purpose entitling the Parade to protection under the First Amendment.” Id., at B25. It concluded that the parade is “not an exercise of [the Council’s] constitutionally protected right of.expressive association,” but instead “an open recreational event that is subject to the public accommodations law.” Id., at B27.
The court held that because the statute did not mandate inclusion of GLIB but only prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, any infringement on the Council’s right to expressive association was only “incidental” and “no greater than necessary to accomplish the statute’s legitimate purpose” of eradicating discrimination. Id., at B25, citing Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 628-629 (1984). Accordingly, it ruled that “GLIB is entitled to participate in the Parade on the same terms and conditions as other participants.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B27.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed, seeing nothing clearly erroneous in the trial judge’s findings that GLIB was excluded from the parade based on the sexual orientation of its members, that it was impossible to detect an expressive purpose in the parade, that there was no state action, and that the parade was a public accommodation within the meaning of § 272:92A. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston v. Boston, 418 Mass. 238, 242-248, 636 N. E. 2d 1293, 1295-1298 (1994). Turning to petitioners’ First Amendment claim that application of the public accommodations law to the parade violated their freedom of speech (as distinguished from their right to expressive association, raised in the trial court), the court’s majority held that it need not decide on the particular First Amendment theory involved “because, as the [trial] judge found, it is ‘impossible to discern any specific expressive purpose entitling the Parade to protection under the First Amendment.’” Id., at 249, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1299 (footnote omitted). The defendants had thus failed at the trial level “to demonstrate that the parade truly was an exercise of... First Amendment rights,” id., at 250, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1299, citing Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293, n. 5 (1984), and on appeal nothing indicated to the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court that the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence on this point was clearly erroneous, 418 Mass., at 250, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1299. The court rejected petitioners’ further challenge to the law as overbroad, holding that it does not, on its face, regulate speech, does not let public officials examine the content of speech, and would not be interpreted as reaching speech. Id., at 251-252, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1300. Finally, the court rejected the challenge that the public accommodations law was unconstitutionally vague, holding that this case did not present an issue of speech and that the law gave persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what was prohibited. Id., at 252, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1300-1301.
Justice Nolan dissented. In his view, the Council “does not need a narrow or distinct theme or message in its parade for it to be protected under the First Amendment.” Id., at 256, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1303. First, he wrote, even if the parade had no message at all, GLIB’s particular message could not be forced upon it. Id., at 257, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1303, citing Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 717 (1977) (state requirement to display “Live Free or Die” on license plates violates First Amendment). Second, according to Justice Nolan, the trial judge clearly erred in finding the parade devoid of expressive purpose. 418 Mass., at 257, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1303. He would have held that the Council, like any expressive association, cannot be barred from excluding applicants who do not share the views the Council wishes to advance. Id., at 257-259, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1303-1304, citing Roberts, supra. Under either a pure speech or associational theory, the State’s purpose of eliminating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the dissent, could be achieved by more narrowly drawn means, such as ordering admission of individuals regardless of sexual preference, without taking the further step of prohibiting the Council from editing the views expressed in their parade. 418 Mass., at 256, 258, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1302, 1304. In Justice Nolan’s opinion, because GLIB’s message was separable from the status of its members, such a narrower order would accommodate the State’s interest without the likelihood of infringing on the Council’s First Amendment rights. Finally, he found clear error in the trial judge’s equation of exclusion on the basis of GLIB’s message with exclusion on the basis of its members’ sexual orientation. To the dissent this appeared false in the light of “overwhelming evidence” that the Council objected to GLIB on account of its message and a dearth of testimony or documentation indicating that sexual orientation was the bar to admission. Id., at 260, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1304. The dissent accordingly concluded that the Council had not even violated the State’s public accommodations law.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the requirement to admit a parade contingent expressing a message not of the private organizers’ own choosing violates the First Amendment. 513 U. S. 1071 (1995). We hold that it does and reverse.
II
Given the scope of the issues as originally joined in this case, it is worth noting some that have fallen aside in the course of the litigation, before reaching us. Although the Council presents us with a First Amendment claim, respondents do not. Neither do they press a claim that the Council’s action has denied them equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the guarantees of free speech and equal protection guard only against encroachment by the government and “erec[t] no shield against merely private conduct,” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 13 (1948); see Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507, 513 (1976), respondents originally argued that the Council’s conduct was not purely private, but had the character of state action. The trial court’s review of the city’s involvement led it to find otherwise, however, and although the Supreme Judicial Court did not squarely address the issue, it appears to have affirmed the trial court’s decision on that point as well as the others. In any event, respondents have not brought that question up either in a cross-petition for certiorari or in their briefs filed in this Court. When asked at oral argument whether they challenged the conclusion by the Massachusetts’ courts that no state action is involved in the parade, respondents’ counsel answered that they “do not press that issue here.”. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22. In this Court, then, their claim for inclusion in the parade rests solely on the Massachusetts public accommodations law.
There is no corresponding concession from the other side, however, and certainly not to the state courts’ characterization of the parade as lacking the element of expression for purposes of the First Amendment. Accordingly, our review of petitioners’ claim that their activity is indeed in the nature of protected speech carries with it a constitutional duty to conduct an independent examination of the record as a whole, without deference to the trial court. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 499 (1984). The “requirement of independent appellate review... is a rule of federal constitutional law,” id., at 510, which does not limit our deference to a trial court on matters of witness credibility, Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U. S. 657, 688 (1989), but which generally requires us to “review the finding of facts by a State court... where a conclusion of law as to a Federal right and a finding of fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the Federal question, to analyze the facts,” Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 385-386 (1927). See also Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 271 (1951); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 189 (1964) (opinion of Brennan, J.). This obligation rests upon us simply because the reaches of the First Amendment are ultimately defined by the facts it is held to embrace, and we must thus decide for ourselves whether a given course of conduct falls on the near or far side of the line of constitutional protection. See Bose Corp., supra, at 503. Even where a speech case has originally been tried in a federal court, subject to the provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) that “[findings of fact... shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous,” we are obliged to make a fresh examination of crucial facts. Hence, in this case, though we are confronted with the state courts’ conclusion that the factual characteristics of petitioners’ activity place it within the vast realm of nonexpressive conduct, our obligation is to “ ‘make an independent examination of the whole record,’... so as to assure ourselves that th[is] judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 285 (1964) (footnote omitted), quoting Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235 (1963).
y — i
A
If there were no reason for a group of people to march from here to there except to reach a destination, they could make the trip without expressing any message beyond the fact of the march itself. Some people might call such a procession a parade, but it would not be much of one. Real “[pjarades are public dramas of social relations, and in them performers define who can be a social actor and what subjects and ideas are available for communication and consideration.” S. Davis, Parades and Power: Street Theatre in Nineteenth-Century Philadelphia 6 (1986). Hence, we use the word “parade” to indicate marchers who are making some sort of collective point, not just to each other but to bystanders along the way. Indeed, a parade’s dependence on watchers is so extreme that nowadays, as with Bishop Berkeley’s celebrated tree, “if a parade or demonstration receives no media coverage, it may as well not have happened.” Id., at 171. Parades are thus a form of expression, not just motion, and the inherent expressiveness of marching to make a point explains our cases involving protest marches. In Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111, 112 (1969), for example, petitioners had taken part in a procession to express their grievances to the city government, and we held that such a “march, if peaceful and orderly, falls well within the sphere of conduct protected by the First Amendment.” Similarly, in Edwards v. South Carolina, supra, at 235, where petitioners had joined in a march of protest and pride, carrying placards and singing The Star Spangled Banner, we held that the activities “reflect an exercise of these basic constitutional rights in their most pristine and classic form.” Accord, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 152 (1969).
The protected expression that inheres in a parade is not limited to its banners and songs, however, for the Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression. Noting that “[s]ymbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 632 (1943), our cases have recognized that the First Amendment shields such acts as saluting a flag (and refusing to do so), id., at 632, 642, wearing an armband to protest a war, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 505-506 (1969), displaying a red flag, Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931), and even “[m] arching, walking or parading” in uniforms displaying the swastika, National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977). As some of these examples show, a narrow, succinctly articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection, which if confined to expressions conveying a “particularized message,” cf. Spence v. Washington, 418 U. S. 405, 411 (1974) (per curiam), would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabber-wocky verse of Lewis Carroll.
Not many marches, then, are beyond the realm of expressive parades, and the South Boston celebration is not one of them. Spectators line the streets; people march in costumes and uniforms, carrying flags and banners with all sorts of messages (e.g., “England get out of Ireland,” “Say no to drugs”); marching bands and pipers play; floats are pulled along; and the whole show is broadcast over Boston television. See Record, Exh. 84 (video). To be sure, we agree with the state courts that in spite of excluding some applicants, the Council is rather lenient in admitting participants. But a private speaker does not forfeit constitutional protection simply by combining multifarious voices, or by failing to edit their themes to isolate an exact message as the exclusive subject matter of the speech. Nor, under our precedent, does First Amendment protection require a speaker to generate, as an original matter, each item featured in the communication. Cable operators, for example, are engaged in protected speech activities even when they only select programming originally produced by others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 636 (1994) (“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”). For that matter, the presentation of an edited compilation of speech generated by other persons is a staple of most newspapers’ opinion pages, which, of course, fall squarely within the core of First Amendment security, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 258 (1974), as does even the simple selection of a paid noncommercial advertisement for inclusion in a daily paper, see New York Times, 376 U. S., at 265-266. The selection of contingents to make a parade is entitled to similar protection.
Respondents’ participation as a unit in the parade was equally expressive. GLIB was formed for the very purpose of marching in it, as the trial court found, in order to celebrate its members’ identity as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual descendants of the Irish immigrants, to show that there are such individuals in the community, and to support the like men and women who sought to march in the New York parade. App. to Pet. for Cert. B3. The organization distributed a fact sheet describing the members’ intentions, App. A51, and the record otherwise corroborates the expressive nature of GLIB’s participation, see Record, Exh. 84 (video); App. A67 (photograph). In 1993, members of GLIB marched behind a shamrock-strewn banner with the simple inscription “Irish American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston.” GLIB understandably seeks to communicate its ideas as part of the existing parade, rather than staging one of its own.
B
The Massachusetts public accommodations law under which respondents brought suit has a venerable history. At common law, innkeepers, smiths, and others who “made profession of a public employment,” were prohibited from refusing, without good reason, to serve a customer. Lane v. Cotton, 12 Mod. 472, 484-485, 88 Eng. Rep. 1458, 1464-1465 (K. B. 1701) (Holt, C. J.); see Bell v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 226, 298, n. 17 (1964) (Goldberg, J., concurring); Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 267, 277 (1963) (Douglas, J., concurring). As one of the 19th-century English judges put it, the rule was that “[t]he innkeeper is not to select his guests[;] [h]e has no right to say to one, you shall come into my inn, and to another you shall not, as every one coming and conducting himself in a proper manner has a right to be received; and for this purpose innkeepers are a sort of public servants.” Rex v. Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213, 219, 173 Eng. Rep. 94, 96 (N. P. 1835); M. Konvitz & T. Leskes, A Century of Civil Rights 160 (1961).
After the Civil War, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the first State to codify this principle to ensure access to public accommodations regardless of race. See Act Forbidding Unjust Discrimination on Account of Color or Race, 1865 Mass. Acts, ch. 277 (May 16, 1865); Konvitz & Leskes, supra, at 155-156; Lerman & Sanderson, Discrimination in Access to Public Places: A Survey of State and Federal Public Accommodations Laws, 7 N. Y. U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 215, 238 (1978); Fox, Discrimination and Antidiscrimination in Massachusetts Law, 44 B. U. L. Rev. 30, 58 (1964). In prohibiting discrimination “in any licensed inn, in any public place of amusement, public conveyance or public meeting,” 1865 Mass. Acts, ch. 277, § 1, the original statute already expanded upon the common law, which had not conferred any right of access to places of public amusement, Lerman & Sanderson, supra, at 248. As with'many public accommodations statutes across the Nation, the legislature continued to broaden the scope of legislation, to the point that the law today prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation..., deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry” in “the admission of any person to, or treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement.” Mass. Gen. Laws §272:98 (1992). Provisions like these are well within the State’s usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. See, e. g., New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U. S. 1, 11-16 (1988); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S., at 624-626; Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 258-262 (1964). Nor is this statute unusual in any obvious way, since it does not, on its face, target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content, the focal point of its prohibition being rather on the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services on the proscribed grounds.
C
In the case before us, however, the Massachusetts law has been applied in a peculiar way. Its enforcement does not address any dispute about the participation of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals in various units admitted to the parade. Petitioners disclaim any intent to exclude homosexuals as such, and no individual member of GLIB claims to have been excluded from parading as a member of any group that the Council has approved to march. Instead, the disagreement goes to the admission of GLIB as its own parade unit carrying its own banner. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B26-B27, and n. 28. Since every participating unit affects the message conveyed by the private organizers, the state courts’ application of the statute produced an order essentially requiring petitioners to alter the expressive content of their parade. Although the state courts spoke of the parade as a place of public accommodation, see, e. g., 418 Mass., at 247-248, 636 N. E. 2d, at 1297-1298, once the expressive character of both the parade and the marching GLIB contingent is understood, it becomes apparent that the state courts’ application of the statute had the effect of declaring the sponsors’ speech itself to be the public accommodation. Under this approach any contingent of protected individuals with a message would have the right to participate in petitioners’ speech, so that the communication produced by the private organizers would be shaped by all those protected by the law who wished to join in with some expressive demonstration of their own. But this use of the State’s power violates the fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.
“Since all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid,” Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 11 (1986) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original), one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide “what not to say,” id., at 16. Although the State may at times “prescribe what shall be orthodox in commercial advertising” by requiring the dissemination of “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651 (1985); see Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 386-387 (1973), outside that context it may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees, see Barnette, 319 U. S., at 642. Indeed this general rule, that the speaker has the right to tailor the speech, applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 341-342 (1995); Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C, Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 797-798 (1988), subject, perhaps, to the permissive law of defamation, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 347-349 (1974); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46 (1988). Nor is the rule’s benefit restricted to the press, being enjoyed by business corporations generally and by ordinary people engaged in unsophisticated expression as well as by professional publishers. Its point is simply the point of all speech protection, which is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949).
Petitioners’ claim to the benefit of this principle of autonomy to control one’s own speech is as sound as the South Boston parade is expressive. Rather like a composer, the Council selects the expressive units of the parade from potential participants, and though the score may not produce a particularized message, each contingent’s expression in the Council’s eyes comports with what merits celebration on that day. Even if this view gives the Council credit for a more considered judgment than it actively made, the Council clearly decided to exclude a message it did not like from the communication it chose to make, and that is enough to invoke its right as a private speaker to shape its expression by speaking on one subject while remaining silent on another. The message it disfavored is not difficult to identify. Although GLIB’s point (like the Council’s) is not wholly articulate, a contingent marching behind the organization’s banner would at least bear witness to the fact that some Irish are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and the presence of the organized marchers would suggest their view that people of their sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals and indeed as members of parade units organized around other identifying characteristics. The parade’s organizers may not believe these facts about Irish sexuality to be so, or they may object to unqualified social acceptance of gays and lesbians or have some other reason for wishing to keep GLIB’s message out of the parade. But whatever the reason, it boils down to the choice of a speaker not to propound a particular point of view, and that choice is presumed to lie beyond the government’s power to control.
Respondents argue that any tension between this rule and the Massachusetts law falls short of unconstitutionality, citing the most recent of our cases on the general subject of compelled access for expressive purposes, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622 (1994). There we reviewed regulations requiring cable operators to set aside channels for designated broadcast signals, and applied only intermediate scrutiny. Id., at 662. Respondents contend on this authority that admission of GLIB to the parade would not threaten the core principle of speaker’s autonomy because the Council, like a cable operator, is merely “a conduit” for the speech of participants in the parade “rather than itself a speaker.” Brief for Respondents 21. But this metaphor is not apt here, because GLIB’s participation would likely be perceived as having resulted from the Council’s customary determination about a unit admitted to the parade, that its message was worthy of presentation and quite possibly of support as well. A newspaper, similarly, “is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising,” and we have held that “[t]he choice of material... and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content... and treatment of public issues... — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment” upon which the State can not intrude. Tornillo, 418 U. S., at 258. Indeed, in Pacific Gas & Electric, we invalidated coerced access to the envelope of a private utility’s bill and newsletter because the utility “may be forced either to appear to agree with [the intruding leaflet] or to respond.” 475 U. S., at 15 (plurality opinion) (citation omitted). The plurality made the further point that if “the government [were] freely able to compel... speakers to propound political messages with which they disagree,... protection [of a speaker’s freedom] would be empty, for the government could require speakers to affirm in one breath that which they deny in the next.” Id., at 16. Thus, when dissemination of a view contrary to one’s own is forced upon a speaker intimately connected with the communication advanced, the speaker’s right to autonomy over the message is compromised.
In Turner Broadcasting, we found this problem absent in the cable context, because “[g]iven cable’s long history of serving as a conduit for broadcast signals, there appears little risk that cable viewers would assume that the broadcast stations carried on a cable system convey ideas or messages endorsed by the cable operator.” 512
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a federal district court may issue an injunction pursuant to § 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 157, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 186 (1988 ed. and Supp. Ill), requiring the trustees of a multiemployer trust fund to transfer assets from that fund to a new multiemployer trust fund established by employers who broke away from the first fund.
I
Respondents include a group of employers that, until 1981, were members of a multiemployer bargaining association, the Greater New York Health Care Facilities Association, Inc. (Greater Employer Association). Two trust funds — the Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund and the New York City Nursing Home-Local 144 Welfare Fund (collectively, Greater Funds) — were established pursuant to collective-bargaining agreements between the Greater Employer Association and the relevant union, Local 144 of the Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Services Employees Union, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Local 144). Prior to 1981, the respondent employers made contributions to the Greater Funds on behalf of their employees in accordance with the terms of collective-bargaining agreements negotiated between the Greater Employer Association and Local 144.
In 1981, the respondent employers broke away from the Greater Employer Association and executed independent collective-bargaining agreements with Local 144. The initial agreements required continuing employer contributions to the Greater Funds, but those concluded in 1984 provided for establishment of a new set of trust funds, the Local 144 Southern New York Residential Health Care Facilities Association Pension Fund and the Local 144 Southern New York Residential Health Care Facilities Association Welfare Fund (Southern Funds). At approximately the same time, the respondent employers ended their participation in the Greater Funds.
In negotiating the transfer from the Greater Funds to the Southern Funds, the “primary concern” of Local 144 was to make sure that the shift would not cause its members to lose benefits. 935 F. 2d 528, 530 (CA2 1991). To address that concern, the respondent employers guaranteed in their collective-bargaining agreements that the Southern Funds would recognize all credited service time earned under the Greater Funds and, more generally, that employees would not lose any benefits as a result of the withdrawal from the Greater Funds. See 710 F. Supp. 58, 60-61 (SDNY 1989). That guarantee obviously created some peculiar liabilities for the Southern Funds. For example, an employee who had earned nine years’ credited service time under the Greater Funds would, after just one more year of service, acquire vested rights to pension benefits pursuant to the 10-year vesting requirement of the Southern Funds — even though the Southern Funds had received only one year of employer contributions for that employee. See id., at 61, n. 4. The Southern Funds’ assumption of these liabilities, however, did not alter the obligations of the Greater Funds, which were not parties to the collective-bargaining agreements: They remained liable to the departing employees for all vested benefits. See id., at 61, and n. 5, 65; 935 F. 2d, at 530-531.
To help cover the Southern Funds’ liabilities and in general to help finance the change from the Greater Funds to the Southern Funds, the respondent employers — joined by several of their employees and the trustees of the Southern Funds — brought this action to compel petitioners, the Greater Funds and the Greater Funds’ trustees, to transfer an appropriate fractional share of the Greater Funds’ assets to the Southern Funds. They asserted right to relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S. C. §1001 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. Ill), and under §302 of the LMRA; only the latter claim is at issue here.
The relevant portions of §302 are set forth in the margin. To describe respondents’ claim, it is necessary to sketch the structure of that provision. Subsection (a) prohibits an employer (or an association of employers, such as the Greater Employer Association) from, inter alia, making payments to any representative of its employees, including the employees’ union and union officials. Paragraph (b)(1) is the “reciprocal” of subsection (a), Arroyo v. United States, 359 U. S. 419, 423 (1959), making it unlawful for employee representatives to receive the payments prohibited by subsection (a). The prohibitions of subsection (a) and paragraph (b)(1) are drawn broadly and would prevent payments to union employee health and welfare funds such as those at issue here. See generally United States v. Ryan, 350 U. S. 299, 304-305 (1956); Goetz, Employee Benefit Trusts under Section 302 of Labor Management Relations Act, 59 Nw. U. L. Rev. 719, 723-731 (1965). Subsection 302(c), however, provides exceptions to the prohibitions. Most significantly for our purposes, paragraph (c)(5) excepts payments to an employee trust fund so long as certain conditions are met, including that the trust fund be “established ... for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees,” and that the payments be “held in trust for the purpose of paying” employee benefits.
Respondents’ theory is that the Greater Funds cannot meet those last quoted conditions unless they transfer to the Southern Funds the portion of their reserves that is attributable to the respondents’ past contributions. If they fail to do so, according to respondents, they will suffer from a “structural defect” which can be remedied by federal courts pursuant to the power conferred by § 302(e) to “restrain violations of this section.”
The District Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment. Though it agreed with respondents that it had power to “review a challenge that the Greater Funds are structurally deficient under [§ 302(c)(5)’s] ‘sole and exclusive’ benefit standard,” 710 F. Supp., at 61, 62, it found no “structural defect,” since there was no allegation of corruption in the Greater Funds and since the transfer of assets would not further any collective-bargaining policies. Id., at 64. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Greater Funds “would suffer from a ‘structural defect’ ” unless the funds transferred a portion of their assets to the Southern Funds. 935 F. 2d, at 534. It remanded for the District Court “to shape an appropriate remedy guided by the principle that a fair portion of the reserves reflecting contributions made to the Greater Funds on behalf of the [respondents’ employees] should be reallocated to the Southern Funds.” Ibid. We granted certiorari, 505 U. S. 1203 (1992).
II
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals relied on the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Local 50, Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Local 3, Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 733 F. 2d 229 (1984), which held that federal courts have “‘jurisdiction under [§ 302(e)] to enforce a trust fund’s compliance with the statutory standards set forth in subsection (c)(5) by eliminating those offensive features in the structure or operation of the trust that would cause it to fail to qualify for a (c)(5) exception.’ ” Id., at 234 (quoting Associated Contractors of Essex Cty., Inc. v. Laborers Int’l Union of North America, 559 F. 2d 222, 225 (CA3 1977)). Local 50 and the decision below are among a large body of conflicting cases bearing upon federal courts’ powers under § 302(e) to supervise the administration of § 302(c)(5) trust funds. A number of courts have held that § 302(e) confers broad supervisory powers. See, e. g., Ponce v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 628 F. 2d 537, 541-542 (CA9 1980); Lewis v. Mill Ridge Coals, Inc., 298 F. 2d 552, 558 (CA6 1962). Others have held that it confers no supervisory powers at all. See, e. g., Ader v. Hughes, 570 F. 2d 303, 306 (CA10 1978); Bowers v. Ulpiano Casal, Inc., 393 F. 2d 421 (CA1 1968); Moses v. Ammond, 162 F. Supp. 866, 871-872 (SDNY 1958). Still others have acknowledged supervisory powers limited in various respects. See Riley v. MEBA Pension Trust, 570 F. 2d 406, 412-413 (CA2 1977); Knauss v. Gorman, 583 F. 2d 82, 86-87 (CA3 1978). Our most recent case in this area expressly reserved the question. See Mine Workers Health and Retirement Funds v. Robinson, 455 U. S. 562, 573, n. 12 (1982).
We hold today that § 302(e) does not provide authority for a federal court to issue injunctions against a trust fund or its trustees requiring the trust funds to be administered in the manner described in § 302(c)(5). By its unmistakable language, § 302(e) provides district courts with jurisdiction “to restrain violations of this section.” A “violation” of §302 occurs when the substantive restrictions in §§ 302(a) and (b) are disobeyed, which happens, not when funds are administered by the trust fend, but when they are “pa[id], len[t], or deliver[ed]” to the trust fend, § 302(a), or when they are “reeeive[d], or accepted] ” by the trust fond, or “requested], [or] demand[ed]” for the trust fond, § 302(b)(1). And the exception to violation set forth in paragraph (c)(5) relates, not to the purpose for which the trust fond is in fact used (an unrestricted fond that happens to be used “for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees” does not qualify); but rather to the purpose for which the trust fund is “established,” § 302(c)(5), and for which the payments are “held in trust,” § 302(e)(5)(A). The trustees’ failure to comply with these latter purposes may be a breach of their contractual or fiduciary obligations and may subject them to suit for such breach; but it is no violation of §302.
A few courts and some academic commentators have drawn an analogy between §§301 and 302 of the LMRA and have suggested that, as §301 has been held to create a federal common law governing labor contracts, see Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U. S. 448 (1957), so too should §302 be viewed as authorizing the development of “a specialized body of federal common law of trust administration. ” Goetz, Developing Federal Labor Law of Welfare and Pension Plans, 55 Cornell L. Rev. 911, 930 (1970). One court has said, quoting Lincoln Mills, supra, at 457, that “jurisdiction in a case of this kind can be found within the ‘penumbra of express statutory mandate’ of Section 302.” Lugo v. Employees Retirement Fund of Illumination Products Industry, 366 F. Supp. 99, 103 (EDNY 1973), quoted approvingly in Alvares v. Erickson, 514 F. 2d 156, 166 (CA9), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 874 (1975). See also Nedd v. United Mine Workers of America, 556 F. 2d 190, 203 (CA3 1977), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1013 (1978). A comparison of § 302(e) with § 301(a) shows that the analogy to Lincoln Mills is inapt. The latter provides a federal cause of action for any “violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” Subsection § 302(e), by contrast, provides no cause of action for a “violation of the fiduciary duties imposed pursuant to an employee benefit trust fund”; rather, it allows federal courts to “restrain violations” of § 302, which, as we have explained, occur when payments to a nonqualifying trust are made or received.
The text of §302 requires that, if payments are to be exempt from its prohibition, they must be “held in trust for the purpose of paying” employee benefits and the trust must be “established” for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees. There is nothing to suggest that this had the ambitious purpose of establishing an entire body of federal trust law, rather than merely describing the character of the trust to which payments are allowed, leaving it to state law to determine when breaches of that trust have occurred and how they may be remedied. As observed by the court in Moses v. Ammond, 162 F. Supp., at 872, n. 14, § 302(e)(5) is akin to a provision such as § 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 401(a) (1988 ed. and Supp. III), which (in connection with 26 U. S. C. § 501 (1988 ed. and Supp. III)) provides a tax exemption for employer-created pension trust funds so long as, inter alia, they are “created ... for the exclusive benefit of [the employer’s] employees or their beneficiaries.” No one would contend that that provision confers upon the federal courts authority to govern and enforce the trusts, and there is no more reason to reach such a conclusion here.
Respondents point to our statement in Arroyo v. United States, 359 U. S., at 426-427, that “[continuing compliance with [the standards of § 302(c)(5)] in the administration of welfare funds was made explicitly enforceable in federal district courts by civil proceedings under § 302(e).” See also Robinson, 455 U. S., at 573, n. 12 (referring to this passage). The statement is perhaps susceptible of the reading that “compliance” was “made ... enforceable” by authorizing district courts to prohibit further payments to an entity that was not established, or does not hold its funds in trust, for the requisite purposes. But in any case, Arroyo was a criminal prosecution brought under § 302(d), and the statement was therefore pure dictum. Also dictum was our statement in NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U. S. 322, 331 (1981), later quoted in Robinson, supra, at 570, that “the ‘sole purpose’ of § 302(c)(5) is to ensure that employee benefit trust funds ‘are legitimate trust funds, used actually for the specified benefits to the employees of the employers who contribute to them....’” (Emphasis added.) This obiter quotation of a line from the floor debate on the LMRA cannot convert (1) a statutory statement of trust obligations that must exist to obtain an exemption into (2) a statutoiy authorization to enforce trust obligations.
Consistently with the text of § 302(c)(5), and the structure of § 302 in general, we view the “sole and exclusive benefit” and “held in trust” provisions of that paragraph as neither creating nor imposing a federal trust law standard, but rather as simply requiring a trust obligation for the specified purposes, defined and enforced originally under state law, see Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 170(1) (1959), and now under ERISA. Cf. Amax Coal, supra, at 329-330. Respondents do not deny that the Greater Funds are held subject to such a trust obligation. The fiduciaries of the Greater Funds are subject to the fiduciary obligations of ERISA, including the so-called exclusive benefit requirement of 29 U. S. C. § 1104(a)(l)(i), and are liable under 29 U. S. C. § 1109(a) to legal and equitable remedies for failure in those obligations. Since the Greater Funds are entities that qualify under § 302(c)(5), equitable relief under § 302(e) restraining future payments to them would not be appropriate.
In addition to the §302 claim, respondents’ complaint asserted two ERISA claims, one based on ERISA’s asset transfer rules, 29 U. S. C. § 1414, and the other on ERISA’s above-mentioned fiduciary duty provision, § 1104. The District Court ruled against respondents on both claims but, because of its ruling on §302, the Court of Appeals did not reach them. Neither do we and, on remand, the Court of Appeals will be free to consider them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 302,29 U. S. C. § 186 (1988 ed. and Supp. Ill), provides in part: “(a)... It shall be unlawful for any employer or association of employers ... to pay, lend, or deliver ... any money or other thing of value—
“(1) to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce; or
“(2) to any labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership, any of the employees of such employer ...;
“(b) ... (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to request, demand, receive, or accept, or agree to receive or accept, any payment, loan, or delivery of any money or other thing of value prohibited by subsection (a) of this section.
“(c)... The provisions of this section shall not be applicable ... (5) with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by [the representative of the employees], for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the employees of other employers making similar payments, and their families and dependents): Provided, That (A) such payments are held in trust for the purpose of paying ... for the benefit of employees, their families and dependents, for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death of employees, . . . (B) the detailed basis on which such payments are to be made is specified in a written agreement with the employer . . . ; and (C) such payments as are intended to be used for the purpose of providing pensions or annuities for employees are made to a separate trust which provides that the funds held therein cannot be used for any purpose other than paying such pensions or annuities;...
“(e) The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of the Territories and possessions shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, and subject to the provisions of section 381 of title 28 (relating to notice to opposite party) to restrain violations of this section, without regard to the provisions of section 17 of title 15 and section 52 of this title, and the provisions of chapter 6 of this title.”
Justice Stevens asserts that our holding is “uninvited,” post, at 601, was “quite unanticipated by the submissions of the parties” post, at 595, and has been reached “[wjithout the benefit of argument ... by either litigant,” ibid. That is not so. The Summary of Argument in petitioners’ brief began with the assertion that § 302(c)(5) was only “a narrow exception to a broad criminal prohibition.” Brief for Petitioners 1. The first subdivision of the Argument elaborated on that point, arguing that the provision conferred no authority “to oversee the administration of employee benefit plans.” Id., at 8. And the next subdivision, entitled “Lower Federal Courts Have Misconstrued Section 302(c)(5) in Asserting Broad Jurisdiction over the Regulation of Employee Benefit Plans,” systematically criticized the lower court jurisprudence permitting regulation of benefit plans, including cases from almost every Circuit. Id., at 11-18. The subdivision concluded: “[T]he federal courts simply do not have the power, by reason of Section 302(c)(5), to restructure and regulate employee benefit plans.” Id., at 18 (footnote omitted). By attacking the basic authority of federal courts to regulate § 302(c)(5) trust funds, petitioners raised the issue we decide here, and amply discussed the considerations bearing upon it. Respondents evidently understood the import of petitioners’ argument. They devoted an entire subdivision of their brief to the topic “Federal Courts Have Authority To Remedy Violations Of Section 302(c)(5) In Civil Cases.” See Brief for Respondents 17-19. In response to our point here, Justice Stevens quotes a passage from a different section of petitioners’ brief and claims that it is “disingenuous” to characterize that argument as a broad attack on a federal court’s power. Post, at 598, n. 4. We do not do so.
Justice Stevens concludes that “it is perfectly clear that funds are no longer ‘held in trust for the purpose’ of benefiting employees if, immediately after deposit into a legitimate trust fund, they are diverted for some improper purpose.” Post, at 597-598, n. 3. It is true that funds are “no longer” held in trust if they are misappropriated (just as it is true that funds are “no longer” held in trust when they are paid out in the form of pensions), but it is also irrelevant. If the payments, when received by the relevant employee representative, “are held in trust” and that trust satisfies the other requirements of § 302(c)(5) (including that it have been “established” for the proper purposes), the exception in § 302(c)(5) applies and the payments do not violate §302. This was our precise holding in Arroyo v. United States, 359 U. S. 419 (1959). The union official in that case, immediately upon receiving the employer’s contributions to the trust fund, had begun diverting the funds to improper purposes. See id., at 422. Indeed, “the evidence could properly support an inference that the [union official’s] purpose from the outset-was to appropriate the [contributions to the fund] for his own use.” Id., at 423 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, we held that the employer’s payments were “within the precise language of § 302(c).” Ibid. We deemed the payments to have been “held in trust for the purpose” of benefiting employees since they were made to a trust fund established for that purpose. See id., at 421, 423. Justice Stevens criticizes us for relying on this “half” of Arroyo while disregarding the other “half,” see, post, at 595, n. 1, but the “half” to which we adhere is holding, and the “half” we disregard, dictum.
While Justice Stevens does not dispute that this statement was dictum, he argues that “the reasoning that led us to [that] conclusion... is not so easily dismissed.” Post, at 596 (emphasis added). We disagree. As one will see by reading the relevant passage from Arroyo (set forth in the concurrence, post, at 596-597), the “reasoning” consisted of leaping from the correct premise, that Congress limited the purposes for which exempt trust funds could be used, to the entirely unsupported conclusion, that § 302(e) rather than state trust law was to be the means by which that limitation was enforced. It is an ipse dixit, rather than a reasoned conclusion — and, to boot, an ipse dixit contradicted by the very holding of the case in which it was pronounced. Arroyo held that malfeasance in the administration of trust funds did not create federal criminal liability under §302, and there is no basis in either text or reason why it should nonetheless create federal civil liability.
Justice Stevens’ concluding words are that our action today is “a radical departure from the doctrine of judicial restraint.” Post, at 601. We have already refuted his claim that our ruling is reached uninvited and without benefit of argument. See supra, at 588-589, n. 2. His lack-of-restraint criticism seems principally directed, however, at our “departure from [the] understanding” of § 302(c)(5), post, at 601, reflected in the dicta of earlier cases — such as the excerpt that he quotes from Mine Workers Health and Retirement Funds v. Robinson, 455 U. S. 562, 573, n. 12 (1982) (Stevens, J.), see post, at 600. This seems to us a topsy-turvy version of judicial restraint. It was, if anything, those dicta themselves — uninvited, unargued, and unnecessary to the Court’s holdings — which insulted that virtue; and we would add injury to insult by according them precedential effect.
Title 29 U. S. C. § 1104(a)(1) (1988 ed. and Supp. III) provides: “[A] fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and — (A) for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the 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: | 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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
I
Article IV, § 3, cl. 2, of the Constitution vests Congress with the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the... Property belonging to the United States.” Shortly after the termination of hostilities in the Second World War, Congress enacted the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 377, as amended, 40 U. S. C. § 471 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III). The Act was designed, in part, to provide “an economical and efficient system for... the disposal of surplus property.” 63 Stat. 378, 40 U. S. C. §471. In furtherance of this policy, federal agencies are directed to maintain adequate inventories of the property under their control and to identify excess property for transfer to other agencies able to use it. See 63 Stat. 384, 40 U. S. C. §§ 483(b), (c). Property that has outlived its usefulness to the Federal Government is declared “surplus” and may be transferred to private or other public entities. See generally 63 Stat. 385, as amended, 40 U. S. C. §484.
The Act authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Secretary of Education) to assume responsibility for disposing of surplus real property “for school, classroom, or other educational use.” 63 Stat. 387, as amended, 40 U. S. C. §484(k)(l). Subject to the disapproval of the Administrator of General Services, the Secretary may sell or lease the property to nonprofit, tax-exempt educational institutions for consideration that takes into account “any benefit which has accrued or may accrue to the United States” from the transferee’s use of the property. 63 Stat. 387, 40 U. S. C. §§484(k)(l)(A), (C). By regulation, the Secretary has provided for the computation of a “public benefit allowance,” which discounts the transfer price of the property “on the basis of benefits to the United States from the use of such property for educational purposes.” 34 CFR § 12.9(a) (1980).
The property which spawned this litigation was acquired by the Department of the Army in 1942, as part of a larger tract of approximately 181 acres of land northwest of Philadelphia. The Army built on that land the Valley Forge General Hospital, and for 30 years thereafter, that hospital provided medical care for members of the Armed Forces. In April 1973, as part of a plan to reduce the number of military installations in the United States, the Secretary of Defense proposed to close the hospital, and the General Services Administration declared it to be “surplus property.”
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) eventually assumed responsibility for disposing of portions of the property, and in August 1976, it conveyed a 77-acre tract to petitioner, the Valley Forge Christian College. The appraised value of the property at the time of conveyance was $577,500. This appraised value was discounted, however, by the Secretary’s computation of a 100% public benefit allowance, which permitted petitioner to acquire the property without making any financial payment for it. The deed from HEW conveyed the land in fee simple with certain conditions subsequent, which required petitioner to use the property for 30 years solely for the educational purposes described in petitioner’s application. In that description, petitioner stated its intention to conduct “a program of education... meeting the accrediting standards of the State of Pennsylvania, The American Association of Bible Colleges, the Division of Education of the General Council of the Assemblies of God and the Veterans Administration.”
Petitioner is a nonprofit educational institution operating under the supervision of a religious order known as the Assemblies of God. By its own description, petitioner’s purpose is “to offer systematic training on the collegiate level to men and women for Christian service as either ministers or laymen.” App. 34. Its degree programs reflect this orientation by providing courses of study “to train leaders for church related ministries.” Id,., at 102. Faculty members must “have been baptized in the Holy Spirit and be living consistent Christian lives,” id., at 37, and all members of the college administration must be affiliated with the Assemblies of God, id., at 36. In its application for the 77-acre tract, petitioner represented that, if it obtained the property, it would make “additions to its offerings in the arts and humanities,” and would strengthen its “psychology” and “counselling” courses to provide services in inner-city areas.
In September 1976, respondents Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. (Americans United), and four of its employees, learned of the conveyance through a news release. Two months later, they brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, later transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to challenge the conveyance on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. See id., at 10. In its amended complaint, Americans United described itself as a nonprofit organization composed of 90,000 “taxpayer members.” The complaint asserted that each member “would be deprived of the fair and constitutional use of his (her) tax dollar for constitutional purposes in violation of his (her) rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Ibid. Respondents sought a declaration that the conveyance was null and void, and an order compelling petitioner to transfer the property back to the United States. Id., at 12.
On petitioner’s motion, the District Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. App. to Pet. for Cert. A42. The court found that respondents lacked standing to sue as taxpayers under Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83 (1968), and had “failed to allege that they have suffered any actual or concrete injury beyond a generalized grievance common to all taxpayers.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A43.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which reversed the judgment of the District Court by a divided vote. Americans United v. U. S. Dept. of HEW, 619 F. 2d 252 (1980). All members of the court agreed that respondents lacked standing as taxpayers to challenge the conveyance under Flast v. Cohen, supra, since that case extended standing to taxpayers qua taxpayers only to challenge congressional exercises of the power to tax and spend conferred by Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution, and this conveyance was authorized by legislation enacted under the authority of the Property Clause, Art. IV, §3, cl. 2. Notwithstanding this significant factual difference from Flast, the majority of the Court of Appeals found that respondents had standing merely as “citizens,” claiming “‘injury in fact’ to their shared individuated right to a government that ‘shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.’” 619 F. 2d, at 261. In the majority’s view, this “citizen standing” was sufficient to satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement of Art. III. One judge, perhaps sensing the doctrinal difficulties with the majority’s extension of standing, wrote separately, expressing his view that standing was necessary to satisfy “the need for an available plaintiff,” without whom “the Establishment Clause would be rendered virtually unenforceable” by the judiciary. Id., at 267, 268. The dissenting judge expressed the view that respondents’ allegations constituted a “generalized grievance... too abstract to satisfy the injury in fact component of standing.” Id., at 269. He therefore concluded that their standing to contest the transfer was barred by this Court’s decisions in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974), and United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974). 619 F. 2d, at 270-271.
Because of the unusually broad and novel view of standing to litigate a substantive question in the federal courts adopted by the Court of Appeals, we granted certiorari, 450 U. S. 909 (1981), and we now reverse.
H-1 I
Article III of the Constitution limits the “judicial power” of the United States to the resolution of “cases” and “controversies.” The constitutional power of federal courts cannot be defined, and indeed has no substance, without reference to the necessity “to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies.” Liverpool S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 39 (1885). The requirements of Art. Ill are not satisfied merely because a party requests a court of the United States to declare its legal rights, and has couched that request for forms of relief historically associated with courts of law in terms that have a familiar ring to those trained in the legal process. The judicial power of the United States defined by Art. Ill is not an unconditioned authority to determine the constitutionality of legislative or executive acts. The power to declare the rights of individuals and to measure the authority of governments, this Court said 90 years ago, “is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy.” Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345 (1892). Otherwise, the power “is not judicial... in the sense in which judicial power is granted by the Constitution to the courts of the United States.” United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 48 (1852).
As an incident to the elaboration of this bedrock requirement, this Court has always required that a litigant have “standing” to challenge the action sought to be adjudicated in the lawsuit. The term “standing” subsumes a blend of constitutional requirements and prudential considerations, see Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (1975), and it has not always been clear in the opinions of this Court whether particular features of the “standing” requirement have been required by Art. Ill ex proprio vigore, or whether they are requirements that the Court itself has erected and which were not compelled by the language of the Constitution. See Flast v. Cohen, supra, at 97.
A recent line of decisions, however, has resolved that ambiguity, at least to the following extent: at an irreducible minimum, Art. Ill requires the party who invokes the court’s authority to “show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 99 (1979), and that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” and “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision,” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 38, 41 (1976). In this manner does Art. Ill limit the federal judicial power “to those disputes which confine federal courts to a role consistent with a system of separated powers and which are traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S., at 97.
The requirement of “actual injury redressable by the court,” Simon, swpra, at 39, serves several of the “implicit policies embodied in Article III,” Flast, supra, at 96. It tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action. The “standing” requirement serves other purposes. Because it assures an actual factual setting in which the litigant asserts a claim of injury in fact, a court may decide the case with some confidence that its decision will not pave the way for lawsuits which have some, but not all, of the facts of the case actually decided by the court.
The Art. Ill aspect of standing also reflects a due regard for the autonomy of those persons likely to be most directly affected by a judicial order. The federal courts have abjured appeals to their authority which would convert the judicial process into “no more than a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders.” United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 687 (1973). Were the federal courts merely publicly funded forums for the ventilation of public grievances or the refinement of jurisprudential understanding, the concept of “standing” would be quite unnecessary. But the “cases and controversies” language of Art. Ill forecloses the conversion of courts of the United States into judicial versions of college debating forums. As we said in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740 (1972):
“The requirement that a party seeking review must allege facts showing that he is himself adversely affected... does serve as at least a rough attempt to put the decision as to whether review will be sought in the hands of those who have a direct stake in the outcome.”
The exercise of judicial power, which can so profoundly affect the lives, liberty, and property of those to whom it extends, is therefore restricted to litigants who can show “injury in fact” resulting from the action which they seek to have the court adjudicate.
The exercise of the judicial power also affects relationships between the coequal arms of the National Government. The effect is, of course, most vivid when a federal court declares unconstitutional an act of the Legislative or Executive Branch. While the exercise of that “ultimate and supreme function,” Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, supra, at 345, is a formidable means of vindicating individual rights, when employed unwisely or unnecessarily it is also the ultimate threat to the continued effectiveness of the federal courts in performing that role. While the propriety of such action by a federal court has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), it has been recognized as a tool of last resort on the part of the federal judiciary throughout its nearly 200 years of existence:
“[Repeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life-tenured branch and the representative branches of government will not, in the long run, be beneficial to either. The public confidence essential to the former and the vitality critical to the latter may well erode if we do not exercise self-restraint in the utilization of our power to negative the actions of the other branches.” United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S., at 188 (Powell, J., concurring).
Proper regard for the complex nature of our constitutional structure requires neither that the Judicial Branch shrink from a confrontation with the other two coequal branches of the Federal Government, nor that it hospitably accept for adjudication claims of constitutional violation by other branches of government where the claimant has not suffered cognizable injury. Thus, this Court has “refrain[ed] from passing upon the constitutionality of an act [of the representative branches] unless obliged to do so in the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it.” Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 279 (1919). The importance of this precondition should not be underestimated as a means of “defining] the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power.” Flast v. Cohen, supra, at 95.
Beyond the constitutional requirements, the federal judiciary has also adhered to a set of prudential principles that bear on the question of standing. Thus, this Court has held that “the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S., at 499. In addition, even when the plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the requirements of Art. Ill, the Court has refrained from adjudicating “abstract questions of wide public significance” which amount to “generalized grievances,” pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches. Id., at 499-500. Finally, the Court has required that the plaintiff’s complaint fall within “the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.” Association of Data Processing Service Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 153 (1970).
Merely to articulate these principles is to demonstrate their close relationship to the policies reflected in the Art. Ill requirement of actual or threatened injury amenable to judicial remedy. But neither the counsels of prudence nor the policies implicit in the “case or controversy” requirement should be mistaken for the rigorous Art. Ill requirements themselves. Satisfaction of the former cannot substitute for a demonstration of “ ‘distinct and palpable injury’... that is likely to be redressed if the requested relief is granted.” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S., at 100 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 501). That requirement states a limitation on judicial power, not merely a factor to be balanced in the weighing of so-called “prudential” considerations.
We need not mince words when we say that the concept of “Art. Ill standing” has not been defined with complete consistency in all of the various cases decided by this Court which have discussed it, nor when we say that this very fact is probably proof that the concept cannot be reduced to a one-sentence or one-paragraph definition. But of one thing we may be sure: Those who do not possess Art. Ill standing may not litigate as suitors in the courts of the United States. Article III, which is every bit as important in its circumscription of the judicial power of the United States as in its granting of that power, is not merely a troublesome hurdle to be overcome if possible so as to reach the “merits” of a lawsuit which a party desires to have adjudicated; it is a part of the basic charter promulgated by the Framers of the Constitution at Philadelphia in 1787, a charter which created a general government, provided for the interaction between that government and the governments of the several States, and was later amended so as to either enhance or limit its authority with respect to both States and individuals.
I — I
The injury alleged by respondents in their amended complaint is the “deprivation] of the fair and constitutional use of [their] tax dollar.” App. 10. As a result, our discussion must begin with Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923) (decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon). In that action a taxpayer brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the Maternity Act of 1921, which provided federal funding to the States for the purpose of improving maternal and infant health. The injury she alleged consisted of the burden of taxation in support of an unconstitutional regime, which she characterized as a deprivation of property without due process. “Looking through forms of words to the substance of [the] complaint,” the Court concluded that the only “injury” was the fact “that officials of the executive department of the government are executing and will execute an act of Congress asserted to be unconstitutional.” Id., at 488. Any tangible effect of the challenged statute on the plaintiff’s tax burden was “remote, fluctuating and uncertain.” Id., at 487. In rejecting this as a cognizable injury sufficient to establish standing, the Court admonished:
“The party who invokes the power [of judicial review] must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.... Here the parties plaintiff have no such case.” Id., at 488.
Following the decision in Frothingham, the Court confirmed that the expenditure of public funds in an allegedly unconstitutional manner is not an injury sufficient to confer standing, even though the plaintiff contributes to the public coffers as a taxpayer. In Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429 (1952), plaintiffs brought suit as citizens and taxpayers, claiming that a New Jersey law which authorized public school teachers in the classroom to read passages from the Bible violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing:
“This Court has held that the interests of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury are too indeterminable, remote, uncertain and indirect to furnish a basis for an appeal to the preventive powers of the Court over their manner of expenditure.... Without disparaging the availability of the remedy by taxpayer’s action to restrain unconstitutional acts which result in direct pecuniary injury, we reiterate what the Court said of a federal statute as equally true when a state Act is assailed: ‘The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.’” Id., at 433-434 (quoting Frothingham v. Mellon, supra, at 488) (citations omitted).
In short, the Court found that plaintiffs’ grievance was “not a direct dollars-and-cents injury but is a religious difference.” 342 U. S., at 434. A case or controversy did not exist, even though the “clash of interests [was] real and... strong.” Id., at 436 (Douglas, J., dissenting).
The Court again visited the problem of taxpayer standing in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83 (1968). The taxpayer plaintiffs in Flast sought to enjoin the expenditure of federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which they alleged were being used to support religious schools in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court developed a two-part test to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. First, because a taxpayer alleges injury only by virtue of his liability for taxes, the Court held that “a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution.” Id., at 102. Second, the Court required the taxpayer to “show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8.” Id., at 102-103.
The plaintiffs in Flast satisfied this test because “[t]heir constitutional challenge [was] made to an exercise by Congress of its power under Art. I, § 8, to spend for the general welfare,” id., at 103, and because the Establishment Clause, on which plaintiffs’ complaint rested, “operates as a specific constitutional limitation upon the exercise by Congress of the taxing and spending power conferred by Art..1, §8,” id., at 104. The Court distinguished Frothingham v. Mellon, supra, on the ground that Mrs. Frothingham had relied, not on a specific limitation on the power to tax and spend, but on a more general claim based on the Due Process Clause. 392 U. S., at 105. Thus, the Court reaffirmed that the “case or controversy” aspect of standing is unsatisfied “where a taxpayer seeks to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.” Id., at 106.
Unlike the plaintiffs in Flast, respondents fail the first prong of the test for taxpayer standing. Their claim is deficient in two respects. First, the source of their complaint is not a congressional action, but a decision by HEW to transfer a parcel of federal property. Flast limited taxpayer standing to challenges directed “only [at] exercises of congressional power.” Id., at 102. See Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U. S., at 228 (denying standing because the taxpayer plaintiffs “did not challenge an enactment under Art. I, § 8, but rather the action of the Executive Branch”).
Second, and perhaps redundantly, the property transfer about which respondents complain was not an exercise of authority conferred by the Taxing and Spending Clause of Art. I, § 8. The authorizing legislation, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, was an evident exercise of Congress’ power under the Property Clause, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Respondents do not dispute this conclusion, see Brief for Respondents Americans United et al. 10, and it is decisive of any claim of taxpayer standing under the Flast precedent.
Any doubt that once might have existed concerning the rigor with which the Flast exception to the Frothingham principle ought to be applied should have been erased by this Court’s recent decisions in United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974), and Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, supra. In Richardson, the question was whether the plaintiff had standing as a federal taxpayer to argue that legislation which permitted the Central Intelligence Agency to withhold from the public detailed information about its expenditures violated the Accounts Clause of the Constitution. We rejected plaintiffs claim of standing because “his challenge [was] not addressed to the taxing or spending power, but to the statutes regulating the CIA.” 418 U. S., at 175. The “mere recital” of those claims “demonstrate[d] how far he [fell] short of the standing criteria of Flast and how neatly he [fell] within the Frothingham holding left undisturbed.” Id., at 174-175.
The claim in Schlesinger was marred by the same deficiency. Plaintiffs in that case argued that the Incompatibility Clause of Art. 1 prevented certain Members of Congress from holding commissions in the Armed Forces Reserve. We summarily rejected their assertion of standing as taxpayers because they “did not challenge an enactment under Art. I, § 8, but rather the action of the Executive Branch in permitting Members of Congress to maintain their Reserve status.” 418 U. S., at 228 (footnote omitted).
Respondents, therefore, are plainly without standing to sue as taxpayers. The Court of Appeals apparently reached the same conclusion. It remains to be seen whether respondents have alleged any other basis for standing to bring this suit.
IV
Although the Court of Appeals properly doubted respondents’ ability to establish standing solely on the basis of their taxpayer status, it considered their allegations of taxpayer injury to be “essentially an assumed role.” 619 F. 2d, at 261.
“Plaintiffs have no reason to expect, nor perhaps do they care about, any personal tax saving that might result should they prevail. The crux of the interest at stake, the plaintiffs argue, is found in the Establishment Clause, not in the supposed loss of money as such. As a matter of primary identity, therefore, the plaintiffs are not so much taxpayers as separationists....” Ibid.
In the court’s view, respondents had established standing by virtue of an “ ‘injury in fact’ to their shared individuated right to a government that ‘shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.’” Ibid. The court distinguished this “injury” from “the question of ‘citizen standing’ as such.” Id., at 262. Although citizens generally could not establish standing simply by claiming an interest in governmental observance of the Constitution, respondents had “set forth instead a particular and concrete injury” to a “personal constitutional right.” Id., at 265.
The Court of Appeals was surely correct in recognizing that the Art. Ill requirements of standing are not satisfied by “the abstract injury in nonobservance of the Constitution asserted by... citizens.” Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U. S., at 223, n. 13. This Court repeatedly has rejected claims of standing predicated on “‘the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law....’ Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126, 129 [1922].” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 208 (1962). See Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, supra, at 216-222; Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1 (1972); Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633 (1937). Such claims amount to little more than attempts “to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air... generalized grievances about the conduct of government.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S., at 106.
In finding that respondents had alleged something more than “the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance,” Schlesinger, supra, at 217, the Court of Appeals relied on factual differences which we do not think amount to legal distinctions. The court decided that respondents’ claim differed from those in Schlesinger and Richardson, which were predicated, respectively, on the Incompatibility and Accounts Clauses, because “it is at the very least arguable that the Establishment Clause creates in each citizen a ‘personal constitutional right’ to a government that does not establish religion.” 619 F. 2d, at 265 (footnote omitted). The court found it unnecessary to determine whether this “arguable” proposition was correct, since it judged the mere allegation of a legal right sufficient to confer standing.
This reasoning process merely disguises, we think with a rather thin veil, the inconsistency of the court’s results with our decisions in Schlesinger and Richardson. The plaintiffs in those cases plainly asserted a “personal right” to have the Government act in accordance with their views of the Constitution; indeed, we see no barrier to the assertion of such claims with respect to any constitutional provision. But assertion of a right to a particular kind of Government conduct, which the Government has violated by acting differently, cannot alone satisfy the requirements of Art. Ill without draining those requirements of meaning.
Nor can Schlesinger and Richardson be distinguished on the ground that the Incompatibility and Accounts Clauses are in some way less “fundamental” than the Establishment Clause. Each establishes a norm of conduct which the Federal Government is bound to honor — to no greater or lesser extent than any other inscribed in the Constitution. To the extent the Court of Appeals relied on a view of standing under which the Art. Ill burdens diminish as the “importance” of the claim on the merits increases, we reject that notion. The requirement of standing “focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated.” Flast v. Cohen, supra, at 99. Moreover, we know of no principled basis on which to create a hierarchy of constitutional values or a complementary “sliding scale” of standing which might permit respondents to invoke the judicial power of the United States. “The proposition that all constitutional provisions are enforceable by any citizen simply because citizens are the ultimate beneficiaries of those provisions has no boundaries.” Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U. S., at 227.
The complaint in this case shares a common deficiency with those in Schlesinger and Richardson. Although respondents claim that the Constitution has been violated, they claim nothing else. They fail to identify any personal injury suffered by them as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees. That is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. Ill, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms. It is evident that respondents are firmly committed to the constitutional principle of separation of church and State, but standing is not measured by the intensity of the litigant’s interest or the fervor of his advocacy. “[T]hat concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S., at 204, is the anticipated consequence of proceedings commenced by one who has been injured in fact; it is not a permissible substitute for the showing of injury itself.
In reaching this conclusion, we do not retreat from our earlier holdings that standing may be predicated on noneconomic injury. See, e. g., United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S., at 686-688; Association of Data Processing Service Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U. S., at 153-154. We simply cannot see that respondents have alleged an injury of any kind, economic or otherwise, sufficient to confer standing. Respondents complain of a transfer of property located in Chester County, Pa. The named plaintiffs reside in Maryland and Virginia; their organizational headquarters are located in Washington, D. C. They learned of the transfer through a news release. Their claim that the Government has violated the Establishment Clause does not provide a special license to roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing and to reveal their discoveries in federal court. The federal courts were simply not constituted as ombudsmen of the general welfare.
V
The Court of Appeals in this case ignored unambiguous limitations on taxpayer and citizen standing. It appears to have done so out of the conviction that enforcement of the Establishment Clause demands special exceptions from the requirement that a plaintiff allege “ ‘distinct and palpable injury to himself,’... that is likely to be redressed if the requested relief is granted.” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S., at 100 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S., at 501). The court derived precedential comfort from Flast v. Cohen: “The underlying justification for according standing in Flast it seems, was the implicit recognition that the Establishment Clause does create in every citizen a personal constitutional right, such that any citizen, including taxpayers, may contest under that clause the constitutionality of federal expenditures.” 619 F. 2d, at 262. The concurring opinion was even more direct. In its view, “statutes alleged to violate the Establishment Clause may not have an individual impact sufficient to confer standing in the traditional sense.” Id., at 267-268. To satisfy “the need for an available plaintiff,” id., at 267, and thereby to assure a basis for judicial review, respondents should be granted standing because, “as a practical matter, no one is better suited to bring this lawsuit and thus vindicate the freedoms embodied in the Establishment Clause,” id., at 266.
Implicit in the foregoing is the philosophy that the business of the federal courts is correcting constitutional errors, and that “cases and controversies” are at best merely convenient vehicles for doing so and at worst nuisances that may be dispensed with when they become obstacles to that transcendent endeavor. This philosophy has no place in our constitutional scheme. It does not become more palatable when the underlying merits concern the Establishment Clause. Respondents’ claim of standing implicitly rests on the presumption that violations of the Establishment Clause typically will not cause injury sufficient to confer standing under the “traditional” view of Art. III. But “[t]he assumption that if respondents have no standing to sue, no one would have standing, is not a reason to find standing.” Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U. S., at 227. This view would convert standing into a requirement that must be observed only when satisfied. Moreover, we are unwilling to assume that injured parties are nonexistent simply because they have not joined respondents in their suit. The law of averages is not a substitute for standing.
Were we to accept respondents’ claim of standing in this
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335; Doughty v. Maxwell, 376 U. S. 202; see Garner v. Pennsylvania, 372 U. S. 768; United States ex rel. Durocher v. LaVallee, 330 F. 2d 303 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
Mr. Justice Harlan would set the case for argument, believing that the retroactivity of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, as applied in a recidivist case, presents problems of its own that are deserving of plenary consideration.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The single question in the case is whether the United States may recover indemnity from one of its employees after it has been held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 60 Stat. 842, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., for the negligence of the employee.
Respondent, an employee of the United States, had a collision with the car of one Darnell, while respondent was driving a government automobile. Darnell sued the United States under the Tort Claims Act. The United States filed a third-party complaint against respondent, asking that if it should be held liable to Darnell, it have indemnity from respondent. The District Court found that Darnell’s injuries were caused solely by the negligence of respondent, acting within the scope of his employment. It entered judgment against the United States for $5,500 and judgment over for the United States in the same amount. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against respondent by a divided vote. 206 F. 2d 846. The case is here on writ of certiorari. 346 U. S. 914.
Petitioner’s argument is that the right of indemnity, though not expressly granted by the Tort Claims Act, is to be implied. A private employer, it is said, has a common-law right of indemnity against an employee whose negligence has made the employer liable. The Tort Claims Act, by imposing liability on the United States for the negligent acts of its employees, has placed it in the general position of a private employer. Therefore, it should have the comparable right of indemnity against the negligent employee which private employers have. United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U. S. 543, is said to show the way. For there we held that the United States could be sued as a third-party defendant for contributions claimed by a joint tort-feasor, though no specific provision of the Tort Claims Act provided for such suits.
In that case, however, we were dealing with an established type of liability, which was within the broad sweep of the claims for which the United States had agreed to stand liable. Since the claim was within the class covered by the waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court refused to restrict its enforcement to separate actions for contribution.
The present case is quite different. We deal not with the liability of the United States, but with the liability of its employees. The Tort Claims Act does not touch the liability of the employees except in one respect: by 28 U. S. C. § 2676 it makes the judgment against the United States “a complete bar” to any action by the claimant against the employee. And see § 2672.
The relations between the United States and its employees have presented a myriad of problems with which the Congress over the years has dealt. Tenure, retirement, discharge, veterans’ preferences, the responsibility of the United States to some employees for negligent acts of other employees — these are a few of the aspects of the problem on which Congress has legislated. Government employment gives rise to policy questions of great import, both to the employees and to the Executive and Legislative Branches. On the employee side are questions of considerable import. Discipline of the employee, the exactions which may be made of him, the merits or demerits he may suffer, the rate of his promotion are of great consequence to those who make government service their career. The right of the employer to sue the employee is a form of discipline. Perhaps the suits which would be instituted under the rule which petitioner asks would mostly be brought only when the employee carried insurance. But the decision we could fashion could have no such limitations, since we deal only with a rule of indemnity which is utterly independent of any underwriting of the liability. Moreover, the suits that would be brought would haul the employee to court and require him to find a lawyer, to face his employer's charge, and to submit to the ordeal of a trial. The time out for the trial and its preparation, plus the out-of-pocket expenses, might well impose on the employee a heavier financial burden than the loss of his seniority or a demotion in rank. When the United States sues an employee and takes him to court, it lays the heavy hand of discipline on him, as onerous to the employee perhaps as any measure the employer might take, except discharge itself.
On the government side are questions of employee morale and fiscal policy. We have no way of knowing what the impact of the rule of indemnity we are asked to create might be. But we do know the question has serious aspects — considerations that pertain to the financial ability of employees, to their efficiency, to their morale. These are all important to the Executive Branch. The financial burden placed on the United States by the Tort Claims Act also raises important questions of fiscal policy. A part of that fiscal problem is the question of reimbursement of the United States for the losses it suffers as a result of the waiver of its sovereign immunity. Perhaps the losses suffered are so great that government employees should be required to carry part of the burden. Perhaps the cost in the morale and efficiency of employees would be too high a price to pay for the rule of indemnity the petitioner now asks us to write into the Tort Claims Act.
We had an analogous problem before us in United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S. 301, where the United States sued the owner and driver of a truck for the negligent injury of a soldier in the Army of the United States, claiming damages for loss of the soldier’s service during the period of his disability. We were asked to extend the common-law action of per quod servitium amisit to the government-soldier relation. We declined, stating that the problem involved federal fiscal affairs over which Congress, not the Court, should formulate the policy.
The reasons for following that course in the present case are even more compelling. Here a complex of relations between federal agencies and their staffs is involved. Moreover, the claim now asserted, though the product of a law Congress passed, is a matter on which Congress has not taken a position. It presents questions of policy on which Congress has not spoken. The selection of that policy which is most advantageous to the whole involves a host of considerations that must be weighed and appraised. That function is more appropriately for those who write the laws, rather than for those who interpret them.
Affirmed.
The Act provides in pertinent part as follows:
Sec. 1346. (b) “Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts, together with the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
Sec. 2674. “The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages. . . .”
Sec. 2676. “The judgment in an action under section 1346 (b) of this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.”
Though the legislative history of the Act is not too helpful on this issue, such indications as there are point toward the result we reach. The Court recently made an extensive review of the history of the Tort Claims Act in Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 24-30. As there explained, much of its relevant history appears in the Seventy-seventh Congress, rather than in the Seventy-ninth Congress, which enacted it. In the Seventy-seventh Congress the bill took substantially the form in which it was finally enacted by the Seventy-ninth Congress.
At the hearings before the House Judiciary Committee of the Seventy-seventh Congress, the question of the liability of government employees arose. Mr. Francis M. Shea, then Assistant Attorney General, explained the Government’s position. In discussing the provision for administrative settlement of small claims (which is now 28 U. S. C. § 2672), Mr. Shea was questioned concerning the clause under which acceptance of an award by the claimant constitutes a release of all claims against the employee, as well as against the United States. The present § 2672 has much the same effect as § 2676, which makes a judgment against the United States a bar to action against the employee. See note 1, supra. Mr. Shea’s statements concerning the administrative settlement provision therefore have some relevance to the issue in the present case.
“Mr. Springer. I would like to direct your attention, Mr. Shea, to line 19. Why do you provide this acceptance of the award as constituting a bar to the claim against the employee? Is that the intention of the provision, and what is the ultimate purpose of it?
“Mr. Shea. ... It has been found that the Government, through the Department of Justice, is constantly being called on by the heads of the various agencies to go in and defend, we will say, a person who is driving a mail truck when suit is brought against him for damages or injuries caused while he was operating the truck within the scope of his duties. Allegations of negligence are usually made. It has been found, over long years of experience, that unless the Government is willing to go in and defend such persons the consequence is a very real attack upon the morale of the services. Most of these persons are not in a position to stand or defend large damage suits, and they are of course not generally in a position to secure the kind of insurance which one would if one were driving for himself.
“If the Government has satisfied a claim which is made on account of a collision between a truck carrying mail and a private car, that should, in our judgment, be the end of it. After the claimant has obtained satisfaction of his claim from the Government, either by a judgment or by an administrative award, he should not be able to turn around and sue the driver of the truck. If he could sue the driver of the truck, we would have to go in and defend the driver in the suit brought against him, and there will thus be continued a very substantial burden which the Government has had to bear in conducting the defense of post-office drivers and other Government employees.
"Mr. McLaughlin. Have you considered the practice followed by large corporations and railway companies with respect to defense of employees who are joined as defendants in negligence actions?
“Mr. Shea. I should think that what ordinarily happens in the case of an accident caused by a driver for a big corporation is that suit is brought jointly against the two, and usually it is satisfied by the corporation, and then ordinarily the corporation’s remedy against the driver is to fire him if he is negligent too often. Ordinarily the corporations cover such risks by insurance, which is paid for by the employer, I think.
“The Chairman. Mr. Shea, you are discussing and directing your remarks to the matter where, if a person is injured and files a claim against the Government and the Government satisfies that claim, that is the end of the claim against anybody?
“Mr. Shea. That is right.
“The Chairman. What is the arrangement when the government has an employee who is guilty of gross negligence and injury results? Is there any requirement that that employee should in any way respond to the Government if it has to pay for the injury, in the event of gross negligence?
“Mr. Shea. Not if he is a Government employee. Under those circumstance's, the remedy is to fire the employee.
“Mr. McLaughlin. No right of subrogation is set up?
“Mr. Shea. Not against the employee.”
See Hearings before the House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 5373 and H. R. 6463, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 9-10. See also S. Rep. No. 1196, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is where proper venue lies for a patent infringement lawsuit brought against a domestic corporation. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." In Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 226, 77 S.Ct. 787, 1 L.Ed.2d 786 (1957), this Court concluded that for purposes of § 1400(b) a domestic corporation "resides" only in its State of incorporation.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court rejected the argument that § 1400(b) incorporates the broader definition of corporate "residence" contained in the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). 353 U.S., at 228, 77 S.Ct. 787. Congress has not amended § 1400(b) since this Court construed it in Fourco, but it has amended § 1391 twice. Section 1391 now provides that, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law" and "[f]or all venue purposes," a corporation "shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question." §§ 1391(a), (c). The issue in this case is whether that definition supplants the definition announced in Fourco and allows a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement lawsuit against a corporation in any district in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. We conclude that the amendments to § 1391 did not modify the meaning of § 1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco . We therefore hold that a domestic corporation "resides" only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.
I
Petitioner, which is organized under Indiana law and headquartered in Indiana, manufactures flavored drink mixes. Respondent, which is organized under Delaware law and has its principal place of business in Illinois, is a competitor in the same market. As relevant here, respondent sued petitioner in the District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that petitioner's products infringed one of respondent's patents. Although petitioner is not registered to conduct business in Delaware and has no meaningful local presence there, it does ship the allegedly infringing products into the State.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case or transfer venue to the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, arguing that venue was improper in Delaware. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406. Citing Fourco 's holding that a corporation resides only in its State of incorporation for patent infringement suits, petitioner argued that it did not "resid[e]" in Delaware under the first clause of § 1400(b). It further argued that it had no "regular and established place of business" in Delaware under the second clause of § 1400(b). Relying on Circuit precedent, the District Court rejected these arguments, 2015 WL 5613160 (D.Del., Sept. 24, 2015), and the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus, In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338 (2016). The Federal Circuit concluded that subsequent statutory amendments had effectively amended § 1400(b) as construed in Fourco, with the result that § 1391(c) now supplies the definition of "resides" in § 1400(b). 821 F.3d, at 1341-1343. Under this logic, because the District of Delaware could exercise personal jurisdiction over petitioner, petitioner resided in Delaware under § 1391(c) and, therefore, under § 1400(b). We granted certiorari, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 614, 196 L.Ed.2d 490 (2016), and now reverse.
II
A
The history of the relevant statutes provides important context for the issue in this case. The Judiciary Act of 1789 permitted a plaintiff to file suit in a federal district court if the defendant was "an inhabitant" of that district or could be "found" for service of process in that district. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, § 11, 1 Stat. 79. The Act covered patent cases as well as other civil suits. Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U.S. 561, 563, 62 S.Ct. 780, 86 L.Ed. 1026 (1942). In 1887, Congress amended the statute to permit suit only in the district of which the defendant was an inhabitant or, in diversity cases, of which either the plaintiff or defendant was an inhabitant. See Act of Mar. 3, 1887, § 1, 24 Stat. 552; see also Stonite, supra, at 563-564, 62 S.Ct. 780.
This Court's decision in In re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653, 661-662, 14 S.Ct. 221, 37 L.Ed. 1211 (1893), arguably suggested that the 1887 Act did not apply to patent cases. As a result, while some courts continued to apply the Act to patent cases, others refused to do so and instead permitted plaintiffs to bring suit (in line with the pre-1887 regime) anywhere a defendant could be found for service of process. See Stonite, supra, at 564-565, 62 S.Ct. 780. In 1897, Congress resolved the confusion by enacting a patent specific venue statute. See Act of Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 395, 29 Stat. 695. In so doing, it "placed patent infringement cases in a class by themselves, outside the scope of general venue legislation." Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706, 713, 92 S.Ct. 1936, 32 L.Ed.2d 428 (1972). This new statute ( § 1400(b)'s predecessor) permitted suit in the district of which the defendant was an "inhabitant," or a district in which the defendant both maintained a "regular and established place of business" and committed an act of infringement. 29 Stat. 695. At the time, a corporation was understood to "inhabit" only the State in which it was incorporated. Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, 449-450, 12 S.Ct. 935, 36 L.Ed. 768 (1892).
The Court addressed the scope of § 1400(b)'s predecessor in Stonite . In that case, the two defendants inhabited different districts within a single State. The plaintiff sought to sue them both in the same district, invoking a then governing general venue statute that, if applicable, permitted it to do so. 315 U.S., at 562-563, 62 S.Ct. 780. This Court rejected the plaintiff's venue choice on the ground that the patent venue statute constituted "the exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement proceedings" and thus was not supplemented or modified by the general venue provisions. Id., at 563, 62 S.Ct. 780. In the Court's view, the patent venue statute "was adopted to define the exact jurisdiction of the federal courts in actions to enforce patent rights," a purpose that would be undermined by interpreting it "to dovetail with the general provisions relating to the venue of civil suits." Id., at 565-566, 62 S.Ct. 780. The Court thus held that the patent venue statute "alone should control venue in patent infringement proceedings." Id., at 566, 62 S.Ct. 780.
In 1948, Congress recodified the patent venue statute as § 1400(b). See Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 936. The recodified provision, which remains unaltered today, states that "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (1952 ed.). This version differs from the previous one in that it uses "resides" instead of "inhabit[s]." At the same time, Congress also enacted the general venue statute, § 1391, which defined "residence" for corporate defendants. That provision stated that "[a] corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes." § 1391(c) (1952 ed.).
Following the 1948 legislation, courts reached differing conclusions regarding whether § 1400(b)'s use of the word "resides" incorporated § 1391(c)'s definition of "residence." See Fourco, 353 U.S., at 224, n. 3, 77 S.Ct. 787 (listing cases). In Fourco, this Court reviewed a decision of the Second Circuit holding that § 1391(c) defined residence for purposes of § 1400(b), "just as that definition is properly ... incorporated into other sections of the venue chapter." Transmirra Prods. Corp. v. Fourco Glass Co., 233 F.2d 885, 886 (1956). This Court squarely rejected that interpretation, reaffirming Stonite 's holding that § 1400(b)"is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions, and ... is not to be supplemented by ... § 1391(c)." 353 U.S., at 229, 77 S.Ct. 787. The Court observed that Congress enacted § 1400(b) as a standalone venue statute and that nothing in the 1948 recodification evidenced an intent to alter that status. The fact that § 1391(c) by "its terms" embraced "all actions" was not enough to overcome the fundamental point that Congress designed § 1400(b) to be "complete, independent and alone controlling in its sphere." Id., at 228, 77 S.Ct. 787.
The Court also concluded that "resides" in the recodified version of § 1400(b) bore the same meaning as "inhabit[s]" in the pre-1948 version. See id., at 226, 77 S.Ct. 787 ("[T]he [w]ords 'inhabitant' and 'resident,' as respects venue, are synonymous" (internal quotation marks omitted)). The substitution of "resides" for "inhabit[s]" thus did not suggest any alteration in the venue rules for corporations in patent cases. Accordingly, § 1400(b) continued to apply to domestic corporations in the same way it always had: They were subject to venue only in their States of incorporation. See ibid. (The use of "resides" "negat[es] any intention to make corporations suable, in patent infringement cases, where they are merely 'doing business,' because those synonymous words ["inhabitant" and "resident"] mean domicile and, in respect of corporations, mean the state of incorporation only").
B
This landscape remained effectively unchanged until 1988, when Congress amended the general venue statute, § 1391(c), to provide that "[f]or purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced." Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, § 1013(a), 102 Stat. 4669. The Federal Circuit in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (1990), announced its view of the effect of this amendment on the meaning of the patent venue statute. The court reasoned that the phrase "[f]or purposes of venue under this chapter" was "exact and classic language of incorporation," id., at 1579, and that § 1391(c) accordingly established the definition for all other venue statutes under the same "chapter." Id., at 1580. Because § 1400(b) fell within the relevant chapter, the Federal Circuit concluded that § 1391(c), "on its face," "clearly applies to § 1400(b), and thus redefines the meaning of the term 'resides' in that section." Id., at 1578.
Following VE Holding, no new developments occurred until Congress adopted the current version of § 1391 in 2011 (again leaving § 1400(b) unaltered). See Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, § 202, 125 Stat. 763. Section 1391(a) now provides that, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law," "this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions brought in district courts of the United States." And § 1391(c)(2), in turn, provides that, "[f]or all venue purposes," certain entities, "whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question." In its decision below, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed VE Holding, reasoning that the 2011 amendments provided no basis to reconsider its prior decision.
III
We reverse the Federal Circuit. In Fourco, this Court definitively and unambiguously held that the word "reside[nce]" in § 1400(b) has a particular meaning as applied to domestic corporations: It refers only to the State of incorporation. Congress has not amended § 1400(b) since Fourco, and neither party asks us to reconsider our holding in that case. Accordingly, the only question we must answer is whether Congress changed the meaning of § 1400(b) when it amended § 1391. When Congress intends to effect a change of that kind, it ordinarily provides a relatively clear indication of its intent in the text of the amended provision. See United States v. Madigan, 300 U.S. 500, 506, 57 S.Ct. 566, 81 L.Ed. 767 (1937) ("[T]he modification by implication of the settled construction of an earlier and different section is not favored"); A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 331 (2012) ("A clear, authoritative judicial holding on the meaning of a particular provision should not be cast in doubt and subjected to challenge whenever a related though not utterly inconsistent provision is adopted in the same statute or even in an affiliated statute").
The current version of § 1391 does not contain any indication that Congress intended to alter the meaning of § 1400(b) as interpreted in Fourco . Although the current version of § 1391(c) provides a default rule that applies "[f]or all venue purposes," the version at issue in Fourco similarly provided a default rule that applied "for venue purposes." 353 U.S., at 223, 77 S.Ct. 787 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this context, we do not see any material difference between the two phrasings. See Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez, 384 U.S. 202, 204-205, 86 S.Ct. 1394, 16 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966) (construing " 'for venue purposes' " to cover "all venue statutes"). Respondent argues that " 'all venue purposes' means 'all venue purposes'-not 'all venue purposes except for patent venue.' " Brief for Respondent 21. The plaintiffs in Fourco advanced the same argument. See 353 U.S., at 228, 77 S.Ct. 787 ("The main thrust of respondents' argument is that § 1391(c) is clear and unambiguous and that its terms include all actions-including patent infringement actions"). This Court was not persuaded then, and the addition of the word "all" to the already comprehensive provision does not suggest that Congress intended for us to reconsider that conclusion.
This particular argument is even weaker under the current version of § 1391 than it was under the provision in place at the time of Fourco, because the current provision includes a saving clause expressly stating that it does not apply when "otherwise provided by law." On its face, the version of § 1391(c) at issue in Fourco included no exceptions, yet this Court still held that "resides" in § 1400(b) retained its original meaning contrary to § 1391(c)'s default definition. Fourco 's holding rests on even firmer footing now that § 1391's saving clause expressly contemplates that certain venue statutes may retain definitions of "resides" that conflict with its default definition. In short, the saving clause makes explicit the qualification that this Court previously found implicit in the statute. See Pure Oil, supra, at 205, 86 S.Ct. 1394 (interpreting earlier version of § 1391 to apply "to all venue statutes using residence as a criterion, at least in the absence of contrary restrictive indications in any such statute"). Respondent suggests that the saving clause in § 1391(a) does not apply to the definitional provisions in § 1391(c), Brief for Respondent 31-32, but that interpretation is belied by the text of § 1391(a), which makes clear that the saving clause applies to the entire "section." See § 1391(a)(1) ( "Except as otherwise provided by law-... this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions" (emphasis added)).
Finally, there is no indication that Congress in 2011 ratified the Federal Circuit's decision in VE Holding . If anything, the 2011 amendments undermine that decision's rationale. As petitioner points out, VE Holding relied heavily-indeed, almost exclusively-on Congress' decision in 1988 to replace "for venue purposes" with "[f]or purposes of venue under this chapter " (emphasis added) in § 1391(c). Congress deleted "under this chapter" in 2011 and worded the current version of § 1391(c) almost identically to the original version of the statute. Compare § 1391(c) (2012 ed.) ("[f]or all venue purposes") with § 1391(c) (1952 ed.) ("for venue purposes"). In short, nothing in the text suggests congressional approval of VE Holding .
* * *
As applied to domestic corporations, "reside[nce]" in § 1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation. 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 GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The complaint alleged that petitioner is a corporation, and petitioner admitted this allegation in its answer. See App. 11a, 60a. Similarly, the petition for certiorari sought review on the question of "corporate" residence. See Pet. for Cert. i. In their briefs before this Court, however, the parties suggest that petitioner is, in fact, an unincorporated entity. See Brief for Respondent 9, n. 4 (the complaint's allegation was "apparently inaccurat[e]"); Reply Brief 4. Because this case comes to us at the pleading stage and has been litigated on the understanding that petitioner is a corporation, we confine our analysis to the proper venue for corporations. We leave further consideration of the issue of petitioner's legal status to the courts below on remand.
The parties dispute the implications of petitioner's argument for foreign corporations. We do not here address that question, nor do we express any opinion on this Court's holding in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706, 92 S.Ct. 1936, 32 L.Ed.2d 428 (1972) (determining proper venue for foreign corporation under then existing statutory regime).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Pursuant to its order of January 26, 1960, 361 U. S. 950, the Court has before it (1) the application of the United States for an order vacating the order of the Court of Appeals, dated January 21, 1960, staying the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division, dated January 11, 1960; and (2) the petition of the United States for a writ of certio-rari. to the Court of Appeals to review the judgment of the District Court as to the respondent, Curtis M. Thomas, Registrar of Voters, Washington Parish, Louisiana. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments submitted by both sides, the Court makes the following disposition of these matters:
The petition for certiorari is granted. Upon the opinion, findings of fact, and conclusions of law of the District Court and the decision of this Court rendered today in No. 64, United States v. Raines, ante, p. 17, the aforesaid stay order of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the judgment of the District Court as to the respondent Thomas is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) provides that if any party files a timely motion “under Rule 59 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] to alter or amend the judgment,” a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of that motion “shall have no effect.” In this case, we decide whether a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest filed after the entry of judgment constitutes a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment and renders ineffective any notice of appeal filed before a ruling on that motion. If we decide the question in the affirmative, we are asked to decide whether this case nevertheless falls within the so-called “unique circumstances” exception to the timely appeal requirement announced in Thompson v. INS, 375 U. S. 384 (1964) (per curiam).
I
The history of this case is complex but can be stated in a summary way. In September 1969, the Cavalier Bag Company merged into E. T. Barwick Industries, Inc. (Barwick Industries). The Osternecks, owners of Cavalier and petitioners here, approved the merger and exchanged their stock in Cavalier for stock in Barwick Industries. In approving the transaction, petitioners allegedly relied on financial statements of Barwick Industries prepared by Ernst & Whinney, an independent certified public accounting firm and the respondent here.
Sometime later, petitioners concluded that Barwick Industries’ financial statements for two years preceding the merger misrepresented the company’s actual financial condition. In 1975, petitioners filed this action alleging violations of §§ 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ch. 404, 48 Stat. 891, 899, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78j(b), 78t (1982 ed. and Supp. IV), Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (1975), and Georgia common law. Petitioners named as defendants, among others, Barwick Industries, respondent Ernst & Whinney, and certain directors and officers of Barwick Industries (E. T. Barwick, B. A. Talley, and M. E. Kellar).
After nearly 10 years of pretrial proceedings, the ease finally went to trial in 1984. The jury returned a verdict against Barwick Industries, M. E. Kellar, and B. A. Talley in the amount of $2,632,234 in compensatory damages for violations of the federal securities laws and Georgia common law. The jury found in favor of E. T. Barwick and respondent Ernst & Whinney.
Immediately after the jury verdict was announced, petitioners moved orally for prejudgment interest on the damages assessed against Barwick Industries, M. E. Kellar, and B. A. Talley. The District Judge, not wishing to hear argument on petitioners’ motion at that point, directed petitioners to submit their motion for prejudgment interest in writing within 10 days. He stated:
“The judgment will be entered on this particular verdict as soon as possible, then if prejudgment interest is granted it will be — the judgment can be amended.” App. 5.
The judgment was filed and entered on the same day, January 30, 1985. Id., at 6-7. On February 11, 1985, petitioners, as directed, filed a written motion for prejudgment interest. Id., at 8-9.
During March 1985, the various parties filed notices of appeal and cross-appeal challenging the January 30 judgment. Of particular importance here, on March 1, 1985, while their motion for prejudgment interest was still pending, petitioners filed a notice of appeal from the January 30, 1985, judgment in favor of E. T. Barwick and respondent Ernst & Whinney. Id., at 34.
The District Court did not rule on petitioners’ motion for prejudgment interest until July 1, 1985. On that date, the court entered an order stating that the final judgment shall be “AMENDED” to reflect an “additional award of [$945,512.85 in] prejudgment interest on the federal securities claim.” Id., at 44. On July 9, 1985, the District Court filed a document captioned “AMENDED JUDGMENT,” stating that the January 30,1985, judgment “is hereby amended by adding thereto . . . [the] award of prejudgment interest,” but shall “remain the same in every other respect.” Id., at 45. After the amended judgment had been entered, petitioners filed one additional notice of appeal on July 31, 1985, captioned as a cross-appeal against M. E. Kellar, B. A. Talley, E. T. Bar-wick, and Barwick Industries. Id., at 46-47. But, and this is the vital fact for purposes of this case, the notice failed to include respondent Ernst & Whinney as a party to the appeal.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ appeal as to Ernst & Whinney for lack of jurisdiction, finding that no effective notice had been filed. Osterneck v. E. T. Barwick Industries, Inc., 825 F. 2d 1521 (CA11 1987). The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioners’ February 11, 1985, motion for prejudgment interest was a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), which rendered ineffective under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) the March 1, 1985, notice of appeal filed before the disposition of the prejudgment interest motion. 825 F. 2d, at 1525-1527. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ contention, based on our decision in White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U. S. 445 (1982), that their motion for prejudgment interest was not a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) because it merely addressed an issue collateral to the main cause of action. 825 F. 2d, at 1526. The Court of Appeals also rejected petitioners’ contention that our decision in Thompson v. INS, 375 U. S. 384 (1964) (per curiam), required that it hear their appeal because they had relied upon several actions of the District Court which indicated that the January 30, 1985, judgment' was final and appealable notwithstanding the pending motion for prejudgment interest. 825 F. 2d, at 1527-1528.
Petitioners sought review here, and we granted certiorari, 486 U. S. 1042 (1988), to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals over whether a motion for prejudgment interest filed after the entry of judgment constitutes a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Cf. Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp., 785 F. 2d 720 (CA9 1986). We also agreed to consider, if necessary, whether the Court of Appeals erred in not entertaining petitioners’ appeal under the reasoning of Thompson, supra. We now affirm.
II
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion to “alter or amend the judgment” shall be served within 10 days of the entry of judgment. Rule 4(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a notice of appeal filed while a timely Rule 59(e) motion is pending has no effect. Together, these Rules work to implement the finality requirement of 28 U. S. C. § 1291 by preventing the filing of an effective notice of appeal until the District Court has had an opportunity to dispose of all motions that seek to amend or alter what otherwise might appear to be a final judgment.
A
White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, supra, at 451, set the general framework for determining whether a postjudgment motion constitutes a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. In that case, we held that a request for attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988 was not a Rule 59(e) motion. We stated in White that a postjudgment motion will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves “reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.” 455 U. S., at 451, citing Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U. S. 257 (1978). We concluded that a request for attorney’s fees did not fit this description because it raised legal issues “collateral to the main cause of action,” 455 U. S., at 451, requiring an inquiry that was wholly “separate from the decision on the merits,” id., at 451-452. We noted, moreover, that because attorney’s fees under § 1988 are not considered compensation for the injury giving rise to the cause of action, their award was “uniquely separable” from the underlying merits of the controversy. Id., at 452.
We revisited the question of what constitutes a Rule 59(e) motion last Term. In Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., 485 U. S. 265 (1988), we considered whether a motion for the allowance of costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) was a motion to alter or amend the judgment. In concluding that it was not, we relied on the fact that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 draws a “sharp distinction” between a district court’s judgment on the merits and an award of costs. 485 U. S., at 268. Moreover, we observed that, as with the attorney's fees in White, a motion for costs filed under Rule 54(d) “raises issues wholly collateral to the judgment in the main cause of action.” 485 U. S., at 268.
In Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U. S. 196 (1988), the issue was not whether a particular kind of motion constitutes a Rule 59(e) motion,, but rather the related question whether a judgment is final under 28 U. S. C. § 1291 when a motion for attorney’s fees remains to be resolved. We acknowledged in Budinich that our earlier- decision in White, holding that a request for attorney’s fees under § 1988 was not a Rule 59(e) motion, “all but” answered the finality question. We went on to reiterate that, as a general matter, a request for attorney’s fees is not part of the merits of the underlying action because such fees are not part of the compensation for the plaintiff’s injury but traditionally have been regarded as an element of costs awarded to the prevailing party. 486 U. S., at 199-201.
Under these precedents, the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude that a postjudgment motion for discretionary prejudgment interest constitutes a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). First, we have repeatedly stated that prejudgment interest “is an element of [plaintiff’s] complete compensation.” West Virginia v. United States, 479 U. S. 305, 310, and n. 2 (1987); see General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U. S. 648, 655-656, and n. 10 (1983). Thus, unlike attorney’s fees, which at common l’aw were regarded as an element of costs and therefore not part of the merits judgment, see Budinich, supra, at 200-201, prejudgment interest traditionally has been considered part of the compensation due plaintiff.
Second, unlike a request for attorney’s fees or a motion for costs,, a motion for discretionary prejjudgment interest does not “raiste] issues wholly collateral' to. the judgment in the main cause of action,” Buchanan, supra, at 268; see White, 455 U. S., at 451, nor does it require an inquiry wholly “separate from the decision on the merits,” id., at 451-452. In deciding if and how much prejudgment interest should be granted, a district court must examine — or in the case of a postjudgment motion, reexamine — matters encompassed within the merits of the underlying action. For example, in a federal securities action such as this case, a district court will consider a number of factors, including whether prejudgment interest is necessary to compensate the plaintiff fully for his injuries, the degree of personal wrongdoing on the part of the defendant, the availability of alternative investment opportunities to the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff delayed in bringing or prosecuting the action, and other fundamental considerations of fairness. See Norte & Co. v. Huffines, 416 F. 2d 1189, 1191-1192 (CA2 1969), cert. denied sub nom. Muscat v. Norte & Co., 397 U. S. 989 (1970); City National Bank v. American Commonwealth Financial Corp., 608 F. Supp. 941, 943 (WDNC 1985); Fox v. Kane-Miller Corp., 398 F. Supp. 609, 651 (Md. 1975); see also generally Blau v. Lehman, 368 U. S. 403, 414 (1962) (“[IJnterest is not recovered according to a rigid theory of compensation for money withheld, but is given in response to considerations of fairness”). These considerations are intertwined in a significant way with the merits of the plaintiff’s primary case as well as the extent of his damages. Thus, we conclude that a postjudgment motion for discretionary prejudgment interest involves the kind of reconsideration of matters encompassed within the merits of a judgment to which Rule 59(e) was intended to apply.
Our conclusion that a postjudgment motion for discretionary prejudgment interest is a Rule 59(e) motion also helps further the important goal of avoiding piecemeal appellate review of judgments. Cf. United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U. S. 263, 265 (1982) (“[T]he policy of Congress embodied in [28 U. S. C. § 1291] is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions”). Because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) renders' ineffective any notice of appeal filed while a Rule 59(e) motion is pending, the decision whether a particular pending motion falls under Rule 59(e) will of necessity determine whether an otherwise final judgment is appealable. By preventing appellate review before a postjudgment motion for prejudgment interest is resolved, the rule we adopt today gives added assurance that an appellate court will have the benefit of the district court’s plenary findings with regard to factual and legal issues sub-' sumed in the decision to grant discretionary prejudgment interest, such as the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s full damages, as well as other matters of equity bearing on the merits of the litigation. Such information may well be useful to a complete understanding of the district court’s findings on liability and damages. We do not anticipate that our holding will result in undue delays in the entry of a final judgment. Any evidence relating to the question of prejudgment interest should be available at the time that the other issues in the case are tried, and the district court should be able to dispose of a motion for prejudgment interest within a reasonable time after the entry of verdict.
Ill
Petitioners contend that even if their March 1, 1985, notice of appeal was rendered ineffective by the filing of their motion for prejudgment interest, the Court of Appeals nevertheless should have heard their appeal based on the rationale of Thompson v. INS, 375 U. S. 384 (1964). In that case, the petitioner filed with the District Court a motion for a new trial within 10 days of receiving notice of the entry of judgment, but 12 days after the judgment was entered. Although this motion was in fact untimely, the District Court specifically declared that it had been filed ‘“in ample time.’” Id., at 385. In reliance on this statement, the petitioner in Thompson did not file an appeal from the District Court’s original judgment,, but rather filed a timely appeal from the later denial of his motion for a new trial. Because it found that petitioner’s motion for a new trial was not timely filed, the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal. In light of these “unique circumstances,” we reversed. Id., at 387. Because petitioner had filed his notice of appeal in reliance on the specific statement of the District Court that his motion for a new trial was timely, we felt that fairness required that the Court of Appeals excuse his untimely appeal. See ibid.
Petitioners contend that the rationale of Thompson is applicable here because certain statements made by the District Court, as well as certain actions taken by the District Court, the District Court Clerk, and the Court of Appeals, led them to believe that their notice of appeal was timely. After reviewing these claims, the Court of Appeals declined to apply the Thompson exception, concluding:
“At no time has the district court or this court ever affirmatively represented to the Osternecks that their appeal was timely filed, nor did the Osternecks ever seek such assurance from either court.” 825 F. 2d, at 1528.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Court of Appeals was correct in declining to apply our reasoning in Thompson to excuse petitioners’ failure to file an effective notice of appeal. By its terms, Thompson applies only where a party has performed an act which, if properly done, would postpone the deadline for filing his appeal and has received specific assurance by a judicial officer that this act has been properly done. That is not the case here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Court of Appeals also found that petitioners’ July 31, 1985, notice of cross-appeal was ineffective as to the judgment in favor of respondent because respondent was not named in that notice. 825 F. 2d, at 1528-1529. Petitioners have not sought review of that ruling in this Court.
We do not intend here to specify what factors a district court must consider when deciding under federal law whether to grant prejudgment interest. We offer this list of factors, taken from lower court cases, merely to demonstrate that the inquiry involves issues intertwined to a significant extent with the merits of the underlying controversy.
We do not believe the result should be different where prejudgment interest is available as a matter of right. It could be argued that where a party is entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of right, a reexamination of issues relevant to the underlying merits is not necessary, and therefore the motion should be deemed collateral in the sense we have used that term. However, mandatory prejudgment interest, no less than discretionary prejudgment interest, serves to “remedy the injury giving rise to the [underlying] action,” Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U. S. 196, 200 (1988), and in that sense is part of the merits of the district court’s decision. Moreover, as we said last Term in Budinich: “[W]hat is of importance here is not preservation of conceptual consistency in the status of a particular [type of motion] as ‘merits’ or ‘nonmerits,’ but rather preservation of operational consistency and predictability in the overall application of the [finality requirement] of § 1291.” Ibid. “Courts and litigants are best served by the bright-line rule, which accords with traditional understanding,” ibid., that a motion for prejudgment interest implicates the merits of the district court’s judgment.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to review determinations by private insurance carriers of the amount of benefits payable under Part B of the Medicare statute.
I
Part B of the Medicare program, 79 Stat. 301, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395j et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), is a federally subsidized, voluntary health insurance system for persons who are 65 or older or who are disabled. The companion Part A Medicare program covers institutional health costs such as hospital expenses. Part B supplements Part A’s coverage by insuring against a portion of some medical expenses, such as certain physician services and X-rays, that are excluded from the Part A program. Eligible individuals pay monthly premiums if they choose to enroll in Part B. These premiums, together with contributions from the Federal Government, are deposited in the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund that finances the Part B program. See §§ 1395j, 1395r, 1395s, 1395t, and 1395w (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).
The Secretary of Health and Human Services administers the Medicare program. “In order to provide for the administration of the benefits . . . with maximum efficiency and convenience for individuals entitled to benefits,” the Secretary is authorized to assign the task of paying Part B claims from the Trust Fund to private insurance carriers experienced in such matters. § 1395u. See H. R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 46 (1965); S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 53 (1965). After Part B enrollees receive medical care, they (or, after their assignment, their medical providers) bill the private insurance carrier.
If the carrier determines that a claim meets all Part B coverage criteria such as medical necessity and reasonable cost, the carrier pays the claim out of the federal funds. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395u; Schweiker v. McClure, ante, p. 188. If the carrier decides that reimbursement in full is not warranted, the statute and the regulations designate an appeal procedure available to dissatisfied claimants. All may request a “review determination,” which is a de novo written review hearing before a carrier employee different from the one who initially decided the claim. Claimants who remain dissatisfied and whose appeal involves more than $100 then may petition for an oral hearing before a hearing officer designated by the carrier. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(b)(3)(C); 42 CFR § 405.820 (1980). Unless the carrier or the hearing officer decides to reopen the proceeding, the hearing officer’s decision is “final and binding upon all parties to the hearing . . . .” § 405.835. Neither the statute nor the Secretary’s regulations make further provision for review of hearing officer decisions.
II
Respondent, a major distributor of kidney dialysis supplies, sold its products to institutions and individuals. About half of such sales were covered by the Part B program. Persons purchasing dialysis supplies assigned their Medicare Part B claims to respondent. See 42 U. S. C. § 426(e); § 426-1 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (establishing Part B coverage for renal disease). Respondent in turn billed the Prudential Insurance Company of America, the private insurance carrier for the New Jersey area in which it is based. According to its contract with the Secretary, Prudential was required to reimburse 80% of what it determined to be a “reasonable charg[e]” for these supplies. See § 1395l(a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV).
Prudential interpreted the relevant statute and regulations to define the “reasonable charges” for respondent’s products to be their catalog price as of July 1 of the preceding calendar year. For example, Prudential reimbursed respondent’s Part B invoices from July 1, 1975, to June 30, 1976, on the basis of prices contained in respondent’s July 1,1974, catalog.
Prudential began reimbursing respondent on this basis in 1974. Early in 1976 the respondent learned about the grounds for Prudential’s partial reimbursement of its invoices. At that time it requested Prudential to adjust past and future reimbursements to reflect price increases effective after July 1, 1974. Prudential agreed to adjust prospectively the basis for payment for the drug heparin, the price of which apparently had increased sharply. Cf. U. S. Dept. of HEW, Medicare Part B Carriers Manual § 5010.2 (1980) (permitting adjustments to customary charges in “highly unusual situations where equity clearly indicates that the increases are warranted”)- But the carrier refused to make either retroactive adjustments for heparin or any adjustments at all for other products.
Respondent sought review of this refusal before one of Prudential’s hearing officers pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1395 u(b)(3)(C). The hearing officer affirmed Prudential’s decision. Respondent then brought the instant action against the United States in the Court of Claims seeking reimbursement on the basis of its current charges, asserting that Prudential’s refusal to set “reasonable charges” on the basis of respondent’s interim price increases contravened the Fifth Amendment as well as the Social Security Act and applicable regulations. The Court of Claims ruled that respondent’s suit was within the jurisdictional grant of the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491, which permits the Court of Claims to hear “any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department.” 225 Ct. Cl. 252, 256-262, 634 F. 2d 580, 584-588 (1980) (en banc), opinion clarified, 225 Ct. Cl. 273, 647 F. 2d 129 (1981). On the merits, the court decided that Prudential’s calculation of respondent’s maximum allowable charge erred in several respects. 225 Ct. Cl., at 262-268, 634 F. 2d, at 588-590. The court remanded the case to Prudential for redetermination of these matters. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over suits of this kind. 451 U. S. 982 (1981). We now reverse.
H — I H — I H-t
The United States argues that Congress, by enacting the Medicare statute, 42 U. S. C. § 1395j et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), specifically precluded review in the Court of Claims of adverse hearing officer determinations of the amount of Part B payments. We agree.
Our lodestar is the language of the statute. Congress has specified in the Medicare statute that disputed carrier Part B determinations are to be subject to review in “a fair hearing by the carrier, in any case where the amount in controversy is $100 or more . . . 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(b)(3)(C) (emphasis added). See Schweiker v. McClure, ante, p. 188. Congress also provided explicitly for review by the Secretary of “determination[s] of whether an individual is entitled to benefits under part A or part B, and [of] the determination of the amount of benefits under part A § 1395ff(a) (emphasis added). Individuals dissatisfied with the Secretary’s decision on such matters are granted the right to additional administrative review, together with a further option of judicial review, in two instances only: when the dispute relates to their eligibility to participate in either Part A or Part B, and when the dispute concerns the amount of benefits to which they are entitled under Part A. § 1395ff(b).
Section 1395ff thus distinguishes between two types of administrative decisions: eligibility determinations (that decide whether an individual is 65 or over or “disabled” within the meaning of the Medicare program) and amount determinations (that decide the amount of the Medicare payment to be made on a particular claim). Conspicuously, the statute fails to authorize further review for determinations of the amount of Part B awards. In the context of the statute’s precisely drawn provisions, this omission provides persuasive evidence that Congress deliberately intended to foreclose further review of such claims. See, e. g., Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156, 162-163 (1981); Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U. S. 490, 512-513 (1981).
IV
The legislative history confirms this view and explains its logic. The Committee Reports accompanying the original enactment of the Medicare program stated that the supplemental payments under the Part B program generally were expected to be smaller than those under the primary Part A program. Apparently, it was for this reason that the proposed bill did not provide for judicial review of “a determination concerning the amount of benefits under [P]art B . . . .” S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 55 (1965).
This intent to limit the review of the generally smaller Part B awards was reiterated when Congress amended § 1395ff(b) in 1972. When introducing this amendment, Senator Bennett stated that it was intended to clarify the intent of existing law, which “greatly restricted” the appealability of Medicare decisions “in order to avoid overloading the courts with quite minor matters.” 118 Cong. Rec. 33992 (1972). The Senator explained that the amendment would assure that judicial review would be available as to questions of “eligibility to any benefits of medicare but not [as] to decisions on a claim for payment for a given service.” Ibid.
The Conference Committee advanced an identical explanation for this amendment:
“CLARIFICATION OF MEDICARE APPEAL PROCEDURES
“Amendment No. 561: The Senate amendment added a new section to the House bill which would make clear that there is no authorization for an appeal to the Secretary or for judicial review on matters solely involving amounts of benefits under Part B, and that insofar as Part A amounts are concerned, appeal is authorized only if the amount in controversy is $100 or more and judicial review only if the amount in controversy is $1,000 or more.
“The House recedes.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1605, p. 61 (1972).
These expressions of legislative intent unambiguously support our reading of the statutory language. Respondent advances no persuasive evidence of contrary congressional will. In such circumstances, our task is at an end.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is reversed.
So ordered.
For example, the private insurance carrier involved in this suit is the Prudential Insurance Company of America.
Claimants’ reimbursable “reasonable charge” cannot exceed the “prevailing charge” calculated for “the locality.” 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(b)(3) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). In an effort to control the extent to which the Medicare program contributes to the inflation of medical costs, the “prevailing charge” formula is based on typical local rates for the preceding year. See 42 CFR § 405.504(a)(2)(i) (1980) (defining “prevailing charge” as the fee that “would cover 75 percent of the customary charges made for similar services in the same locality during the calendar year preceding the start of the 12-month period (beginning July 1 of each year) in which the claim is submitted or the request for payment is made”) (emphasis added). Prudential defined respondent’s own catalog price as the relevant “prevailing charge” because respondent was virtually the only provider of dialysis supplies within Prudential’s locality.
Respondent claimed that its July 1, 1974, catalog contained a substantial printing error for one product. This claim has been settled and is no longer at issue.
The court added: “The plaintiff also asserts we have jurisdiction under section 10(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 703. In view of our holding that we have jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, we find it unnecessary to consider this additional basis of jurisdiction. But cf. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U. S. 99 (1977).” 225 Ct. Cl., at 256, n. 5, 634 F. 2d, at 585, n. 5.
Respondent’s arguments were directed in large measure against the actions of Prudential. Prudential, however, was not made a party to this litigation. The Secretary’s regulations specify that the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration “is the real party of interest in any litigation involving the administration of the [Medicare] program.” 42 CFR § 421.5(b) (1980).
The court found respondent’s constitutional claims “insubstantial,” citing Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U. S. 170 (1978); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976); and Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970). 225 Ct. Cl., at 268, 634 F. 2d, at 591. One judge wrote separately to express regret regarding the “short shrift” that the majority gave these claims. Id., at 272, 634 F. 2d, at 593. He reasoned that “Erika may have, probably has, made its constitutional allegations mostly to aid our jurisdiction, and we should not spurn this aid.” Id., at 272, 634 F. 2d, at 594 (Nichols, J., concurring). Respondent does not press these constitutional claims before us.
As we find the language of the statute dispositive, we do not reach the Government’s alternative contentions that 42 U. S. C. § 405(h) controls or that the respondent has failed to show that the United States unequivocally has waived sovereign immunity.
Although the statute in terms affords this right of review only to an “individual enrolled under [Part B],” 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(b)(3)(C), the Secretary’s regulations make clear this right extends to suppliers of Part B services to whom individual beneficiaries have assigned their claims. 42 CFR § 405.801(a) (1980).
See 42 U. S. C. § 405(b); 20 CFR part 404, subpart J (1981).
See 42 U. S. C. § 405(g).
Ҥ 1395ff. Determinations of Secretary
“(a) Entitlement to and amount of benefits
“The determination of whether an individual is entitled to benefits under part A or part B, and the determination of the amount of benefits under part A, shall be made by the Secretary in accordance with regulations prescribed by him.
“(b) Appeal by individuals
“(1) Any individual dissatisfied with any determination under subsection (a) of this section as to—
“(A) whether he meets the conditions of section 426 or section 426a of this title [which set forth eligibility requirements to be satisfied before an individual is permitted to participate in Part A of the Medicare program], or
“(B) whether he is eligible to enroll and has enrolled pursuant to the provisions of part B of [the Medicare program] ... , or,
“(C) the amount of the benefits under part A (including a determination where such amount is determined to be zero)
shall be entitled to a hearing thereon by the Secretary to the same extent as is provided in section 405(b) of this title and to judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision after such hearing as is provided in section 405(g) of this title.”
With respect to “Appeals” the Senate Committee Report stated:
“The committee’s bill provides for the Secretary to make determinations, under both the hospital insurance plan [Part A] and the supplementary plan [Part B], as to whether individuals are entitled to [Part A] hospital insurance benefits or [Part B] supplementary medical insurance benefits and for hearings by the Secretary and judicial review where an individual is dissatisfied with the Secretary’s determination. Hearings and judicial review are also provided for where an individual is dissatisfied with a determination as to the amount of benefits under the [Part A] hospital insurance plan if the amount in controversy is $1,000 or more. (Under the supplementary plan [Part B], carriers, not the Secretary, would review beneficiary complaints regarding the amount of benefits, and the bill does not provide for judicial review of a determination concerning the amount of benefits under part B where claims will probably be for substantially smaller amounts than under part A.) Hospitals, extended care facilities, and home health agencies would be entitled to hearing and judicial review if they are dissatisfied with the Secretary’s determination regarding their eligibility to participate in the program. It is intended that the remedies provided by these review procedures shall be exclusive.” S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 54-55 (1965) (emphasis added). See also H. R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 47 (1965).
Congressional limitation of the amount of procedure available to Part B claimants must be understood in light of the magnitude of the Part B program. In 1980, for instance, 158 million Part B claims were processed. Schweiker v. McClure, ante, at 190.
As originally enacted, this section provided:
“Any individual dissatisfied with any determination under subsection (a) of this section as to entitlement under part A or part B, or as to amount of benefits under part A where the matter in controversy is $100 or more, shall be entitled to a hearing thereon by the Secretary to the same extent as is provided in section 405(b) of this title, and, in the case of a determination as to entitlement or as to amount of benefits where the amount in controversy is $1,000 or more, to judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision after such hearing as is provided in section 405(g) of this title.” 79 Stat. 330, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 1395ff(b) (1970 ed.) (emphasis added).
The 1972 amendment replaced the emphasized language, including the first word “entitlement,” to create the current wording quoted in n. 10, supra.
Senator Bennett’s entire opening statement was as follows:
“. . . Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to make sure existing law, which gives the right of a person to go to court on the question of eligibility to receive welfare, is not interpreted to mean he can take the question of the Federal claim to court. If he did we would never have an end to it. This is to reconfirm the original intention of the law that the courts can determine only eligibility.
“The situations in which medicare decisions are appealable to the courts were intended in the original law to be greatly restricted in order to avoid overloading the courts with quite minor matters. The law refers to ‘entitlement’ as being an issue subject to court review and the word was intended to mean eligibility to any benefits of medicare but not to decisions on a claim for payment for a given service.
“If judicial review is made available where any claim is denied, as some court decisions have held, the resources of the Federal court system would be unduly taxed and little real value would be derived by the enrollees. The proposed amendment would merely clarify the original intent of the law and prevent the overloading of the courts with trivial matters because the intent is considered unclear.” 118 Cong. Rec. 33992 (1972).
The Senate agreed to the amendment without further discussion. Ibid.
In addition to its substantive money claim assertedly arising under the Medicare statute, respondent argues that it derives such a substantive claim from an implied-in-faet contract with the United States, or as a third-party beneficiary to Prudential’s contract with the United States. These arguments fail because any such contracts with the United States necessarily would include the statutory preclusion of review of hearing officers’ determinations regarding the amount of Part B benefits.
In response to questioning at oral argument, respondent’s counsel answered that it was asserting a constitutional right to judicial review of Prudential’s Part B determination. Tr. of Oral Arg. 39. Respondent, however, neither argued this ground in the Court of Claims, included it among the questions presented to this Court in its brief in opposition or in its brief on the merits, nor devoted any substantial briefing to it. We consequently do not address the issue. See this Court’s Rules 34.2 and 22.1; cf. Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc., 386 U. S. 317, 330 (1967).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether police officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they search a passenger’s personal belongings inside an automobile that they have probable cause to believe contains contraband.
I
In the early morning hours of July 23, 1995, a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer stopped an automobile for speeding and driving with a faulty brake light. There were three passengers in the front seat of the car: David Young (the driver), his girlfriend, and respondent. While questioning Young, the officer noticed a hypodermic syringe in Young’s shirt pocket. He left the occupants under the supervision of two backup officers as he went to get gloves from his patrol ear. Upon his return, he instructed Young to step out of the car and place the syringe on the hood. The officer then asked Young why he had a syringe; with refreshing candor, Young replied that he used it to take drugs.
At this point, the backup officers ordered the two passengers out of the ear and asked them for identification. Respondent falsely identified herself as “Sandra James” and stated that she did not have any identification. Meanwhile, in light of Young’s admission, the officer searched the passenger compartment of the car for contraband. On the back seat, he found a purse, which respondent claimed as hers. He removed from the purse a wallet containing respondent’s driver’s license, identifying her properly as Sandra K. Houghton. When the officer asked her why she had lied about her name, she replied: “In case things went bad.”
Continuing purse, brown pouch and a black wallet-type container. Respondent denied that the former was hers, and claimed ignorance of how it came to be there; it was found to contain drug paraphernalia and a syringe with 60 ccs of methamphetamine. Respondent admitted ownership of the black container, which was also found to contain drug paraphernalia, and a syringe (which respondent acknowledged was hers) with 10 ccs of methamphetamine — an amount insufficient to support the felony conviction at issue in this ease. The officer also found fresh needle-track marks on respondent’s arms. He placed her under arrest.
The State of Wyoming possession of methamphetamine in a liquid amount greater than three-tenths of a gram. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §35-7-1031(c)(iii) (Supp. 1996). After a hearing, the trial court denied her motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the purse as the fruit of a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that the officer had probable cause to search the car for contraband, and, by extension, any containers therein that could hold such contraband. A jury convicted respondent as charged.
The Wyoming Supreme Court, by divided vote, reversed the conviction and announced the following rule:
“Generally, once probable cause is established to search a vehicle, an officer is entitled to search all containers therein which may contain the object of the search. However, if the officer knows or should know that a container is the personal effect of a passenger who is not suspected of criminal activity, then the container is outside the scope of the search unless someone had the opportunity to conceal the contraband within the personal effect to avoid detection.” 956 P. 2d 368, 872 (1998).
The court held that the search of respondent’s purse violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because the officer “knew or should have known that the purse did not belong to the driver, but to one of the passengers,” and because “there was no probable cause to search the passengers’ personal effects and no reason to believe that contraband had been placed within the purse.” Ibid. We granted certio-rari, 524 U. S. 983 (1998).
II
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In determining whether a particular governmental action, violates this provision, we inquire first whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under the common law when the Amendment was framed. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 931 (1995); California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621, 624 (1991). Where that inquiry yields no answer, we must evaluate the search or seizure under traditional standards of reasonableness by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. See, e. g., Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 652-653 (1995).
It is uncontested in the ease had probable cause to believe there were illegal drugs in the car. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), similarly involved the warrantless search of a car that law enforcement officials had probable cause to believe contained contraband — in that case, bootleg liquor. The Court concluded that the Framers would have regarded such a search as reasonable in light of legislation enacted by Congress from 1789 through 1799 — as well as subsequent legislation from the founding era and beyond — that empowered customs officials to search any ship or vessel without a warrant if they had probable cause to believe that it contained goods subject to a duty. Id., at 150-153. See also United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 806 (1982); Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 623-624 (1886). Thus, the Court held that "contraband goods concealed and illegally transported in an automobile or other vehicle may be searched for without a warrant” where probable cause exists. Carroll, supra, at 153.
We have furthermore that the Framers would have regarded as reasonable (if there was probable cause) the warrantless search of containers within an automobile. In Ross, supra, we upheld as reasonable the warrantless search of a paper bag and leather pouch found in the trunk of the defendant’s ear by officers who had probable cause to believe that the trunk contained drugs. Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, observed:
"It is noteworthy that the early legislation on which the Court relied in Carroll concerned the enforcement of laws imposing duties on imported merchandise. . . . Presumably such merchandise was shipped then in containers of various kinds, just as it is today. Since Congress had authorized warrantless searches of vessels and beasts for imported merchandise, it is inconceivable that it intended a customs officer to obtain a warrant for every package discovered during the search; certainly Congress intended customs officers to open shipping containers when necessary and not merely to examine the exterior of cartons or boxes in which smuggled goods might be concealed. During virtually the entire history of our country — whether contraband was transported in a horse-drawn carriage, a 1921 roadster, or a modern automobile — it has been assumed that a lawful search of a vehicle would include a search of any container that might conceal the object of the search.” Id., at 820, n. 26.
Ross summarized its holding as follows: "If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.” Id., at 825 (emphasis added). And our later cases describing Ross have characterized it as applying broadly to all containers within a car, without qualification as to ownership. See, e. g., California v. Acevedo, 500 U. S. 565, 572 (1991) (“[TJhis Court in Ross took the critical step of saying that closed containers in ears could be searched without a warrant because of their presence within the automobile”); United States v. Johns, 469 U. S. 478, 479-480 (1985) (Ross “held that if police officers have probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of any containers found inside that may conceal the object of the search”).
no passenger in Ross, and it was not claimed that the package in the trunk belonged to anyone other than the driver. Even so, if the rule of law that Ross announced were limited to contents belonging to the driver, or contents other than those belonging to passengers, one would have expected that substantial limitation to be expressed. And, more importantly, one would have expected that limitation to be apparent in the historical evidence that formed the basis for Ross’,s holding. In fact, however, nothing in the statutes Ross relied upon, or in the practice under those statutes, would except from authorized warrantless search packages belonging to passengers on the suspect ship, horse-drawn carriage, or automobile.
Finally, we must derlying the rule announced in Ross is fiilly consistent — as respondent’s proposal is not — with the balance of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Ross concluded from the historical evidence that the permissible scope of a warrantless car search “is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.” 456 U. S., at 824. The same principle is reflected in an earlier case involving the constitutionality of a search warrant directed at premises belonging to one who is not suspected of any crime: “The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific ‘things’ to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 486 U. S. 547, 556 (1978). This statement was illustrated by citation and description of Carroll, 267 U. S., at 158-159, 167. 436 U. S., at 556-557.
In sum, neither Ross nor relied upon admits of a distinction among packages or containers based on ownership. When there is probable cause to search for contraband in a ear, it is reasonable for police officers — like customs officials in the founding era — to examine packages and containers without a showing of individualized probable cause for each one. A passenger’s personal belongings, just like the driver’s belongings or containers attached to the car like a glove compartment, are “in” the car, and the officer has probable cause to search for contraband in the car.
Even if the historical evidence, as described by Ross, were thought to be equivocal, we would find that the balancing of the relative interests weighs decidedly in favor of allowing searches of a passenger’s belongings. Passengers, no less than drivers, possess a reduced expectation of privacy with regard to the property that they transport in cars, which “trave[l] public thoroughfares,” Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 590 (1974), “seldom serv[e] as ... the repository of personal effects,” ibid., are subjected to police stop and examination to enforce “pervasive” governmental controls “[a]s an everyday occurrence,” South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, 368 (1976), and, finally, are exposed to traffic accidents that may render all their contents open to public scrutiny.
degree of intrusiveness upon personal privacy and indeed even personal dignity — the two cases the Wyoming Supreme Court found dispositive differ substantially from the package search at issue here. United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 (1948), held that probable cause to search a ear did not justify a body search of a passenger. And Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85 (1979), held that a search warrant for a tavern and its bartender did not permit body searches of all the bar’s patrons. These eases turned on the unique, significantly heightened protection afforded against searches of one’s person. “Even a limited search of the outer clothing . . . constitutes a severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security, and it must surely be an annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 24-25 (1968). Such traumatic consequences are not to be expected when the police examine an item of personal property found in a car.
Whereas the passenger’s privacy expectations are, as we have described, considerably diminished, the governmental interests at stake are substantial. Effective law enforcement would be appreciably impaired without the ability to search a passenger’s personal belongings when there is reason to believe contraband or evidence of criminal wrongdoing is hidden in the ear. As in all car-search eases, the “ready mobility” of an automobile creates a risk that the evidence or contraband will be permanently lost while a warrant is obtained. California v. Carney, 471 U. S. 386, 390 (1985). In addition, a car passenger — unlike the unwitting tavern patron in Ybarra — will often be engaged in a common enterprise with the driver, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or the evidence of their wrongdoing. Cf. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 413-414 (1997). A criminal might be able to hide contraband in a passenger’s belongings as readily as in other containers in the ear, see, e. g., Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98, 102 (1980) — perhaps even surreptitiously, without the passenger’s knowledge or permission. (This last possibility provided the basis for respondent’s defense at trial; she testified that most of the seized contraband must have been placed in her purse by her traveling companions at one or another of various times, including the time she was “half asleep” in the car.)
a search will not always be present, but the balancing of interests must be conducted with an eye to the generality of cases. To require that the investigating officer have positive reason to believe that the passenger and driver were engaged in a common enterprise, or positive reason to believe that the driver had time and occasion to conceal the item in the passenger’s belongings, surreptitiously or with friendly permission, is to impose requirements so seldom met that a “passenger’s property” rule would dramatically reduce the ability to find and seize contraband and evidence of crime. Of course these requirements would not attach (under the Wyoming Supreme Court’s rule) until the police officer knows or has reason to know that the container belongs to a passenger. But once a “passenger’s property” exception to car searches became widely known, one would expect passenger-confederates to claim everything as their own. And one would anticipate a bog of litigation — in the form of both civil lawsuits and motions to suppress in criminal trials — involving such questions as whether the officer should have believed a passenger’s claim of ownership, whether he should have inferred ownership from various objective factors, whether he had probable cause to believe that the passenger was a confederate, or to believe that the driver might have introduced the contraband into the package with or without the passenger’s knowledge. When balancing the competing interests, our determinations of “reasonableness” under the Fourth Amendment must take account of these practical realities. We think they militate in favor of the needs of law enforcement, and against a personal-privacy interest that is ordinarily weak.
Finally, if we were cal practice that Ross accurately described and summarized, it is perplexing why that exception should protect only property belonging to a passenger, rather than (what seems much more logical) property belonging to anyone other than the driver. Surely Houghton’s privacy would have been invaded to the same degree whether she was present or absent when her purse was searched. And surely her presence in the car with the driver provided more, rather than less, reason to believe that the two were in league. It may ordinarily be easier to identify the property as belonging to someone other than the driver when the purported owner is present to identify it — but in the many cases (like Ross itself) where the ear is seized, that identification may occur later, at the station house; and even at the site of the stop one can readily imagine a package clearly marked with the owner’s name and phone number, by which the officer can confirm the driver’s denial of ownership. The sensible rule (and the one supported by history and case law) is that such a package may be searched, whether or not its owner is present as a passenger or otherwise, because it may contain the contraband that the officer has reason to believe is in the car.
•fí ^
We hold that police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect passengers’ belongings found in the ear that are capable of concealing the object of the search. The judgment of the Wyoming Supreme Court is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The dissent begins its analysis, post, at 309-310 (opinion of Stevens, J.), with an assertion that this ease is governed by our decision in United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 (1948), which held, as the dissent describes it, that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not justify “searches of the passenger’s pockets and the space between his shirt and underwear,” post, at 309. It attributes that holding to “the settled distinction between drivers and passengers,” rather than to a distinction between search of the person and search of property, which the dissent claims is “newly minted” by today’s opinion — a “new rule that is based on a distinction between property contained in clothing worn by a passenger and property contained in a passenger’s briefcase or purse.” Post, at 309, 309-310.
Jackson’s opinion in Di Re, which makes it very clear that it is precisely this distinction between seareh of the person and search of property that the ease relied upon:
“The Government says warrant for a residence only, it could search all persons found in it. But an occupant of a house could be used to conceal this contraband on his person quite as readily as can an occupant of a car.” 332 U. S., at 587 (quoted post, at 312).
Does the dissent really believe that Justice was house search could not inspect property belonging to persons found in the house — say a large standing safe or violin case belonging to the owner’s visiting godfather? Of course that'is not what Justice Jackson meant at all. He was referring precisely to that “distinction between property contained in clothing worn by a passenger and property contained in a passenger’s briefcase or purse” that the dissent disparages, post, at 309. This distinction between searches of the person and searches of property is assuredly not “newly minted,” see post, at 310. And if the dissent thinks “pockets” and “clothing” do not count as part of the person, it must believe that the only searches of the person are strip searches.
The dissent is “confident in a police officer's ability to apply a rule requiring a warrant or individualized probable cause to search belongings that are ... obviously owned by and in the custody of a passenger,” pout, at 311. If this is the dissent’s strange criterion for warrant protection (“obviously owned by and in the custody of”) its preceding paean to the importance of preserving passengers’ privacy rings a little hollow on rehearing. Should it not be enough if the passenger says he owns the briefcase, and the officer has no concrete reason to believe otherwise? Or would the dissent consider that an example of “obvious” ownership? On reflection, it seems not at all obvious precisely what constitutes obviousness — and so even the dissent’s on-the-eheap protection of passengers’ privacy interest in their property turns out to be unclear, and hence unadministrable. But maybe the dissent does not mean to propose an obviously-owned-by-and-in-the-eustody-of test after all, since a few sentences later it endorses, simpliciter, “a rule requiring a warrant or individualized probable cause to search passenger belongings,” post, at 312. For the reasons described in text, that will not work.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners in this case administer a deferred compensation plan for employees of the State of Arizona. The respondent class consists of all female employees who are enrolled in the plan or will enroll in the plan in the future. Certiorari was granted to decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), prohibits an employer from offering its employees the option of receiving retirement benefits from one of several companies selected by the employer, all of which pay lower monthly retirement benefits to a woman than to a man who has made the same contributions; and whether, if so, the relief awarded by the District Court was proper. 459 U. S. 904 (1982). The Court holds that this practice does constitute discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and that all retirement benefits derived from contributions made after the decision today must be calculated without regard to the sex of the beneficiary. This position is expressed in Parts I, II, and III of the opinion of Justice Marshall, post, at this page and 1076-1091, which are joined by Justice Brennan, Justice White, Justice Stevens, and Justice O’Connor. The Court further holds that benefits derived from contributions made prior to this decision may be calculated as provided by the existing terms of the Arizona plan. This position is expressed in Part III of the opinion of Justice Powell, post, at 1105, which is joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Blackmun, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Clerk is directed to issue the judgment August 1, 1983.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Kokesh v. SEC, 581 U. S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1635, 198 L.Ed.2d 86 (2017), this Court held that a disgorgement order in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement action imposes a "penalty" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, the applicable statute of limitations. In so deciding, the Court reserved an antecedent question: whether, and to what extent, the SEC may seek "disgorgement" in the first instance through its power to award "equitable relief " under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5), a power that historically excludes punitive sanctions. The Court holds today that a disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under § 78u(d)(5). The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for the courts below to ensure the award was so limited.
I
A
Congress authorized the SEC to enforce the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq., and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 881, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq., and to punish securities fraud through administrative and civil proceedings. In administrative proceedings, the SEC can seek limited civil penalties and "disgorgement." See § 77h-1(e) ("In any cease-and-desist proceeding under subsection (a), the Commission may enter an order requiring accounting and disgorgement"); see also § 77h-1(g) ("Authority to impose money penalties"). In civil actions, the SEC can seek civil penalties and "equitable relief." See, e.g., § 78u(d)(5) ("In any action or proceeding brought or instituted by the Commission under any provision of the securities laws,... any Federal court may grant... any equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors"); see also § 78u(d)(3) ("Money penalties in civil actions" (quotation modified)).
Congress did not define what falls under the umbrella of "equitable relief." Thus, courts have had to consider which remedies the SEC may impose as part of its § 78u(d)(5) powers.
Starting with SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 446 F.2d 1301 (CA2 1971), courts determined that the SEC had authority to obtain what it called "restitution," and what in substance amounted to "profits" that "merely depriv[e]" a defendant of "the gains of... wrongful conduct." Id., at 1307-1308. Over the years, the SEC has continued to request this remedy, later referred to as "disgorgement," and courts have continued to award it. See SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 95 (CA2 1978) (explaining that, when a court awards "[d]isgorgement of profits in an action brought by the SEC," it is "exercising the chancellor's discretion to prevent unjust enrichment"); see also SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325, 1335 (CA5 1978) ; SEC v. Washington Cty. Util. Dist., 676 F.2d 218, 227 (CA6 1982).
In Kokesh, this Court determined that disgorgement constituted a "penalty" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, which establishes a 5-year statute of limitations for "an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture." The Court reached this conclusion based on several considerations, namely, that disgorgement is imposed as a consequence of violating public laws, it is assessed in part for punitive purposes, and in many cases, the award is not compensatory. 581 U. S., at ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1643-1644. But the Court did not address whether a § 2462 penalty can nevertheless qualify as "equitable relief " under § 78u(d)(5), given that equity never "lends its aid to enforce a forfeiture or penalty." Marshall v. Vicksburg, 15 Wall. 146, 149, 21 L.Ed. 121 (1873). The Court cautioned, moreover, that its decision should not be interpreted "as an opinion on whether courts possess authority to order disgorgement in SEC enforcement proceedings." Kokesh, 581 U. S., at ----, n. 3, 137 S.Ct., at 1642 n. 3. This question is now squarely before the Court.
B
The SEC action and disgorgement award at issue here arise from a scheme to defraud foreign nationals. Petitioners Charles Liu and his wife, Xin (Lisa) Wang, solicited nearly $27 million from foreign investors under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program (EB-5 Program). 754 Fed.Appx. 505, 506 (CA9 2018) (case below). The EB-5 Program, administered by the U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, permits noncitizens to apply for permanent residence in the United States by investing in approved commercial enterprises that are based on "proposals for promoting economic growth." See USCIS, EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, https://www.uscis.gov/eb-5. Investments in EB-5 projects are subject to the federal securities laws.
Liu sent a private offering memorandum to prospective investors, pledging that the bulk of any contributions would go toward the construction costs of a cancer-treatment center. The memorandum specified that only amounts collected from a small administrative fee would fund " 'legal, accounting and administration expenses.' " 754 Fed.Appx. at 507. An SEC investigation revealed, however, that Liu spent nearly $20 million of investor money on ostensible marketing expenses and salaries, an amount far more than what the offering memorandum permitted and far in excess of the administrative fees collected.
262 F.Supp.3d 957, 960-964 (CD Cal. 2017). The investigation also revealed that Liu diverted a sizable portion of those funds to personal accounts and to a company under Wang's control. Id., at 961, 964. Only a fraction of the funds were put toward a lease, property improvements, and a proton-therapy machine for cancer treatment. Id., at 964-965.
The SEC brought a civil action against petitioners, alleging that they violated the terms of the offering documents by misappropriating millions of dollars. The District Court found for the SEC, granting an injunction barring petitioners from participating in the EB-5 Program and imposing a civil penalty at the highest tier authorized. Id., at 975, 976. It also ordered disgorgement equal to the full amount petitioners had raised from investors, less the $234,899 that remained in the corporate accounts for the project. Id., at 975-976.
Petitioners objected that the disgorgement award failed to account for their business expenses. The District Court disagreed, concluding that the sum was a "reasonable approximation of the profits causally connected to [their] violation." Ibid. The court ordered petitioners jointly and severally liable for the full amount that the SEC sought. App. to Pet. for Cert. 62a.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It acknowledged that Kokesh "expressly refused to reach" the issue whether the District Court had the authority to order disgorgement. 754 Fed.Appx. at 509. The court relied on Circuit precedent to conclude that the "proper amount of disgorgement in a scheme such as this one is the entire amount raised less the money paid back to the investors." Ibid. ; see also SEC v. JT Wallenbrock & Assocs., 440 F.3d 1109, 1113, 1114 (CA9 2006) (reasoning that it would be "unjust to permit the defendants to offset... the expenses of running the very business they created to defraud... investors").
We granted certiorari to determine whether § 78u(d)(5) authorizes the SEC to seek disgorgement beyond a defendant's net profits from wrongdoing. 589 U. S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 451, 205 L.Ed.2d 265 (2019).
II
Our task is a familiar one. In interpreting statutes like § 78u(d)(5) that provide for "equitable relief," this Court analyzes whether a particular remedy falls into "those categories of relief that were typically available in equity." Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 256, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993) ; see also CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 439, 131 S.Ct. 1866, 179 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011) ; Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U. S. 136, 142, 136 S.Ct. 651, 193 L.Ed.2d 556 (2016). The "basic contours of the term are well known" and can be discerned by consulting works on equity jurisprudence. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 217, 122 S.Ct. 708, 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002).
These works on equity jurisprudence reveal two principles. First, equity practice long authorized courts to strip wrongdoers of their ill-gotten gains, with scholars and courts using various labels for the remedy. Second, to avoid transforming an equitable remedy into a punitive sanction, courts restricted the remedy to an individual wrongdoer's net profits to be awarded for victims.
A
Equity courts have routinely deprived wrongdoers of their net profits from unlawful activity, even though that remedy may have gone by different names. Compare, e.g., 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 4.3(5), p. 611 (1993) ("Accounting holds the defendant liable for his profits"), with id., § 4.1(1), at 555 (referring to "restitution" as the relief that "measures the remedy by the defendant's gain and seeks to force disgorgement of that gain"); see also Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 51, Comment a, p. 204 (2010) (Restatement (Third)) ("Restitution measured by the defendant's wrongful gain is frequently called 'disgorgement.' Other cases refer to an 'accounting' or an 'accounting for profits' "); 1 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § 101, p. 112 (4th ed. 1918) (describing an accounting as an equitable remedy for the violation of strictly legal primary rights).
No matter the label, this "profit-based measure of unjust enrichment," Restatement (Third) § 51, Comment a, at 204, reflected a foundational principle: "[I]t would be inequitable that [a wrongdoer] should make a profit out of his own wrong," Root v. Railway Co., 105 U.S. 189, 207, 26 L.Ed. 975 (1882). At the same time courts recognized that the wrongdoer should not profit "by his own wrong," they also recognized the countervailing equitable principle that the wrongdoer should not be punished by "pay[ing] more than a fair compensation to the person wronged." Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 145-146, 8 S.Ct. 894, 31 L.Ed. 664 (1888).
Decisions from this Court confirm that a remedy tethered to a wrongdoer's net unlawful profits, whatever the name, has been a mainstay of equity courts. In Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1946), the Court interpreted a section of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 that encompassed a "comprehensiv[e]" grant of "equitable jurisdiction." Id., at 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086. "[O]nce [a District Court's] equity jurisdiction has been invoked" under that provision, the Court concluded, "a decree compelling one to disgorge profits... may properly be entered." Id., at 398-399, 66 S.Ct. 1086.
Subsequent cases confirm the " 'protean character' of the profits-recovery remedy." Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 668, n. 1, 134 S.Ct. 1962, 188 L.Ed.2d 979 (2014). In Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987), the Court described "disgorgement of improper profits" as "traditionally considered an equitable remedy." Id., at 424, 107 S.Ct. 1831. While the Court acknowledged that disgorgement was a "limited form of penalty" insofar as it takes money out of the wrongdoer's hands, it nevertheless compared disgorgement to restitution that simply "'restor[es] the status quo,' " thus situating the remedy squarely within the heartland of equity. Ibid. In Great-West, the Court noted that an "accounting for profits" was historically a "form of equitable restitution." 534 U.S. at 214, n. 2, 122 S.Ct. 708. And in Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445, 135 S.Ct. 1042, 191 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015), a " 'basically equitable' " original jurisdiction proceeding, the Court ordered disgorgement of Nebraska's gains from exceeding its allocation under an interstate water compact. Id., at 453, 475, 135 S.Ct. 1042.
Most recently, in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 580 U. S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 954, 197 L.Ed.2d 292 (2017), the Court canvassed pre-1938 patent cases invoking equity jurisdiction. It noted that many cases sought an "accounting," which it described as an equitable remedy requiring disgorgement of ill-gotten profits. Id., at ----, 137 S.Ct, at. 964. This Court's "transsubstantive guidance on broad and fundamental" equitable principles, Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., 590 U. S. ----, ----, 140 S.Ct. 1492, 1496, 206 L.Ed.2d 672 (2020), thus reflects the teachings of equity treatises that identify a defendant's net profits as a remedy for wrongdoing.
Contrary to petitioners' argument, equity courts did not limit this remedy to cases involving a breach of trust or of fiduciary duty. Brief for Petitioners 28-29. As petitioners acknowledge, courts authorized profits-based relief in patent-infringement actions where no such trust or special relationship existed. Id., at 29; see also Root, 105 U.S. at 214 ("[I]t is nowhere said that the patentee's right to an account is based upon the idea that there is a fiduciary relation created between him and the wrong-doer by the fact of infringement").
Petitioners attempt to distinguish these patent cases by suggesting that an "accounting" was appropriate only because Congress explicitly conferred that remedy by statute in 1870. Brief for Petitioners 29 (citing the Act of July 8, 1870, § 55, 16 Stat. 206). But patent law had not previously deviated from the general principles outlined above: This Court had developed the rule that a plaintiff may "recover the amount of... profits that the defendants have made by the use of his invention" through "a series of decisions under the patent act of 1836, which simply conferred upon the courts of the United States general equity jurisdiction... in cases arising under the patent laws." Tilghman, 125 U.S. at 144, 8 S.Ct. 894. The 1836 statute, in turn, incorporated the substance of an earlier statute from 1819 which granted courts the ability to "proceed according to the course and principles of courts of equity" to "prevent the violation of patent-rights." Root, 105 U.S. at 193. Thus, as these cases demonstrate, equity courts habitually awarded profits-based remedies in patent cases well before Congress explicitly authorized that form of relief.
B
While equity courts did not limit profits remedies to particular types of cases, they did circumscribe the award in multiple ways to avoid transforming it into a penalty outside their equitable powers. See Marshall, 15 Wall. at 149.
For one, the profits remedy often imposed a constructive trust on wrongful gains for wronged victims. The remedy itself thus converted the wrongdoer, who in many cases was an infringer, "into a trustee, as to those profits, for the owner of the patent which he infringes." Burdell v. Denig, 92 U.S. 716, 720, 23 L.Ed. 764 (1876). In "converting the infringer into a trustee for the patentee as regards the profits thus made," the chancellor "estimat[es] the compensation due from the infringer to the patentee." Packet Co. v. Sickles, 19 Wall. 611, 617-618, 22 L.Ed. 203 (1874) ; see also Clews v. Jamieson, 182 U.S. 461, 480, 21 S.Ct. 845, 45 L.Ed. 1183 (1901) (describing an accounting as involving a " 'distribution of the trust moneys among all the beneficiaries who are entitled to share therein' " in an action against the governing committee of a stock exchange).
Equity courts also generally awarded profits-based remedies against individuals or partners engaged in concerted wrongdoing, not against multiple wrongdoers under a joint-and-several liability theory. See Ambler v. Whipple, 20 Wall. 546, 559, 22 L.Ed. 403 (1874) (ordering an accounting against a partner who had "knowingly connected himself with and aided in... fraud"). In Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126, 24 L.Ed. 1000 (1878), for example, a city engaged contractors to install pavement in a manner that infringed a third party's patent. The patent holder brought a suit in equity to recover profits from both the city and its contractors. The Court held that only the contractors (the only parties to make a profit) were responsible, even though the parties answered jointly. Id., at 140 ; see also ibid. (rejecting liability for an individual officer who merely acted as an agent of the defendant and received a salary for his work). The rule against joint-and-several liability for profits that have accrued to another appears throughout equity cases awarding profits. See, e.g., Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 25-26, 16 S.Ct. 443, 40 L.Ed. 599 (1896) ("The defendants, in any such suit, are therefore liable to account for such profits only as have accrued to themselves from the use of the invention, and not for those which have accrued to another, and in which they have no participation"); Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U.S. 139, 148, 14 S.Ct. 295, 38 L.Ed. 103 (1894) (reversing profits award that was based not on what defendant had made from infringement but on what third persons had made from the use of the invention); Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch 2, 21, 2 L.Ed. 531 (1807) (holding that an order requiring restitution could not apply to "those who were not in possession of the thing to be restored" and "had no power over it") (citing Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795) (reversing a restitution award in admiralty that ordered joint damages in excess of what each defendant received)).
Finally, courts limited awards to the net profits from wrongdoing, that is, "the gain made upon any business or investment, when both the receipts and payments are taken into the account." Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, 804, 19 L.Ed. 566 (1870) ; see also Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How. 546, 559-560, 14 L.Ed. 809 (1854) (restricting an accounting remedy "to the actual gains and profits... during the time" the infringing machine "was in operation and during no other period" to avoid "convert[ing] a court of equity into an instrument for the punishment of simple torts"); Seymour v. McCormick, 16 How. 480, 490, 14 L.Ed. 1024 (1854) (rejecting a blanket rule that infringing one component of a machine warranted a remedy measured by the full amounts of the profits earned from the machine); Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620, 649, 20 L.Ed. 860 (1872) (vacating an accounting that exceeded the profits from infringement alone); Wooden-Ware Co. v. United States, 106 U.S. 432, 434-435, 1 S.Ct. 398, 27 L.Ed. 230 (1882) (explaining that an innocent trespasser is entitled to deduct labor costs from the gains obtained by wrongfully harvesting lumber).
The Court has carved out an exception when the "entire profit of a business or undertaking" results from the wrongful activity. Root, 105 U.S. at 203. In such cases, the Court has explained, the defendant "will not be allowed to diminish the show of profits by putting in unconscionable claims for personal services or other inequitable deductions." Ibid. In Goodyear, for example, the Court affirmed an accounting order that refused to deduct expenses under this rule. The Court there found that materials for which expenses were claimed were bought for the purposes of the infringement and "extraordinary salaries" appeared merely to be "dividends of profit under another name." 9 Wall. at 803 ; see also Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617, 663-664, 9 S.Ct. 177, 32 L.Ed. 547 (1888) (declining to deduct a defendant's personal and living expenses from his profits from copyright violations, but distinguishing the expenses from salaries of officers in a corporation).
Setting aside that circumstance, however, courts consistently restricted awards to net profits from wrongdoing after deducting legitimate expenses. Such remedies, when assessed against only culpable actors and for victims, fall comfortably within "those categories of relief that were typically available in equity." Mertens, 508 U.S. at 256, 113 S.Ct. 2063.
C
By incorporating these longstanding equitable principles into § 78u(d)(5), Congress prohibited the SEC from seeking an equitable remedy in excess of a defendant's net profits from wrongdoing. To be sure, the SEC originally endeavored to conform its disgorgement remedy to the common-law limitations in § 78u(d)(5). Over the years, however, courts have occasionally awarded disgorgement in three main ways that test the bounds of equity practice: by ordering the proceeds of fraud to be deposited in Treasury funds instead of disbursing them to victims, imposing joint-and-several disgorgement liability, and declining to deduct even legitimate expenses from the receipts of fraud. The SEC's disgorgement remedy in such incarnations is in considerable tension with equity practices.
Petitioners go further. They claim that this Court effectively decided in Kokesh that disgorgement is necessarily a penalty, and thus not the kind of relief available at equity. Brief for Petitioners 19-20, 22-26. Not so. Kokesh expressly declined to pass on the question. 581 U. S., at ----, n. 3, 137 S.Ct. at 1642 n.3. To be sure, the Kokesh Court evaluated a version of the SEC's disgorgement remedy that seemed to exceed the bounds of traditional equitable principles. But that decision has no bearing on the SEC's ability to conform future requests for a defendant's profits to the limits outlined in common-law cases awarding a wrongdoer's net gains.
The Government, for its part, contends that the SEC's interpretation of the equitable disgorgement remedy has Congress' tacit support, even if it exceeds the bounds of equity practice. Brief for Respondent 13-21. It points to the fact that Congress has enacted a number of other statutes referring to "disgorgement."
That argument attaches undue significance to Congress' use of the term. It is true that Congress has authorized the SEC to seek "disgorgement" in administrative actions. 15 U.S.C. § 77h-1(e) ("In any cease-and-desist proceeding under subsection (a), the Commission may enter an order requiring accounting and disgorgement"). But it makes sense that Congress would expressly name the equitable powers it grants to an agency for use in administrative proceedings. After all, agencies are unlike federal courts where, "[u]nless otherwise provided by statute, all... inherent equitable powers... are available for the proper and complete exercise of that jurisdiction." Porter, 328 U.S. at 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086.
Congress does not enlarge the breadth of an equitable, profit-based remedy simply by using the term "disgorgement" in various statutes. The Government argues that under the prior-construction principle, Congress should be presumed to have been aware of the scope of "disgorgement" as interpreted by lower courts and as having incorporated the (purportedly) prevailing meaning of the term into its subsequent enactments. Brief for Respondent 24. But "that canon has no application" where, among other things, the scope of disgorgement was "far from'settled.' " Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 330, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015).
At bottom, even if Congress employed "disgorgement" as a shorthand to cross-reference the relief permitted by § 78u(d)(5), it did not silently rewrite the scope of what the SEC could recover in a way that would contravene limitations embedded in the statute. After all, such "statutory reference[s]" to a remedy grounded in equity "must, absent other indication, be deemed to contain the limitations upon its availability that equity typically imposes." Great-West, 534 U.S. at 211, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 708. Accordingly, Congress' own use of the term "disgorgement" in assorted statutes did not expand the contours of that term beyond a defendant's net profits-a limit established by longstanding principles of equity.
III
Applying the principles discussed above to the facts of this case, petitioners briefly argue that their disgorgement award is unlawful because it crosses the bounds of traditional equity practice in three ways: It fails to return funds to victims, it imposes joint-and-several liability, and it declines to deduct business expenses from the award. Because the parties focused on the broad question whether any form of disgorgement may be ordered and did not fully brief these narrower questions, we do not decide them here. We nevertheless discuss principles that may guide the lower courts' assessment of these arguments on remand.
A
Section 78u(d)(5) restricts equitable relief to that which "may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors." The SEC, however, does not always return the entirety of disgorgement proceeds to investors, instead depositing a portion of its collections in a fund in the Treasury. See SEC, Division of Enforcement, 2019 Ann. Rep. 16-17, https://www.sec.gov/files/enforcement-annual-report-2019.pdf. Congress established that fund in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act for disgorgement awards that are not deposited in "disgorgement fund[s]" or otherwise "distributed to victims." 124 Stat. 1844. The statute provides that these sums may be used to pay whistleblowers reporting securities fraud and to fund the activities of the Inspector General. Ibid. Here, the SEC has not returned the bulk of funds to victims, largely, it contends, because the Government has been unable to collect them.
The statute provides limited guidance as to whether the practice of depositing a defendant's gains with the Treasury satisfies the statute's command that any remedy be "appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors." The equitable nature of the profits remedy generally requires the SEC to return a defendant's gains to wronged investors for their benefit. After all, the Government has pointed to no analogous common-law remedy permitting a wrongdoer's profits to be withheld from a victim indefinitely without being disbursed to known victims. Cf. Root, 105 U.S. at 214-215 (comparing the accounting remedy to a breach-of-trust action, where a court would require the defendant to "refund the amount of profit which they have actually realized").
The Government maintains, however, that the primary function of depriving wrongdoers of profits is to deny them the fruits of their ill-gotten gains, not to return the funds to victims as a kind of restitution. See, e.g., SEC, Report Pursuant to Section 308(C) of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, p. 3, n. 2 (2003) (taking the position that disgorgement is not intended to make investors whole, but rather to deprive wrongdoers of ill-gotten gains); see also 6 T. Hazen, Law of Securities Regulation § 16.18, p. 8 (rev. 7th ed. 2016) (concluding that the remedial nature of the disgorgement remedy does not mean that it is essentially compensatory and concluding that the "primary function of the remedy is to deny the wrongdoer the fruits of ill-gotten gains"). Under the Government's theory, the very fact that it conducted an enforcement action satisfies the requirement that it is "appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors."
But the SEC's equitable, profits-based remedy must do more than simply benefit the public at large by virtue of depriving a wrongdoer of ill-gotten gains. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the latter part of § 78u(d)(5). Indeed, this Court concluded similarly in Mertens when analyzing statutory language accompanying the term "equitable remedy." 508 U.S. at 253, 113 S.Ct. 2063 (interpreting the term "appropriate equitable relief "). There, the Court found that the additional statutory language must be given effect since the section "does not, after all, authorize... 'equitable relief'at large." Ibid. As in Mertens, the phrase "appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors" must mean something more than depriving a wrongdoer of his net profits alone, else the Court would violate the "cardinal principle of interpretation that courts must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, 587 U. S. ----, ----, 139 S.Ct. 1881, 1890, 204 L.Ed.2d 165 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Government additionally suggests that the SEC's practice of depositing disgorgement funds with the Treasury may be justified where it is infeasible to distribute the collected funds to investors. Brief for Respondent 37. It is an open question whether, and to what extent, that practice nevertheless satisfies the SEC's obligation to award relief "for the benefit of investors" and is consistent with the limitations of § 78u(d)(5). The parties have not identified authorities revealing what traditional equitable principles govern when, for instance, the wrongdoer's profits cannot practically be disbursed to the victims. But we need not address the issue here. The parties do not identify a specific order in this case directing any proceeds to the Treasury. If one is entered on remand, the lower courts may evaluate in the first instance whether that order would indeed be for the benefit of investors as required by § 78u(d)(5) and consistent with equitable principles.
B
The SEC additionally has sought to impose disgorgement liability on a wrongdoer for benefits that accrue to his affiliates, sometimes through joint-and-several liability, in a manner sometimes seemingly at odds with the common-law rule requiring individual liability for wrongful profits. See, e.g., SEC v. Contorinis, 743 F.3d 296, 302 (CA2 2014) (holding that a defendant could be forced to disgorge not only what he "personally enjoyed from his exploitation of inside information, but also the profits of such exploitation that he channeled to friends, family, or clients"); SEC v. Clark, 915 F.2d 439, 454 (CA9 1990) ("It is well settled that a tipper can be required to disgorge his tippee's profits"); SEC v. Whittemore, 659 F.3d 1, 10 (CADC 2011) (approving joint-and-several disgorgement liability where there is a close relationship between the defendants and collaboration in executing the wrongdoing).
That practice could transform any equitable profits-focused remedy into a penalty. Cf. Marshall, 15 Wall. at 149. And it runs against the rule to not impose joint liability in favor of holding defendants "liable to account for such profits only as have accrued to themselves... and not for those which have accrued to another, and in which they have no participation." Belknap, 161 U.S. at 25-26, 16 S.Ct. 443 ; see also Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126, 24 L.Ed. 1000 (1878).
The common law did, however, permit liability for partners engaged in concerted wrongdoing. See, e.g., Ambler, 20 Wall. at 559. The historic profits remedy thus allows some flexibility to impose collective liability. Given the wide spectrum of relationships between participants and beneficiaries of unlawful schemes-from equally culpable codefendants to more remote, unrelated tipper-tippee arrangements-the Court need not wade into all the circumstances where an equitable profits remedy might be punitive when applied to multiple individuals.
Here, petitioners were married. 754 Fed.Appx. 505 ; 262 F.Supp.3d at 960-961. The Government introduced evidence that Liu formed business
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Josué Leocal, a Haitian citizen who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted in 2000 of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and causing serious bodily injury, in violation of Florida law. See Fla. Stat. §316.193(3)(c)(2) (2003). Classifying this conviction as a “crime of violence” under 18 U. S. C. § 16, and therefore an “aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordered that petitioner be deported pursuant to § 237(a) of the INA. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, dismissing petitioner’s petition for review. We disagree and hold that petitioner’s DUI conviction is not a crime of violence under 18 U. S. C. §16.
Petitioner immigrated to the United States in 1980 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1987. In January 2000, he was charged with two counts of DUI causing serious bodily injury under Fla. Stat. §316.193(3)(c)(2), after he caused an accident resulting in injury to two people. He pleaded guilty to both counts and was sentenced to 2lA years in prison.
In November 2000, while he was serving his sentence, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings against him pursuant to § 237(a) of the INA. Under that provision, “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony... is deportable” and may be removed upon an order of the Attorney General. 66 Stat. 201, 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Section 101(a)(43) of the INA defines “aggravated felony” to include, inter alia, “a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (footnote omitted). Title 18 U. S. C. § 16, in turn, defines the term “crime of violence” to mean:
“(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
“(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”
Here, the INS claimed that petitioner’s DUI conviction was a “crime of violence” under § 16, and therefore an “aggravated felony” under the INA.
In October 2001, an Immigration Judge found petitioner removable, relying upon the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F. 3d 1352 (1999) (per curiam), which held that a conviction under the Florida DUI statute qualified as a crime of violence. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner completed his sentence and was removed to Haiti in November 2002. In June 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed petitioner’s petition for review, relying on its previous ruling in Le, supra. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a-7a. We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1176 (2004), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether state DUI offenses similar to the one in Florida, which either do not have a mens rea component or require only a showing of negligence in the operation of a vehicle, qualify as a crime of violence. Compare Le, supra, at 1354; and Omar v. INS, 298 F. 3d 710, 715-718 (CA8 2002), with United States v. Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F. 3d 1140, 1145-1146 (CA9 2001); Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F. 3d 200, 205-206 (CA2 2001); Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F. 3d 600, 609-611 (CA7 2001); and United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F. 3d 921, 926-927 (CA5), amended, 262 F. 3d 479 (CA5 2001) (per curiam); see also Ursu v. INS, 20 Fed. Appx. 702 (CA9 2001) (following Trinidad-Aquino, supra, and ruling that a violation of the Florida DUI statute at issue here and in Le does not count as a “crime of violence”). We now reverse the Eleventh Circuit.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 16 was enacted as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which broadly reformed the federal criminal code in such areas as sentencing, bail, and drug enforcement, and which added a variety of new violent and nonviolent offenses. § 1001(a), 98 Stat. 2136. Congress employed the term “crime of violence” in numerous places in the Act, such as for defining the elements of particular offenses, see, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 1959 (prohibiting threats to commit crimes of violence in aid of racketeering activity), or for directing when a hearing is required before a charged individual can be released on bail, see § 3142(f) (requiring a pretrial detention hearing for those alleged to have committed a crime of violence). Congress therefore provided in §16 a general definition of the term “crime of violence” to be used throughout the Act. See § 1001(a), 98 Stat. 2136. Section 16 has since been incorporated into a variety of statutory provisions, both criminal and noneriminal.
Here, pursuant to § 237(a) of the INA, the Court of Appeals applied §16 to find that petitioner’s DUI conviction rendered him deportable. In determining whether petitioner’s conviction falls within the ambit of § 16, the statute directs our focus to the “offense” of conviction. See § 16(a) (defining a crime of violence as “an offense that has as an element the use ... of physical force against the person or property of another” (emphasis added)); § 16(b) (defining the term as “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense” (emphasis added)). This language requires us to look to the elements and the nature of the offense of conviction, rather than to the particular facts relating to petitioner’s crime.
Florida Stat. § 316.193(3)(c)(2) makes it a third-degree felony for a person to operate a vehicle while under the influence and, “by reason of such operation, eaus[e]. . . [s]erious bodily injury to another.” The Florida statute, while it requires proof of causation of injury, does not require proof of any particular mental state. See State v. Hubbard, 751 So. 2d 552, 562-564 (Fla. 1999) (holding, in the context of a DUI manslaughter conviction under § 316.193, that the statute does not contain a mens rea requirement). Many States have enacted similar statutes, criminalizing DUI causing serious bodily injury or death without requiring proof of any mental state, or, in some States, appearing to require only proof that the person acted negligently in operating the vehicle. The question here is whether § 16 can be interpreted to include such offenses.
Our analysis begins with the language of the statute. See Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137, 144 (1995). The plain text of § 16(a) states that an offense, to qualify as a crime of violence, must have “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” We do not deal here with an at tempted, or threatened use of force. Petitioner contends that his conviction did not require the “use” of force against another person because the most common employment of the word “use” connotes the intentional availment of force, which is not required under the Florida DU I statute. The Government counters that the “use” of force does not incorporate any mens rea component, and that petitioner’s DUI conviction necessarily includes the use of force. To support its position, the Government dissects the meaning of the word “use,” employing dictionaries, legislation, and our own case law in contending that a use of force may be negligent or even inadvertent.
Whether or not the word “use” alone supplies a mens rea element, the parties’ primary focus on that word is too narrow. Particularly when interpreting a statute that features as elastic a word as “use,” we construe language in its context and in light of the terms surrounding it. See Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 229 (1993); Bailey, supra, at 143. The critical aspect of § 16(a) is that a crime of violence is one involving the “use ... of physical force against the person or property of another.” (Emphasis added.) As we said in a similar context in Bailey, “use” requires active employment. 516 U. S., at 145. While one may, in theory, actively employ something in an accidental manner, it is much less natural to say that a person actively employs physical force against another person by accident. Thus, a person would “use . . . physical force against” another when pushing him; however, we would not ordinarily say a person “use[s] . . . physical force against” another by stumbling and falling into him. When interpreting a statute, we must give words their “ordinary or natural” meaning. Smith, supra, at 228. The key phrase in § 16(a) — the “use . ... of physical force against the person or property of another” — most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct. See United States v. Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F. 3d, at 1145; Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F. 3d, at 609. Petitioner’s DUI offense therefore is not a crime of violence under § 16(a).
Neither is petitioner’s DUI conviction a crime of violence under § 16(b). Section 16(b) sweeps more broadly than § 16(a), defining a crime of violence as including “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” But § 16(b) does not thereby encompass all negligent misconduct, such as the negligent operation of a vehicle. It simply covers offenses that naturally involve a person acting in disregard of the risk that physical force might be used against another in committing an offense. The reckless disregard in § 16 relates not to the general conduct or to the possibility that harm will result from a person’s conduct, but to the risk that the use of physical force against another might be required in committing a crime. The classic example is burglary. A burglary would be covered under § 16(b) not because the offense can be committed in a generally reckless way or because someone may be injured, but because burglary, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that the burglar will use force against a victim in completing the crime.
Thus, while § 16(b) is broader than § 16(a) in the sense that physical force need not actually be applied, it contains the same formulation we found to be determinative in § 16(a): the use of physical force against the person or property of another. Accordingly, we must give the language in § 16(b) an identical construction, requiring a higher mens rea than the merely accidental or negligent conduct involved in a DUI offense. This is particularly true in light of § 16(b)’s requirement that the “substantial risk” be a risk of using physical force against another person “in the course of committing the offense.” In no “ordinary or natural” sense can it be said that a person risks having to “use” physical force against another person in the course of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and causing injury.
In construing both parts of § 16, we cannot forget that we ultimately are determining the meaning of the term “crime of violence.” The ordinary meaning of this term, combined with § 16’s emphasis on the use of physical force against another person (or the risk of having to use such force in committing a crime), suggests a category of violent, active crimes that cannot be said naturally to include DUI offenses. Cf. United States v. Doe, 960 F. 2d 221, 225 (CA1 1992) (Breyer, C. J.) (observing that the term “violent felony” in 18 U. S. C. § 924(e) (2000 ed. and Supp. II) “calls to mind a tradition of crimes that involve the possibility of more closely related, active violence”). Interpreting §16 to encompass accidental or negligent conduct would blur the distinction between the “violent” crimes Congress sought to distinguish for heightened punishment and other crimes. See United States v. Lucio-Lucio, 347 F. 3d 1202, 1205-1206 (CA10 2003).
Section 16 therefore cannot be read to include petitioner’s conviction for DUI causing serious bodily injury under Florida law. This construction is reinforced by Congress’ use of the term “crime of violence” in § 101(h) of the INA, which was enacted in 1990. See Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, § 131, 104 Stat. 31 (hereinafter FRAA). Section 212(a)(2)(E) of the INA renders inadmissible any alien who has previously exercised diplomatic immunity from criminal jurisdiction in the United States after committing a “serious criminal offense.” 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(2)(E). Section 101(h) defines the term “serious criminal offense” to mean:
“(1) any felony;
“(2) any crime of violence, as defined in section 16 of title 18; or
“(3) any crime of reckless driving or of driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or of prohibited substances if such crime involves personal injury to another.” 8 U. S. C. § 1101(h) (emphasis added).
Congress’ separate listing of the DUI-causing-injury offense from the definition of “crime of violence” in § 16 is revealing. Interpreting §16 to include DUI offenses, as the Government urges, would leave § 101(h)(3) practically devoid of significance. As we must give effect to every word of a statute wherever possible, see Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001), the distinct provision for these offenses under § 101(h) bolsters our conclusion that § 16 does not itself encompass DUI offenses.
This case does not present us with the question whether a state or federal offense that requires proof of the reckless use of force against the person or property of another qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U. S. C. § 16. DUI statutes such as Florida’s do not require any mental state with respect to the use of force against another person, thus reaching individuals who were negligent or less. Drunk driving is a nationwide problem, as evidenced by the efforts of legislatures to prohibit such conduct and impose appropriate penalties. But this fact does not warrant our shoehorning it into statutory sections where it does not fit. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Congress first made commission of an aggravated felony grounds for an alien’s removal in 1988, and it defined the term to include offenses such as murder, drug trafficking crimes, and firearm trafficking offenses. See Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, §§ 7342, 7344, 102 Stat. 4469, 4470. Since then; Congress has frequently amended the definition of aggravated felony, broadening the scope of offenses which render an alien deportable. See, e. g., Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, § 440(e), 110 Stat. 1277 (adding a number of offenses to § 101(a)(43) of the INA); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), §321,110 Stat. 3009-627 (same). The inclusion of any “crime of violence” as an aggravated felony came in 1990. See Immigration Act of 1990, § 501, 104 Stat. 5048.
When petitioner first appealed, the BIA’s position was that a violation of DUI statutes similar to Florida’s counted as a crime of violence under 18 U. S. C. § 16. See, e. g., Matter of Puente-Salazar, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1006, 1012-1013 (BIA 1999) (en banc). Before petitioner received a decision from his appeal (due to a clerical error not relevant here), the BIA in another case reversed its position from Puente-Salazar and held that DUI offenses that do not have a mens rea of at least recklessness are not crimes of violence within the meaning of § 16. See Matter of Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 336, 346 (BIA 2002) (en banc). However, because the BIA held in Ramos that it would “follow the law of the circuit in those circuits that have addressed the question whether driving under the influence is a crime of violence,” id., at 346-347, and because it found the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Le controlling, it affirmed the Immigration Judge’s removal order. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a-4a.
Pursuant to the IIRIRA, the Eleventh Circuit was without jurisdiction to review the BIA’s removal order in this case if petitioner was “removable by reason of having committed” certain criminal offenses, including those covered as an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Because the Eleventh Circuit held that petitioner’s conviction was such an offense, it concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the removal order.
For instance, a number of statutes criminalize conduct that has as an element the commission of a crime of violence under § 16. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §842(p) (prohibiting the distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction in relation to a crime of violence). Other statutory provisions make classification of an offense as a crime of violence consequential for purposes of, inter alia, extradition and restitution. See §§3181(b), 3663A(c). And the term “crime of violence” under §16 has been incorporated into a number of noncriminal enactments. See, e. g., 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (rendering an alien deportable for committing a crime of violence, as petitioner is charged here).
See, e. g., Ala. Code § 18A-6-20(a)(5) (West 1994); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3— 205(1)(b)(I) (Lexis 2003); Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-60d(a) (2008); Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-394 (Lexis 2004); Idaho Code § 18-8006(1) (Lexis 2004); Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann., ch. 625, § 5/11—501(d)(1)(C) (West 2002); Ind. Code § 9-30-5-4 (1993); Iowa Code §707.6A(4) (2003); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 189A.010(1) and (11)(c) (Lexis Supp. 2004); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 29-A, § 2411(1-A)(D)(1) (West Supp. 2003); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §257.625(5) (West Supp. 2004); Neb. Rev. Stat. §60-6,198(1) (2002 Cum. Supp.); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 265:82-a(I)(b) and (II)(b) (West 2004); N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:12-l(c) (West Supp. 2003); N. M. Stat. Ann. §§66-8-101(B) and (C) (2004); N. D. Cent. Code §39-09-01.1 (Lexis 1997); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.08(A)(1)(a) (Lexis 2003); Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 47, §11-904(B)(1) (West 2001); 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3804(b) (Supp. 2003); R. I. Gen. Laws § 31-27-2.6(a) (Lexis 2002); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.07(a)(1) (West 2003); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 23, § 1210(f) (Lexis Supp. 2004); Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.522(1)(b) (1994); Wis. Stat. §940.25(1) (1999-2000); Wyo. Stat. §31-5-233(h) (Lexis 2003).
See, e. g., Cal. Veh. Code Ann. § 23153 (West 2000); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§628(2), 629 (Lexis 1995); La. Stat. Ann. §§ 14:39.1(A), 14:39.2(A) (West 1997 and Supp. 2004); Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. §§3-211(c) and (d) (Lexis 2004); Miss. Code Ann. §63-11-30(5) (Lexis 2004); Mo. Ann. Stat. §565.060.1(4) (West 2000); Mont. Code Ann. §45-5-205(1) (2003); Nev. Rev. Stat. §484.3795(1) (2003); S. C. Code Ann. §56-5-2945(A)(1) (2003); S. D. Codified Laws §22-16-42 (West Supp. 2003); Utah Code Ann. §§ 41-6-44(3)(a)(ii)(A) and (3)(b) (Lexis Supp. 2004); W. Va. Code § 17C-5-2(c) (Lexis 2004).
Thus, § 16(b) plainly does not encompass all offenses which create a “substantial risk” that injury will result from a person’s conduct. The “substantial risk” in § 16(b) relates to the use of force, not to the possible effect of a person’s conduct. Compare § 16(b) (requiring a “substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used”) with United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §4B1.2(a)(2) (Nov. 2003) (in the context of a career-offender sentencing enhancement, defining “crime of violence” as meaning, inter alia, “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”). The risk that an accident may occur when an individual drives while intoxicated is simply not the same thing as the risk that the individual may “use” physical force against another in committing the DUI offense. See, e. g., United States v. Lucio-Lucio, 347 F. 3d 1202, 1205-1207 (CA10 2003); Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F. 3d 600, 609-610 (CA7 2001).
Even if §16 lacked clarity on this point, we would be constrained to interpret any ambiguity in the statute in petitioner’s favor. Although here we deal with § 16 in the deportation context, § 16 is a criminal statute, and it has both criminal and noncriminal applications. Because we must interpret the statute consistently, whether we encounter its application in a criminal or noncriminal context, the rule of lenity applies. Cf. United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U. S. 505, 517-518 (1992) (plurality opinion) (applying the rule of lenity to a tax statute, in a civil setting, because the statute had criminal applications and thus had to be interpreted consistently with its criminal applications).
This point carries significant weight in the particular context of this case. Congress incorporated § 16 as an aggravated felony under § 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA in 1990. See Immigration Act of 1990, § 501, 104 Stat. 5048 (Nov. 29, 1990). Congress enacted § 101(h), with its incorporation of § 16 and a separate provision covering DUI-causing-injury offenses, just nine months earlier. See FRAA, §131, 104 Stat. 31 (Feb. 16, 1990). That Congress distinguished between a crime of violence and DUI-causing-injury offenses (and included both) in § 101(h), but did not do so shortly thereafter in making only a crime of violence an aggravated felony under § 101(a)(43)(F), strongly supports our construction of § 16.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether members of the public have an independent constitutional right to insist upon access to a pretrial judicial proceeding, even though the accused, the prosecutor, and the trial judge all have agreed to the closure of that proceeding in order to assure a fair trial.
I
Wayne Clapp, aged 42 and residing at Henrietta, a Rochester, N. Y., suburb, disappeared in July 1976. He was last seen on July 16 when, with two male companions, he went out on his boat to fish in Seneca Lake, about 40 miles from Rochester. The two companions returned in the boat the same day and drove away in Clapp’s pickup truck. Clapp was not with them. When he failed to return home by July 19, his family reported his absence to the police. An examination of the boat, laced with bulletholes, seemed to indicate that Clapp had met a violent death aboard it. Police then began an intensive search for the two men. They also began lake-dragging operations in an attempt to locate Clapp’s body.
The petitioner, Gannett Co., Inc., publishes two Rochester newspapers, the morning Democrat & Chronicle and the evening Times-Union. On July 20, each paper carried its first story about Clapp’s disappearance. Each reported the few details that were then known and stated that the police were theorizing that Clapp had been shot on his boat and his body dumped overboard. Each stated that the body was missing. The Times-Union mentioned the names of respondents Great-house and Jones and said that Greathouse “was identified as one of the two companions who accompanied Clapp Friday” on the boat; said that the two were aged 16 and 21, respectively; and noted that the police were seeking the two men and Greathouse’s wife, also 16. Accompanying the evening story was a 1959 photograph of Clapp. The report also contained an appeal from the state police for assistance.
Michigan police apprehended Greathouse, Jones, and the woman on July 21. This came about when an interstate bulletin describing Clapp’s truck led to their discovery in Jackson County, Mich., by police who observed the truck parked at a local motel. The petitioner’s two Rochester papers on July 22 reported the details of the capture. The stories recounted how the Michigan police, after having arrested Jones in a park, used a helicopter and dogs and tracked down Greathouse and the woman in some woods. They recited that Clapp’s truck was located near the park.
The stories also stated that Seneca County police theorized that Clapp was shot with his own pistol, robbed, and his body thrown into Seneca Lake. The articles provided background on Clapp’s life, sketched the events surrounding his disappearance, and said that New York had issued warrants for the arrest of the three persons. One of the articles reported that the Seneca County District Attorney would seek to extradite the suspects and would attempt to carry through with a homicide prosecution even if Clapp’s body were not found. The paper also quoted the prosecutor as stating, however, that the evidence was still developing and “the case could change.” The other story noted that Greathouse and Jones were from Texas and South Carolina, respectively.
Both papers carried stories on July 23. These revealed that Jones, the adult, had waived extradition and that New York police had traveled to Michigan and were questioning the suspects. The articles referred to police speculation that extradition of Greathouse and the woman might involve “legalities” because they were only 16 and considered juveniles in Michigan. The morning story provided details of an interview with the landlady from whom the suspects had rented a room while staying in Seneca County at the time Clapp disappeared. It also noted that Greathouse, according to state police, was on probation in San Antonio, Tex., but that the police did not know the details of his criminal record.
The Democrat & Chronicle carried another story on the morning of July 24. It stated that Greathouse had led the Michigan police to the spot where he had buried a.357 magnum revolver belonging to Clapp and that the gun was being returned to New York with the three suspects. It also stated that the police had found ammunition at the motel where Greathouse and the woman were believed to have stayed before they were arrested. The story repeated the basic facts known about the disappearance of Clapp and the capture of the three suspects in Michigan. It stated that New York police continued to search Seneca Lake for Clapp’s body.
On July 25, the Democrat & Chronicle reported that Great-house and Jones had been arraigned before a Seneca County Magistrate on second-degree murder charges shortly after their arrival from Michigan; that they and the woman also had been arraigned on charges of second-degree grand larceny; that the three had been committed to the Seneca County jail; that all three had “appeared calm” during the court session; and that the Magistrate had read depositions signed by three witnesses, one of whom testified to having heard “five or six shots” from the lake on the day of the disappearance, just before seeing Clapp’s boat “veer sharply” in the water.
Greathouse, Jones, and the woman were indicted by a Seneca County grand jury on August 2. The two men were charged, in several counts, with second-degree murder, robbery, and grand larceny. The woman was indicted on one count of grand larceny. Both the Democrat & Chronicle and the Times-Union on August 3 reported the filing of the indictments. Each story stated that the murder charges specified that the two men had shot Clapp with his own gun, had weighted his body with anchors and tossed it into the lake, and then had made off with Clapp’s credit card, gun, and truck. Each reported that the defendants were held without bail, and each again provided background material with details of Clapp’s disappearance. The fact that Clapp’s body still had not been recovered was mentioned. One report noted that, according to the prosecutor, if the body were not recovered prior to trial, “it will be the first such trial in New York State history.” Each paper on that day also carried a brief notice that a memorial service for Clapp would be held that evening in Henrietta. These notices repeated that Great-house and Jones had been charged with Clapp’s murder and that his body had not been recovered.
On August 6, each paper carried a story reporting the details of the arraignments of Greathouse and Jones the day before. The papers stated that both men had pleaded not guilty to all charges. Once again, each story repeated the basic facts of the accusations against the men and noted that the woman was arraigned on a larceny charge. The stories noted that defense attorneys had been given 90 days in which to file pretrial motions.
During this 90-day period, Greathouse and Jones moved to suppress statements made to the police. The ground they asserted was that those statements had been given involuntarily. They also sought to suppress physical evidence seized as fruits of the allegedly involuntary confessions; the primary physical evidence they sought to suppress was the gun to which, as petitioner’s newspaper had reported, Greathouse had led the Michigan police.
The motions to suppress came on before Judge DePasquale on November 4. At this hearing, defense attorneys argued that the unabated buildup of adverse publicity had jeopardized the ability of the defendants to receive a fair trial. They thus requested that the public and the press be excluded from the hearing. The District Attorney did not oppose the motion. Although Carol Ritter, a reporter employed by the petitioner, was present in the courtroom, no objection was made at the time of the closure motion. The trial judge granted the motion.
The next day, however, Ritter wrote a letter to the trial judge asserting a “right to cover this hearing,” and requesting that “we... be given access to the transcript.” The judge responded later the same day. He stated that the suppression hearing had concluded and that any decision on immediate release of the transcript had been reserved. The petitioner then moved the court to set aside its exclusionary order.
The trial judge scheduled a hearing on this motion for November 16 after allowing the parties to file briefs. At this proceeding, the trial judge stated that, in his view, the press had a constitutional right of access although he deemed it “unfortunate” that no representative of the petitioner had objected at the time of the closure motion. Despite his acceptance of the existence of this right, however, the judge emphasized that it had to be balanced against the constitutional right of the defendants to a fair trial. After finding on the record that an open suppression hearing would pose a “reasonable probability of prejudice to these defendants,” the judge ruled that the interest of the press and the public was outweighed in this case by the defendants’ right to a fair trial. The judge thus refused to vacate his exclusion order or grant the petitioner immediate access to a transcript of the pretrial hearing.
The following day, an original proceeding in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, challenging the closure orders on First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, was commenced by the petitioner in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. On December 17, 1976, that court held that the exclusionary orders transgressed the public’s vital interest in open judicial proceedings and further constituted an unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It accordingly vacated the trial court’s orders. 55 App. Div. 2d 107, 389 N. Y. S. 2d 719 (1976).
On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals held that the case was technically moot but, because of the critical importance of the issues involved, retained jurisdiction and reached the merits. The court noted that under state law, “[cjriminal trials are presumptively open to the public, including the press,” but held that this presumption was overcome in this case because of the danger posed to the defendants’ ability to receive a fair trial. Thus, the Court of Appeals upheld the exclusion of the press and the public from the pretrial proceeding. 43 N. Y. 2d 370, 372 N. E. 2d 544 (1977). Because of the significance of the constitutional questions involved, we granted certiorari. 435 U. S. 1006.
II
We consider, first, the suggestion of mootness, noted and rejected by the New York Court of Appeals. 43 N. Y. 2d, at 376, 372 N. E. 2d, at 547. We conclude that this aspect of the case is governed by Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 546-547, and that the controversy is not moot. The petitioner, of course, has obtained access to the transcript of the suppression hearing. But this Court’s jurisdiction is not defeated, id., at 546, “simply because the order attacked has expired, if the underlying dispute between the parties is one 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).” To meet that test, two conditions must be satisfied: “(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147, 149.
Those conditions have been met. The order closing a pretrial hearing is too short in its duration to permit full review. And to the extent the order has the effect of denying access to the transcript, termination of the underlying criminal proceeding by a guilty plea, as in this case, or by a jury verdict, nearly always will lead to a lifting of the order before appellate review is completed. The order is “by nature short-lived.” Nebraska Press, supra, at 547. Further, it is reasonably to be expected that the petitioner, as publisher of two New York newspapers, will be subjected to similar closure orders entered by New York courts in compliance with the judgment of that State’s Court of Appeals. We therefore turn to the merits.
Ill
This Court has long recognized that adverse publicity can endanger the ability of a defendant to receive a fair trial. E. g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333; Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717; Marshall v. United States, 360 U. S. 310. Cf. Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532. To safeguard the due process rights of the accused, a trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity. Sheppard v. Maxwell, supra. And because of the Constitution’s pervasive concern for these due process rights, a trial judge- may surely take protective measures even when they are not strictly and inescapably necessary.
Publicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings such as the one involved in the present case poses special risks of unfairness. The whole purpose of such hearings is to screen out unreliable or illegally obtained evidence and insure that this evidence does not become known to the jury. Cf. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368. Publicity concerning the proceedings at a pretrial hearing, however, could influence public opinion against a defendant and inform potential jurors of inculpatory information wholly inadmissible at the actual trial.
The danger of publicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings is particularly acute, because it may be difficult to measure with any degree of certainty the effects of such publicity on the fairness of the trial. After the commencement of the trial itself, inadmissible prejudicial information about a defendant can be kept from a jury by a variety of means. When such information is publicized during a pretrial proceeding, however, it may never be altogether kept from potential jurors. Closure of pretrial proceedings is often one of the most effective methods that a trial judge can employ to attempt to insure that the fairness of a trial will not be jeopardized by the dissemination of such information throughout the community before the trial itself has. even begun. Cf. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723.
IV
A
The Sixth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth, surrounds a criminal trial with guarantees such as the rights to notice, confrontation, and compulsory process that have as their overriding purpose the protection of the accused from prosecutorial and judicial abuses. Among the guarantees that the Amendment provides to a person charged with'the commission of a criminal offense, and to him alone, is the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The Constitution nowhere mentions any right of access to a criminal trial on the part of the public; its guarantee, like the others enumerated, is personal to the accused. See Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 848 (“[T]he specific guarantees of the Sixth Amendment are personal to the accused”) (Biackmun-, J., dissenting).
Our cases have uniformly recognized the public-trial guarantee as one created for the benefit of the defendant. In In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, this Court held that the secrecy of a criminal contempt trial violated the accused’s right to a public trial under the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to a public trial, the Court stated, “has always been recognized as a safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution. The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.” Id., at 270. In an explanatory footnote, the Court stated that the public-trial guarantee
.. 'is for the protection of all persons accused of crime — the innocently accused, that they may not become the victim of an unjust prosecution, as well as the guilty, that they may be awarded a fair trial — that one rule [as to public trials] must be observed and applied to all.’ Frequently quoted is the statement in [1] Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed. 1927) at 647: 'The requirement of a public trial is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions....’” Id., at 270 n. 25.
Similarly, in Estes v. Texas, supra, the Court held that a defendant was deprived of his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment by the televising and broadcasting of his trial. In rejecting the claim that the media representatives had a constitutional right to televise the trial, the Court stated that “[t]he purpose of the requirement of a public trial was to guarantee that the accused would be fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned.” 381 U. S., at 538-539. See also id., at 588 (“Thus the right of ‘public trial’ is not one belonging to the public, but one belonging to the accused, and inhering in the institutional process by which justice is administered”) (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 583 (“[T]he public trial provision of the Sixth Amendment is a ‘guarantee to an accused’... [and] a necessary component of an accused’s right to a fair trial...”) (Warren, C. J., concurring).
Thus, both the Oliver and Estes cases recognized that the constitutional guarantee of a public trial is for the benefit of the defendant. There is not the slightest suggestion in either case that there is any correlative right in members of the public to insist upon a public trial.
B
While the Sixth Amendment guarantees to a defendant in a criminal case the right to a public trial, it does not guarantee the right to compel a private trial. “The ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite of that right.” Singer v. United States, 380 U. S. 24, 34-35. But the issue here is not whether the defendant can compel a private trial. Rather, the issue is whether members of the public have an enforceable right to a public trial that can be asserted independently of the parties in the litigation.
There can be no blinking the fact that there is a strong societal interest in public trials. Openness in court proceedings may improve the quality of testimony, induce unknown witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, cause all trial participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, and generally give the public an opportunity to observe the judicial system. Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S., at 583 (Warren, C. J., concurring). But there is a strong societal interest in other constitutional guarantees extended to the accused as well. The public, for example, has a definite and concrete interest in seeing that justice is swiftly and fairly administered. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 519. Similarly, the public has an interest in having a criminal case heard by a jury, an interest distinct from the defendant’s interest in being tried by a jury of his peers. Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276, 312.
Recognition of an independent public interest in the enforcement of Sixth Amendment guarantees is a far cry, however, from the creation of a constitutional right on the part of the. public. In an adversary system of criminal justice, the public interest in the administration of justice is protected by the participants in the litigation. Thus, because of the great public interest in jury trials as the preferred mode of fact-finding in criminal cases, a defendant cannot waive a jury trial without the consent of the prosecutor and judge. Singer v. United States, supra, at 38; Patton v. United States, supra, at 312. But if the defendant waives his right to a jury trial, and the prosecutor and the judge consent, it could hardly be seriously argued that a member of the public could demand a jury trial because of the societal interest in that mode of fact-finding. Cf. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 23 (a) (trials to be by jury unless waived by a defendant, but the court must approve and the prosecution must consent to the waiver). Similarly, while a defendant cannot convert his right to a speedy trial into a right to compel an indefinite postponement, a member of the general public surely has no right to prevent a continuance in order to vindicate the public interest in the efficient administration of justice. In short, our adversary system of criminal justice is premised upon the proposition that the public interest is fully protected by the participants in the litigation.
V
In arguing that members of the general public have a constitutional right to attend a criminal trial, despite the obvious lack of support for such a right in the structure or text of the Sixth Amendment, the petitioner and amici rely on the history of the public-trial guarantee. This history, however, ultimately demonstrates ho more than the existence of a common-law rule of open civil and criminal proceedings.
A
Not many common-law rules have been elevated to the status of constitutional rights. The provisions of our Constitution do reflect an incorporation of certain few common-law rules and a rejection of others. The common-law right to a jury trial, for example, is explicitly embodied in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. The common-law rule that looked upon jurors as interested parties who could give evidence against a defendant was explicitly rejected by the Sixth Amendment provision that a defendant is entitled to be tried by an “impartial jury.” But the vast majority of common-law rules were neither made part of the Constitution nor explicitly rejected by it.
Our judicial duty in this case is to determine whether the common-law rule of open proceedings was incorporated, rejected, or left undisturbed by the Sixth Amendment. In pursuing this inquiry, it is important to distinguish between what the Constitution permits and what it requires. It has never been suggested that by phrasing the public-trial guarantee as a right of the accused, the Framers intended to reject the common-law rule of open proceedings. There is no question that the Sixth Amendment permits and even presumes open trials as a norm. But the issue here is whether the Constitution requires that a pretrial proceeding such as this one be opened to the public, even though the participants in the litigation agree that it should be closed to protect the defendants’ right to a fair trial. The history upon which the petitioner and amici rely totally fails to demonstrate that the Framers of the Sixth Amendment intended to create a constitutional right in strangers to attend a pretrial proceeding, when all that they actually did was to confer upon the accused an explicit right to demand a public trial. In conspicuous contrast with some of the early state constitutions that provided for a public right to open civil and criminal trials, the Sixth Amendment confers the right to a public trial only upon a defendant and only in a criminal case.
B
But even if the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments could properly be viewed as embodying the common-law right of the public to attend criminal trials, it would not necessarily follow that the petitioner would have a right of access under the circumstances of this case. For there exists no persuasive evidence that at common law members of the public had any right to attend pretrial proceedings; indeed, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, public trials were clearly associated with the protection of the defendant. And pretrial proceedings, precisely because of the same concern for a fair trial, were never characterized by the same degree of openness as were actual trials.
Under English common law, the public had no right to attend pretrial proceedings. E. g., E. Jenks, The Book of English Law 75 (6th ed. 1967) (“It must, of course, be remembered, that the principle of publicity only applies to the actual trial of a case, not necessarily to the preliminary or prefatory stages of the proceedings...”); F. Maitland, Justice and Police 129 (1885) (The “preliminary examination of accused persons has gradually assumed a very judicial form.... The place in which it is held is indeed no 'open court,’ the public can be excluded if the magistrate thinks that the ends of justice will thus be best answered...”). See also Indictable Offences Act, 11 & 12 Viet., ch. 42, § 19 (1848) (providing that pretrial proceedings should not be deemed an open court and that the public could therefore be excluded); Magistrates’ Courts Act, 15 & 16 Geo. 6 & 1 Eliz. 2, ch. 55, §4 (2) (1952) (same).
Closed pretrial proceedings have been a familiar part of the judicial landscape in this country as well. The original New York Field Code of Criminal Procedure published in 1850, for example, provided that pretrial hearings should be closed to the public “upon the request of a defendant.” The explanatory report made clear that this provision was designed to protect defendants from prejudicial pretrial publicity:
“If the examination must necessarily be public, the consequence may be that the testimony upon the mere preliminary examination will be spread before the community, and a state of opinion created, which, in cases of great public interest, will render it difficult to obtain an unprejudiced jury. The interests of justice require that the case of the defendant should not be prejudged, if it can be avoided; and no one can justly complain, that until he is put upon his trial, the dangers of this prejudgment are obviated.”
Indeed, eight of the States that have retained all or part of the Field Code have kept the explicit provision relating to closed pretrial hearings.
For these reasons, we hold that members of the public have no constitutional right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to attend criminal trials.
VI
The petitioner also argues that members of the press and the public have a right of access to the pretrial hearing by reason of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843, and Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U. S. 1, this Court upheld prison regulations that denied to members of the press access to prisons superior to that afforded to the public generally. Some Members of the Court, however, took the position in those cases that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do guarantee to the public in general, or the press in particular, a right of access that precludes their complete exclusion in the absence of a significant governmental interest. See Saxbe, supra, at 850 (Powell, J., dissenting); Houchins, supra, at 19 (Stevens, J., dissenting). See also id., at 16 (Stewart, J., concurring).
The petitioner in this case urges us to narrow our rulings in Pell, Saxbe, and Houchins at least to the extent of recognizing a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to attend criminal trials. We need not decide in the abstract, however, whether there is any such constitutional right. For even assuming, arguendo, that the First and Fourteenth Amendments may guarantee such access in some situations, a question we do not decide, this putative right was given all appropriate deference by the state nisi prius court in the present case.
Several factors lead to the conclusion that the actions of the trial judge here were consistent with any right of access the petitioner may have had under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. First, none of the spectators present in the courtroom, including the reporter employed by the petitioner, objected when the defendants made the closure motion. Despite this failure to make a contemporaneous objection, counsel for the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard at a proceeding where he was allowed to voice the petitioner’s objections to closure of the pretrial hearing. At this proceeding, which took place after the filing of briefs, the trial court balanced the “constitutional rights of the press and the public” against the “defendants’ right to a fair trial.” The trial judge concluded after making this appraisal that the press and the public could be excluded from the suppression hearing and could be denied immediate access to a transcript, because an open proceeding would pose a “reasonable probability of prejudice to these defendants.” Thus, the trial court found that the representatives of the press did have a right of access of constitutional dimension, but held, under the circumstances of this case, that this right was outweighed by the defendants’ right to a fair trial. In short, the closure decision was based “on an assessment of the competing societal interests involved... rather than on any determination that First Amendment freedoms were not implicated.” Saxbe, supra, at 860 (Powell, J., dissenting).
Furthermore, any denial of access in this case was not absolute but only temporary. Once the danger of prejudice had dissipated, a transcript of the suppression hearing was made available. The press and the public then had a full opportunity to scrutinize the suppression hearing. Unlike the case of an absolute ban on access, therefore, the press here had the opportunity to inform the public of the details of the pretrial hearing accurately and completely. Under these circumstances, any First and Fourteenth Amendment right of the petitioner to attend a criminal trial was not violated.
VII
We certainly do not disparage the general desirability of open judicial proceedings. But we are not asked here to declare whether open proceedings represent beneficial social policy, or whether there would be a constitutional barrier to a state law that imposed a stricter standard of closure than the one here employed by the New York courts. Rather, we are asked to hold that the Constitution itself gave the petitioner an affirmative right of access to this pretrial proceeding, even though all the participants in the litigation agreed that it should be closed to protect the fair-trial rights of the defendants.
For all of the reasons discussed in this opinion, we hold that the Constitution provides no such right. Accordingly, the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Is is so ordered.
The Democrat & Chronicle and the Times-Union are published in Rochester, N. Y. Rochester, in Monroe County, is approximately 40 miles from the Seneca County line. The circulation of the newspapers is primarily in Monroe County. There are some subscribers, however, in Seneca County. In 1976, when this case arose, the Democrat & Chronicle had a Seneca County daily circulation of 1,022, giving it a 9.6% share of the market in that county, and a Sunday circulation of 1,532, for a 14.3% share of the market. The Times-Union published only a daily edition and had but one subscriber in Seneca County. American Newspaper Markets, Inc., Circulation 77/78, pp. 522, 541. The Bureau of the Census estimated Seneca County’s 1976 population at 34,000. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-26, No. 76-32, Population Estimates 3 (Aug. 1977).
The petitioner in 1976 also owned a Rochester, N. Y., television station. And there were other newspapers in Seneca County at that time. See Circulation 77/78, supra, at 522. The record in this case, however, contains no evidence concerning newspaper coverage of Clapp’s disappearance and the subsequent prosecution of respondents Greathouse and Jones other than that which appeared in the Democrat & Chronicle and the Times-Union.
Under N. Y. Crim. Proe. Law §§ 710.40 and 255.20 (McKinney Supp. 1978), a defendant was required to file in advance of trial any motion to suppress evidence. The statutes permitted a defendant to make such a motion for the first time during trial only when he did not have a reasonable opportunity to do so prior to trial, or when the State failed to provide notice before trial that it would seek to introduce a confession of the defendant. §§ 710.30 and 710.40.2.
The hearing on the motion of defendants Greathouse and Jones to suppress their confessions as involuntary was held before trial in accordance with the decision in People v. Huntley, 15 N. Y. 2d 72, 204 N. E. 2d 179 (1965). In Huntley, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the separate inquiry into the voluntariness of a confession, required by this Court’s decision in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964), was to be made in a preliminary hearing. 15 N. Y. 2d, at 78, 204 N. E. 2d, at 183.
Shortly before the entry of judgment by the Appellate Division, both defendants had pleaded guilty to lesser included offenses in satisfaction of the charges against them. Immediately thereafter, a transcript of the suppression hearing was made available to the petitioner.
In addition to excluding inadmissible evidence, a trial judge may order sequestration of the jury or take any of a variety of protective measures. See Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 562-565; Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 358-362.
All of this does not mean, of course, that failure to close a pretrial hearing, or take other protective measures to minimize the impact of prejudicial publicity, will warrant the extreme remedy of reversal of a conviction. But it is precisely because reversal is such an extreme remedy, and is employed in only the rarest cases, that our criminal justice system permits, and even encourages, trial judges to be overcautious in ensuring that a defendant will receive a fair trial.
The Sixth Amendment provides:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in' his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
The Court also recognized that while the right to a public trial is guaranteed to an accused, publicity also provides various benefits to the public. 333 U. S., at 270 n. 24.
Numerous commentators have also recognized that only a defendant has a right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment. E. g., Radin, The Right to a Public Trial, 6 Temple L. Q. 381, 392 (1932) (a public right to a public trial “cannot be derived from the Constitution because the Constitution certainly does not mention a public trial as the privilege of the public, but expressly as that of the accused”); Boldt, Should Canon 35 Be Amended?, 41 A. B. A. J. 55, 56 (1955) (“[T]he guarantee of public trial is for the benefit of persons charged with crime.... It is significant that the Constitution does not say that the public has the right to ‘enjoy’ or even attend trials. There is nothing in the constitutional language indicating that any individual other than the accused in a criminal trial... [has] either a right to attend the trial or to publicity emanating from the trial”); Note, The Right to Attend Criminal Hearings, 78 Colum. L. Rev. 1308, 1321 (1978) (since the Sixth Amendment confers a right to a public trial to the accused, “to elaborate a parallel and possibly adverse public right of access from the public trial guarantee clause strains even flexible constitutional language beyond its proper bounds”); Note, The Right to a Public Trial in Criminal Cases, 41 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1138, 1156 (1966) (“Despite the importance of the public
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mb. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Pursuant to § 6 (b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Commission issued orders directing the petitioner and corporations acquired by it to submit various reports. Petitioner failed to furnish all of the requested information, and the United States at the request of the Commission brought the present suit in the District Court seeking (1) a mandatory injunction to compel compliance with all of the orders and (2) statutory forfeiture of $100 for every day petitioner was in default of those orders directed specifically to it.
The District Court found that some of the requests were unenforceable because of vagueness and that others had been answered either specifically or by reference to materials previously furnished. Petitioner was directed to answer the remaining items, including those calling for file copies of census reports. However, because some of the requests were too vague to be enforced, the District Court did not award the statutory forfeitures. 181 F. Supp. 862. The Court of Appeals affirmed insofar as the District Court ordered compliance, but reversed that portion of the decision refusing to award the statutory forfeitures. 285 F. 2d 607. We granted a limited writ of certiorari because of a conflict in the circuits on the question of compulsory production of the copies of census reports and the general importance of certain other questions in the administration of the investigatory provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 365 U. S. 857. On motion of petitioner, we also granted a stay tolling the further running and accumulation of forfeitures awaiting our decision. We now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner contends that it cannot lawfully be required to produce copies of statutory reports made by it to the Census Bureau because of their confidential nature. The remainder of the inquiries found enforceable by the District Court are not now contested by the petitioner. As to the forfeitures, petitioner advances several arguments: (1) The statutory forfeiture of § 10 is not applicable because it applies only to a failure to furnish “reports” while the inquiries directed to petitioner called for answers to specific questions; (2) No forfeitures can be imposed because the orders were only partially enforceable; and (3) It is a denial of due process to assess penalties for failure to obey orders during a time petitioner was without remedy to test their validity.
I.
The controversy culminating in this litigation had its inception in September 1956. At that time the Commission requested petitioner to furnish voluntarily information concerning certain of its corporate acquisitions to enable the Commission to determine whether there had been any violations of the antitrust laws. A year later, having failed to obtain the bulk of the requests, the Commission served a subpoena duces tecum on petitioner. It covered somewhat the same information as was previously requested but, in addition, required similar data concerning three more corporate acquisitions effected in the interim. In due time petitioner fully complied with the subpoena, and the hearing before the Examiner was concluded. After reviewing the material, however, the Commission found that it needed additional information and in June 1958 requested petitioner’s counsel to furnish it. A running exchange of correspondence between petitioner’s counsel and the Commission’s staff followed. Counsel contended, inter alia, that no additional information was needed and requested a statement of necessity therefor. Upon counsel’s insistence, three separate levels of authority in the Commission, from the local attorney in New York City to the Director of the Bureau of Investigation in Washington, explained the need for the information, advised that the request therefor had been fully authorized and requested petitioner to comply therewith. This discussion continued for over six months during which time petitioner furnished only two documents of the many requested. On January 6, 1959, the Commission instigated a formal investigation of the acquisitions made by petitioner during the preceding five years. Pursuant to this investigation the Commission issued six orders requiring the filing within 30 days of “special reports” which were to contain specified information and documents. On motion of petitioner, the Commission temporarily suspended these orders while it considered petitioner’s motion that they be vacated. On May 6, 1959, the motion to vacate was denied, and petitioner was directed to comply by May 28, 1959. On June 4, 1959, the Commission broadened its investigation to cover two corporate acquisitions by petitioner occurring after the instigation of the formal investigation. Accordingly three more orders requiring “special reports” were issued. Upon petitioner’s failure to comply with either set of orders, notices of default were served on June 20, 1959, and July 24,1959, respectively. This complaint was filed on September 15, 1959, three years after the inquiry was opened. The complaint sought a mandatory injunction which would compel petitioner to file with the Commission the “special reports” sought by all nine orders. However, forfeitures were claimed only for petitioner’s failure to respond to orders numbered 1 and 7, which were directed specifically to petitioner. The other seven orders had been directed to corporations acquired by petitioner rather than to it.
II.
Among the items ordered enforced and with which the petitioner still refuses to comply are requests for file copies of certain reports previously made to the Census Bureau. The petitioner claims each of these to be confidential. There is a conflict between the Courts of Appeal on the point. Here both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have held these file copies not restricted, and with this conclusion we agree.
Petitioner’s claim is based on §§8 and 9 (a) of the Census Act, 13 U. S. C. §§8-9 (a), and assurances of confidentiality by the Government. It can be noted immediately that § 8 does not in any way support petitioner’s position. This section grants the Secretary of Commerce the discretion to furnish to named authorities data taken from information furnished the Census Bureau on censuses of population, agriculture and housing. Subsection (c) thereof provides that when the Secretary furnishes such data it shall “[i]n no case” be used by the recipient “to the detriment of the persons to whom such information relates.” Not only has the Commission not been furnished any information by the Secretary, but the information involved does not relate to the particular censuses covered by the section, and so this section is clearly inapplicable here.
The prohibitions of § 9 (a) apply to the Secretary, and other -officers and employees of the Department of Commerce. Each of them is prohibited from using the information supplied for other than statistical purposes; and from making any publication thereof wherein the name or identity of those furnishing information is revealed; and, finally, from permitting anyone outside of the employ of the Department of Commerce to “examine the individual reports” filed. The form of the report provided by the Census Bureau is marked “Confidential” and in addition states that “[ijt cannot be used for purposes of taxation, investigation or regulation.” The Bureau also furnishes the reporting corporations a copy of this form, such as the one involved here. The copies are marked “Keep this copy for your files,” and the Bureau is said to have advised reporting companies that they are confidential. It also appears that a Presidential Proclamation admonished reporting companies that “[t]he Census has nothing to do . . . with the enforcement of any national, state, or local law or ordinance. There need be no fear that any disclosure will be made regarding any individual person or his affairs. For the due protection of the rights and interests of the persons furnishing information every employee of the Census Bureau is prohibited, under heavy penalty, from disclosing any information which may thus come to his knowledge.” Petitioner also relies upon an opinion of the Attorney General, 36 Op. Atty. Gen. 362 (1930).
Similar contentions were considered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Dilger, 276 F. 2d 739 (1960), where it was held that these “assurances of confidentiality and protection constitute a pledge of good faith on the part of the Congress, the President and the Department of Commerce. . . . The United States has given its word and. should be permitted to keep it.” 276 F. 2d, at 744. It concludes that since the Commission cannot obtain the original it should not be permitted “to do indirectly that which it cannot do directly.” Id., at 743.
The Solicitor General contends that for the purposes of this case petitioner has waived the point by voluntarily submitting like data to the Commission during its investigation herein. We cannot agree. Reaching the merits of the issue he points out that the government agencies are at loggerheads on the problem, the Department of Commerce, Census Bureau and the Bureau of the Budget believe that the copies are not subject to legal process, while the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, which filed this suit, contend to the contrary. The Solicitor General, “fully recognizing the delicate balance of opposing considerations,” has concluded “on balance” that the copies are not subject to compulsive production. As has been noted, we do not agree.
As we have seen, the prohibitions against disclosure contained in § 9 run only against the officials receiving such information and do not purport to generally clothe census information with secrecy. The Solicitor General admits that “literally construed” the restrictions of the statute go no further. But he insists that since the purpose of the statute is to encourage the free and full submission of statistical data to the Bureau, this can be accomplished only through the creation of a confidential relationship which will extend the privilege to the petitioner and like reporting companies. We do not believe that the language of the President, supra, gives the statute the meaning claimed for it; nor can the legend on the Census Bureau forms or its advice to reporting companies extend the coverage of the Act. Cf. United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 39-40 (1947); United States v. Stewart, 311 U. S. 60, 70 (1940); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 225-227 (1940). We fully realize the importance to the public of the submission of free and full reports to the Census Bureau, but we cannot rewrite the Census Act. It does not require petitioner to keep a copy of its report nor does it grant copies of the report not in the hands of the Census Bureau an immunity from legal process. Ours is the duty to avoid a construction that would suppress otherwise competent evidence unless the statute, strictly construed, requires such a result. That this statute does not do. Congress did not prohibit the use of the reports per se but merely restricted their use while in the hands of those persons receiving them, i. e., the government officials. Indeed, when Congress has intended like reports not to be subject to compulsory process it has said so. See 45 U. S. C. § 41, 49 U. S. C. § 320 (f). Moreover, although tax returns, like these census reports, are made confidential within the government bureau, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, §§ 6103, 7213 (a), copies in the hands of the taxpayer are held subject to discovery. Likewise the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. § 1905, prohibits federal employees generally from disclosing trade secrets and other business data received in the course of their official duties, but the same information is obtainable from the reporting company’s files or personnel by judicial process.
This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that though petitioner furnishes the required reports to the Census Bureau it is not relieved from furnishing the same information to the Federal Trade Commission. This is made certain by an Act of Congress specifically providing that nothing in the Census Act “shall be deemed to revoke or impair the authority of any other Federal agency with respect to the collection or release of information.’* 13 U. S. C. § 132. It appears, therefore, that through the use of special reports the Commission could require the petitioner to supply the identical information from its files. Hence by securing the retained file copy the Commission is merely obtaining in a form already prepared that information which it has the power to require petitioner to furnish from its records.
III.
Petitioner next claims that the orders required “answers in writing to specific questions” under § 6 (b) as distinguished from the “special reports” also authorized by that section, but that the forfeiture provision of § 10 penalizing the failure to file “any annual or special reports” does not include the phrase “answers in writing to specific questions” and is, therefore, inapplicable. We do not agree.
The Commission contends that its orders here in fact called for information in the nature of “special reports,” and it so designated each of the nine orders at the time of their issuance. Examination of the orders by no means proves the Commission to be in error, for it appears that practically all of the requests called for the furnishing of statistical or like information, details of organization and operation, specific documents, etc. As the Court of Appeals stated, “the cumulative effect of all the questions is substantially that of a request for a report.” 285 F. 2d, at 615.
While this is true, it cannot be denied that in many instances specific information was requested and “answers in writing to specific questions” were contemplated. But this does not disqualify the materials from being special reports, for the statutory reference to “answers in writing to specific questions” merely elaborates the power to require special reports.
The source of the Commission’s power, as we have noted, is § 6 (b), see note 1, supra, which authorizes the Commission to order corporations to file “annual or special, or both annual and special, reports or answers in writing to specific questions.” Since the forfeiture provision of § 10, see note 3, supra, only refers to “any annual or special report,” petitioner argues that forfeiture is inapplicable to a corporation failing to give “answers in writing to specific questions,” which it contends is a separate power quite distinct from the power to order reports. But if this is true there would be no penalty where a corporation deliberately refused to comply with a lawful Commission order to answer specific questions, for the only penalty available against corporations is the forfeiture provision. Thus a corporation that refused to file an annual or special report would be subject to a $100 per day forfeiture. An individual under subpoena who refused to appear and testify or supply documents would be subject to a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 and/or a jail sentence up to three years. But under petitioner’s interpretation of the Act there would be no penalty whatsoever where a corporation deliberately failed to file answers to specific questions. The only remedy would be a mandatory injunction to force it to do so. We cannot attribute such an anomaly to Congress. Rather we would assume that in placing the phrase “answers in writing to specific questions” in § 6 (b) Congress was merely explicating what the Commission might require a corporation to include in an annual or special report.
Moreover, the legislative history of the Act does not support petitioner’s theory that the phrase “answers in writing to specific questions” refers to a separate power of the Commission. Both the House and Senate bills dealing with the Federal Trade Commission (or Interstate Trade Commission, as it was called in the House) had provisions enabling the Commission to order annual and special reports, but neither mentioned answers to specific questions. The House Committee Report on the original House version of the Act stated:
“The commission, under this section, [later 6 (b)] may also require such special reports as it may deem advisable. By this means, if the ordinary data furnished by a corporation does not adequately disclose its organization, financial condition, business practices, or relation to other corporations, there can be obtained by a special report such additional information as the commission may deem necessary.” H. R. Rep. No. 533, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 4.
The phrase “answers in writing to specific questions” first appeared in the Conference Report, but the report by the House Managers explaining the modifications of the House bill did not mention it (although it discussed some other changes in the annual and special report provisions of the House bill). H. R. Rep. No. 1142, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. Similarly, the explanation of the Conference Report by the Senate Managers in debate makes it clear that the changes made in conference were of the nature of new, clarifying phraseology (with two exceptions not relevant here). 51 Cong. Rec. 14768-14769. If the conference had intended to give the Commission a separate, new power which was not included in either the House or Senate bill, surely there would be some mention of it in the reports by the managers.
Finally, it should be noted that a construction of the statute which empowers the Commission to particularize its requests for annual and special reports with specific questions will tend to avoid objections of vagueness. The requests directed to petitioner which were not particularized-items 1(h); 3 (j), (k); 5 (j), (k); 6(j); 7 (j); 8 (j); and 11 (a)-(l) of the first order; and item 5 of the seventh order — were struck down by the District Court as unenforceable. Such general requests for reports without specificity place the reporting company in a difficult position, leading to expensive and time-consuming litigation as well as frustrating the Commission’s attempt to obtain information.
IV.
The District Court held that since the Commission orders were “partially defective,” petitioner had a valid reason for challenging them, and therefore no forfeitures accrued. Petitioner supports this holding by asserting that many of the items included in the Commission’s orders were held unenforceable by the District Court, and that under Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 214 (1951), forfeiture should not be imposed for noncompliance with substantially defective orders. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that forfeiture had occurred and that the daily penalty began to run 30 days after the notice of default on the first set of the Commission’s orders. We agree with the Court of Appeals and conclude that the single daily penalty runs until the date of our stay, February 7, 1961.
Petitioner’s figures relative to the percentage of defective inquiries are based on analysis of all nine orders. However, the suit for forfeiture was brought only in respect to the two orders directed to petitioner, and we will restrict our consideration to the 134 inquiries included therein. Prior to the judgment 63 of these items remained unanswered. The trial judge struck 10 of them as unenforceable, leaving 53 which he ordered to be answered. However, whether one takes the above figures, or those of the petitioner asserting that only 37% of the questions were enforced by the trial court, or the Government’s claim that two-thirds of the questions were valid and unanswered at the time of the suit, this case need not go off on a mathematical formula. The record fully supports the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that this is not “a case involving single oversight or an honest mistake in a good faith attempt to comply with the Commission’s order.” 285 F. 2d, at 614. Nor, as the concurring opinion found, is it a case of “such extensive invalidity that there is no longer an intelligible requirement” for a report. 285 F. 2d, at 616.
Petitioner asserts that even partial invalidity of the order prevents the application of the forfeiture provision, arguing that the case is controlled by the rule in Bowman Dairy Co., supra. In that case the Court concluded that “one should not be held in contempt under a subpoena that is part good and part bad.” 341 U. S., at 221. But that rule cannot be considered apart from its facts. There the defendant could not appeal from the contested order, but was able to challenge it only by disobeying and appealing the contempt conviction. It was in review of that conviction — the defendant’s first opportunity to review the validity of the order — that this Court held that its partial invalidity barred the punishment. Here petitioner might have delayed accrual of the forfeitures pending determination of the merits or obtained a separate judicial determination of the validity of the orders before the penalties began to accrue, as we point out infra. Rather than attempting such procedures it defied large parts of the orders. It cannot now be heard to complain because such defiance was in error.
Petitioner also contends that the trial court, after finding the orders partially invalid, should have stricken them and required the Commission to issue new ones if it wished to proceed with the inquiry. We agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that § 6 (c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 241, 5 U. S. C. § 1005 (c), authorized the procedure the court followed, i. e., ordering partial compliance. That section directs the court to sustain “any such subpena or similar process or demand to the extent that it is found to be in accordance with law . . .” Nor do we see any substance to the further contention that in directing partial compliance the trial judge treated those items found enforceable as subpoenas and therefore subject solely to contempt action. The various requests were severable, and the court’s order was not in substitution of the Commission’s orders but merely an enforcement of them, in accordance with § 9 of the F. T. C. A. authorizing the court to compel obedience to lawful Commission orders. Finally, petitioner argues that the case should have been remanded to the trial court for determination of whether the forfeiture should apply. However, once the Court of Appeals held that the default was within the forfeiture provision of § 10, its penalties accrued, and there was nothing remaining open for decision that required a remand to the District Court.
V.
Petitioner’s final point is that to impose the forfeitures will deprive it of property without due process of law. This argument is based on the premise that the orders of the Commission were not judicially reviewable except at the risk of paying daily forfeitures accumulating throughout the period of noncompliance, including the period of judicial review. We need not consider this point at length for it appears that petitioner did not try to obtain judicial review prior to the commencement of this action by the Government, nor did petitioner seek a stay once the litigation had begun. This inaction was in part based upon petitioner’s reliance on Federal Trade Comm’n v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U. S. 160 (1927). This reliance was misplaced. In that case an injunction was sought against the Commission restraining it from enforcing certain orders issued under the same section of the Act involved here. The Commission, however, had not issued any notice of default on the orders, as was done here, nor had the orders been forwarded to the Attorney General for enforcement. This Court properly held an injunction would not lie since the subjects of the reports could not suffer any injury or penalty at that point in the investigation. As Chief Justice Taft said, “Until the Attorney General acts, the defendants can not suffer, and when he does act, they can promptly answer and have full opportunity to contest the legality of any prejudicial proceeding against them.” 274 U. S., at 174.
Upon the commencement of the action by the Government, petitioner might have then sought a stay, as it did when the decision went against it in the Court of Appeals. Moreover, after the entry of the notices of default by the Commission, petitioner might have itself sought relief before the § 10 forfeitures began to accrue instead of waiting for the Attorney General to sue for their collection. As was said in United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632, 654 (1950), “we are not prepared to say that courts would be powerless” to act where such orders appear suspect and ruinous penalties would be sustained pending a good faith test of their validity. There the record did not present and the Court did not determine “whether the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, or general equitable powers of the courts would afford a remedy if there were shown to be a wrong, or what the consequences would be if no chance is given for a test of reasonable objections to such an order.” Similarly, as this matter comes here now, the petitioner has pursued none of these remedies, and we could not therefore say that it had “no chance” to prevent the running of the forfeiture pending a test of the validity of the orders. Cf. United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 U. S. 33, 37 (1952); Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Slattery, 302 U. S. 300, 310 (1937). We note, however, that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, provides that “In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court . . . may declare the rights . . . of any interested party seeking such declaration . . . .” This appears sufficient to meet petitioner’s needs.
This Court cannot forgive statutory penalties once they legally attach and, finding no grounds upon which we can strike them down, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
“The commission shall also have power—
“(b) To require, by general or special orders, corporations engaged in commerce, excepting banks, and common carriers subject to the Act to regulate commerce, or any class of them, or any of them, respectively, to file with the commission in such form as the commission may prescribe annual or special, or both annual and special, reports or answers in writing to specific questions, furnishing to the commission such information as it may require as to the organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other corporations, partnerships, and individuals of the respective corporations filing such reports or answers in writing. Such reports and answers shall be made under oath, or otherwise, as the commission may prescribe, and shall be filed with the commission within such reasonable period as the commission may prescribe, unless additional time be granted in any case by the commission.” 38 Stat. 721, 15 U. S. C. §46 (b).
Section 9 of the Federal Trade Commission Act provides that “[u]pon the application of the Attorney General of the United States, at the request of the commission, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus commanding any person or corporation to comply with the provisions of this Act or any order of the commission made in pursuance thereof.” 38 Stat. 722, 15 U. S. C. § 49.
Section 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act provides: “That any person who shall neglect or refuse to attend and testify, or to answer any lawful inquiry, or to produce documentary evidence, if in his power to do so, in obedience to the subpoena or lawful requirement of the commission, shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine -and imprisonment.
“Any person who shall willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry or statement of fact in any report required to be made under this Act, or who shall willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry in any account, record, or memorandum kept by any corporation subject to said sections, or who shall willfully neglect or fail to make, or to cause to be made, full, true, and correct entries in such accounts, records, or memoranda of all facts and transactions appertaining to the business of such corporation, or who shall willfully remove out of the jurisdiction of the United States, or willfully mutilate, alter, or by any other means falsify any documentary evidence of such corporation, or who shall willfully refuse to submit to the commission or to any of its authorized agents, for the purpose of inspection and taking copies, any documentary evidence of such corporation in his possession or within his control, shall be deemed guilty of an offense against the United States, and shall be subject, upon conviction in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
“If any corporation required by this Act to file any annual or special report shall fail so to do within the time fixed by the commission for filing the same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days after notice of such default, the corporation shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the district where the corporation has its principal office or in any district in which it shall do business. It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of forfeitures. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States.
“Any officer or employee of the commission who shall make public any information obtained by the commission without its authority, unless directed by a court, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.” 38 Stat. 723, 15 U. S. C. § 50.
Compare Federal Trade Comm’n v. Dilger, 276 F. 2d 739 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1960), with United States v. St. Regis Paper Co., 285 F. 2d 607 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1960).
“Information as confidential; exception.
“(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, may, except as provided in section 8 of this title—
“(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or
“(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
“(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports.” 13 U. S. C. § 9 (a).
“CONFIDENTIAL. — This report is required by Act of Congress, approved August 31, 1954, (13 U. S. C. 131 and 224). Your report is confidential and only sworn Census employees will have access to it. It cannot be used for purposes of taxation, investigation or regulation.”
Proclamation by President Hoover, November 22, 1929, 46 Stat. 3011, 3012.
“That neither said report nor any report of said investigation nor any part thereof shall be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in said report or investigation.” 36 Stat. 351, 45 U. S. C. § 41.
“ (f) No report by any motor carrier of any accident arising in the course of the operations of such carrier, made pursuant to any requirement of the Commission, and no report by the Commission of any investigation of any such accident, shall be admitted as evidence, or used for any other purpose, in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report or investigation.’' 49 U. S. C. §320 (f).
E. g., United States v. O’Mara, 122 F. Supp. 399 (D. C. D. C. 1954). Contra, O’Connell v. Olsen & Ugelstadt, 10 F. R. D. 142, 143 (D. C. N. D. Ohio 1949).
“Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties or by reason of any examination or investigation made by, or return, report or record made to or filed with, such department or agency or officer or employee thereof, which information concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and shall be removed from office or employment.” 18 U. S. C. § 1905.
The second set of orders was merely supplementary, so only a single daily penalty accrued.
Petitioner unsuccessfully moved in the Court of Appeals for a postponement of the effective date of the Commission’s orders. Coming when it did, however, we cannot say that such denial was an abuse of discretion. Cf. Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 658 (1926). Furthermore, a short while thereafter we stayed the accumulation of further penalties when the petition for writ of certiorari was granted. If petitioner had unsuccessfully sought a stay in the District Court, a different question might have been presented. That action, after final judgment, could have been reviewed both in the Court of Appeals and here.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A beeper is a radio transmitter, usually battery operated, which emits periodic signals that can be picked up by a radio receiver. In this case, a beeper was placed in a five-gallon drum containing chloroform purchased by one of respondent’s codefendants. By monitoring the progress of a car carrying the chloroform Minnesota law enforcement agents were able to trace the can of chloroform from its place of purchase in Minneapolis, Minn., to respondent’s secluded cabin near Shell Lake, Wis. The issue presented by the case is whether such use of a beeper violated respondent’s rights secured by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I — <
Respondent and two codefendants were charged in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota with conspiracy to manufacture controlled substances, including but not limited to methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §846. One of the codefendants, Darryl Petschen, was tried jointly with respondent; the other codefendant, Tristan Armstrong, pleaded guilty and testified for the Government at trial.
Suspicion attached to this trio when the 3M Co., which manufactures chemicals in St. Paul, notified a narcotics investigator for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension that Armstrong, a former 3M employee, had been stealing chemicals which could be used in manufacturing illicit drugs. Visual surveillance of Armstrong revealed that after leaving the employ of 3M Co., he had been purchasing similar chemicals from the Hawkins Chemical Co. in Minneapolis. The Minnesota narcotics officers observed that after Armstrong had made a purchase, he would deliver the chemicals to codefendant Petschen.
With the consent of the Hawkins Chemical Co., officers installed a beeper inside a five-gallon container of chloroform, one of the so-called “precursor” chemicals used to manufacture illicit drugs. Hawkins agreed that when Armstrong next purchased chloroform, the chloroform would be placed in this particular container. When Armstrong made the purchase, officers followed the car in which the chloroform had been placed, maintaining contact by using both visual surveillance and a monitor which received the signals sent from the beeper.
Armstrong proceeded to Petschen’s house, where the container was transferred to Petschen’s automobile. Officers then followed that vehicle eastward towards the state line, across the St. Croix River, and into Wisconsin. During the latter part of this journey, Petschen began making evasive maneuvers, and the pursuing agents ended their visual surveillance. At about the same time officers lost the signal from the beeper, but with the assistance of a monitoring device located in a helicopter the approximate location of the signal was picked up again about one hour later. The signal now was stationary and the location identified was a cabin occupied by respondent near Shell Lake, Wis. The record before us does not reveal that the beeper was used after the location in the area of the cabin had been initially determined.
Relying on the location of the chloroform derived through the use of the beeper and additional information obtained during three days of intermittent visual surveillance of respondent’s cabin, officers secured a search warrant. During execution of the warrant, officers discovered a fully operable, clandestine drug laboratory in the cabin. In the laboratory area officers found formulas for amphetamine and methamphetamine, over $10,000 worth of laboratory equipment, and chemicals in quantities sufficient to produce 14 pounds of pure amphetamine. Under a barrel outside the cabin, officers located the five-gallon container of chloroform.
After his motion to suppress evidence based on the war-rantless monitoring of the beeper was denied, respondent was convicted for conspiring to manufacture controlled substances in violation of 21 U. S. C. .§ 846. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the conviction, finding that.the monitoring of the beeper was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment because its use had violated respondent’s reasonable expectation of privacy, and that all information derived after the location of the cabin was a fruit of the illegal beeper monitoring. 662 F. 2d 515 (1981). We granted certiorari, 457 U. S. 1131 (1982), and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), this Court held that the wiretapping of a defendant’s private telephone line did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the wiretapping had been effectuated without a physical trespass by the Government. Justice Brandéis, joined by Justice Stone, dissented from that decision, believing that the actions of the Government in that case constituted an “unjustifiable intrusion . . . upon the privacy of the individual,” and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 478. Nearly 40 years later, in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), the Court overruled Olmstead saying that the Fourth Amendment’s reach “cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.” 389 U. S., at 353. The Court said:
“The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a ‘search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional significance.” Ibid.
In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979), we elaborated on the principles stated in Katz:
“Consistently with Katz, this Court uniformly has held that the application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a ‘justifiable,’ a ‘reasonable,’ or a ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ that has been invaded by government action. [Citations omitted.] This inquiry, as Mr. Justice Harlan aptly noted in his Katz concurrence, normally embraces two discrete questions. The first is whether the individual, by his conduct, has ‘exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy,’ 389 U. S., at 361 — whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual has shown that ‘he seeks to preserve [something] as private.’ Id., at 351. The second question is whether the individual’s subjective expectation of privacy is ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable,”’ id., at 361— whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual’s expectation, viewed objectively, is ‘justifiable’ under the circumstances. Id., at 353. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S., at 143-144, n. 12; id., at 151 (concurring opinion); United States v. White, 401 U. S., at 752 (plurality opinion).” 442 U. S., at 740-741 (footnote omitted).
The governmental surveillance conducted by means of the beeper in this case amounted principally to the following of an automobile on public streets and highways. We have commented more than once on the diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile:
“One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of personal effects. A car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny. It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.” Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 590 (1974) (plurality opinion).
See also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 153-154, and n. 2 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, 368 (1976).
A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When Petschen traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, the fact of whatever stops he made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.
Respondent Knotts, as the owner of the cabin and surrounding premises to which Petschen drove, undoubtedly had the traditional expectation of privacy within a dwelling place insofar as the cabin was concerned:
“Crime, even in the privacy of one’s own quarters, is, of course, of grave concern to society, and the law allows such crime to be reached on proper showing. The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also of grave concern, not only to the individual, but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948), quoted with approval in Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980).
But no such expectation of privacy extended to the visual observation of Petschen’s automobile arriving on his premises after leaving a public highway, nor to movements of objects such as the drum of chloroform outside the cabin in the “open fields.” Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 (1924).
Visual surveillance from public places along Petschen’s route or adjoining Knotts’ premises would have sufficed to reveal all of these facts to the police. The fact that the officers in this case relied not only on visual surveillance, but also on the use of the beeper to signal the presence of Petschen’s automobile to the police receiver, does not alter the situation. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case. In United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559 (1927), the Court said:
“But no search on the high seas is shown. The testimony of the boatswain shows that he used a searchlight. It is not shown that there was any exploration below decks or under hatches. For aught that appears, the cases of liquor were on deck and, like the defendants, were discovered before the motor boat was boarded. Such use of a searchlight is comparable to the use of a marine glass or a field glass. It is not prohibited by the Constitution.” Id., at 563.
We have recently had occasion to deal with another claim which was to some extent a factual counterpart of respondent’s assertions here. In Smith v. Maryland, we said:
“This analysis dictates that [Smith] can claim no legitimate expectation of privacy here. When he used his phone, [Smith] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and ‘exposed’ that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [Smith] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed. The switching equipment that processed those numbers is merely the modern counterpart of the operator who, in ' an earlier day, personally completed calls for the subscriber. [Smith] concedes that if he had placed his calls through an operator, he could claim no legitimate expectation of privacy. [Citation omitted.] We are not inclined to hold that a different constitutional result is required because the telephone company has decided to automate.” 442 U. S., at 744-745.
Respondent does not actually quarrel with this analysis, though he expresses the generalized view that the result of the holding sought by the Government would be that “twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country will be possible, without judicial knowledge or supervision.” Brief for Respondent 9 (footnote omitted). But the fact is that the “reality hardly suggests abuse,” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U. S. 547, 566 (1978); if such dragnet-type law enforcement practices as respondent envisions should eventually occur, there will be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional principles may be applicable. Ibid. Insofar as respondent’s complaint appears to be simply that scientific devices such as the beeper enabled the police to be more effective in detecting crime, it simply has no constitutional foundation. We have never equated police efficiency with unconstitutionality, and we decline to do so now.
Respondent specifically attacks the use of the beeper insofar as it was used to determine that the can of chloroform had come to rest on his property at Shell Lake, Wis. He repeatedly challenges the “use of the beeper to determine the location of the chemical drum at Respondent’s premises,” Brief for Respondent 26; he states that “[t]he government thus overlooks the fact that this case involves the sanctity of Respondent’s residence, which is accorded the greatest protection available under the Fourth Amendment.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals appears to have rested its decision on this ground:
“As noted above, a principal rationale for allowing war-rantless tracking of beepers, particularly beepers in or on an auto, is that beepers are merely a more effective means of observing what is already public. But people pass daily from public to private spheres. When police agents track bugged personal property without first obtaining a warrant, they must do so at the risk that this enhanced surveillance, intrusive at best, might push fortuitously and unreasonably into the private sphere protected by the Fourth Amendment.” 662 F. 2d, at 518.
We think that respondent’s contentions, and the above-quoted language from the opinion of the Court of Appeals, to some extent lose sight of the limited use which the government made of the signals from this particular beeper. As we have noted, nothing in this record indicates that the beeper signal was received or relied upon after it had indicated that the drum containing the chloroform had ended its automotive journey at rest on respondent’s premises in rural Wisconsin. Admittedly, because of the failure of the visual surveillance, the beeper enabled the law enforcement officials in this case to ascertain the ultimate resting place of the chloroform when they would not have been able to do so had they relied solely on their naked eyes. But scientific enhancement of this sort raises no constitutional issues which visual surveillance would not also raise. A police car following Petschen at a distance throughout his journey could have observed him leaving the public highway and arriving at the cabin owned by respondent, with the drum of chloroform still in the car. This fact, along with others, was used by the government in obtaining a search warrant which led to the discovery of the clandestine drug laboratory. But there is no indication that the beeper was used in any way to reveal information as to the movement of the drum within the cabin, or in any way that would not have been visible to the naked eye from outside the cabin. Just as notions of physical trespass based on the law of real property were not dispositive in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), neither were they dis-positive in Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 (1924).
We thus return to the question posed at the beginning of our inquiry in discussing Katz, supra; did monitoring the beeper signals complained of by respondent invade any legitimate expectation of privacy on his part? For the reasons previously stated, we hold it did not. Since it did not, there was neither a “search” nor a “seizure” within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall joins, concurring in the judgment.
I join Justice Blackmun’s and Justice Stevens’ opinions concurring in the judgment. I should add, however, that I think this would have been a much more difficult case if respondent had challenged, not merely certain aspects of the monitoring of the beeper installed in the chloroform container purchased by respondent’s compatriot, but also its original installation. See ante, at 279, n. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), made quite clear that the Fourth Amendment protects against governmental invasions of a person’s reasonable “expectation[s] of privacy,” even when those invasions are not accompanied by physical intrusions. Cases such as Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 509-512 (1961), however, hold that, when the Government does engage in physical intrusion of a constitutionally protected area in order to obtain information, that intrusion may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment even if the same information could have been obtained by other means. I do not believe that Katz, or its progeny, have eroded that principle. Cf. The Supreme Court, 1979 Term, 94 Harv. L. Rev. 75, 203-204 (1980).
I am also entirely unconvinced by the Court of Appeals’ footnote disposing of the installation issue with the statement: “we hold that the consent of the owner [of the chloroform drum] at the time of installation meets the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, even if the consenting owner intends to soon sell the ‘bugged’ property to an unsuspecting buyer. Caveat emptor.” 662 F. 2d 515, 517, n. 2 (1981) (citation omitted). The Government is not here defending against a claim for damages in an action for breach of a warranty; it is attempting to justify the legality of a search conducted in the course of a criminal investigation. I am not at all sure that, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, there is a constitutionally significant difference between planting a beeper in an object in the possession of a criminal suspect and purposefully arranging that he be sold an object that, unknown to him, already has a beeper installed inside it. Cf. Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 305-306 (1921); Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 211 (1966).
Respondent claimed at oral argument that, under this Court’s cases, he would not have standing to challenge the original installation of the beeper in the chloroform drum because the drum was sold, not to him, but to one of his compatriots. See ante, at 279, n. If respondent is correct, that would only confirm for me the formalism and confusion in this Court’s recent attempts to redefine Fourth Amendment standing. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98, 114 (1980) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 156 (1978) (White, J., dissenting).
Respondent does not challenge the warrantless installation of the beeper in the chloroform container, suggesting in oral argument that he did not believe he had standing to make such a challenge. We note that while several Courts of Appeals have approved warrantless installations, see United States v. Bernard, 625 F. 2d 854 (CA9 1980); United States v. Lewis, 621 F. 2d 1382 (CA5 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 935 (1981); United States v. Bruneau, 594 F. 2d 1190 (CA8), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 847 (1979); United States v. Miroyan, 577 F. 2d 489 (CA9), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 896 (1978); United States v. Cheshire, 569 F. 2d 887 (CA5), cert. denied, 437 U. S. 907 (1978); United States v. Curtis, 562 F. 2d 1153 (CA9 1977), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 910 (1978); United States v. Abel, 548 F. 2d 591 (CA5), cert. denied, 431U. S. 956 (1977); United States v. Hufford, 539 F. 2d.32 (CA9), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1002 (1976), we have not before and do not now pass on the issue.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 442 F. 2d 694 (1971), affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, 315 F. Supp. 357 (1970). 404 U. S. 909 (1971). We agree that in this noncollision admiralty case the District Court properly dismissed petitioner’s third-party complaint for contribution against respondent Erie on the authority of Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U. S. 282 (1952). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Powell 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: | 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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the remedy for missing a statutory deadline. The statute in question focuses upon mandatory restitution for victims of crimes. It provides that “the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing.” 18 U. S. C. § 3664(d)(5). We hold that a sentencing court that misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution — at least where, as here, the sentencing court made clear prior to the deadline’s expiration that it would order restitution, leaving open (for more than 90 days) only the amount.
I
On February 8,2007, petitioner Brian Dolan pleaded guilty to a federal charge of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. 18 U. S. C. §§ 113(a)(6), 1153; App. 17. He entered into a plea agreement that stated that “restitution... may be ordered by the Court.” Id., at 18. The presentence report, provided to the court by the end of May, noted that restitution was required. But, lacking precise information about hospital costs and lost wages, it did not recommend a restitution amount. Id., at 27.
On July 30, the District Court held Dolan’s sentencing hearing. The judge sentenced Dolan to 21 months’ imprisonment along with 3 years of supervised release. Id., at 38. The judge, aware that restitution was “mandatory,” said that there was “insufficient information on the record at this time regarding possible restitution payments that may be owed,” that he would “leave that matter open, pending the receipt of additional information,” and that Dolan could “anticipate that such an award will be made in the future.” Id., at 39-40. A few days later (August 8) the court entered a judgment, which, among other things, stated:
“Pursuant to the Mandatory Restitution Act, restitution is applicable; however, no information has been received regarding possible restitution payments that may be owed. Therefore, the Court will not order restitution at this time.” Id., at 49 (boldface deleted).
The probation office later prepared an addendum to the pre-sentence report, dated October 5, which reflected the views of the parties, and which the judge later indicated he had received. Id., at 54. The addendum documents the “total amount of restitution” due in the case (about $105,000). Id., at 52. Its date, October 5, is 67 days after Dolan’s July 30 sentencing and 23 days before the statute’s “90 days after sentencing” deadline would expire. § 3664(d)(5).
The sentencing court nonetheless set a restitution hearing for February 4, 2008 — about three months after the 90-day deadline expired. As far as the record shows, no one asked the court for an earlier hearing. At the hearing, Dolan pointed out that the 90-day deadline had passed. Id., at 54-55. And he argued that the law no longer authorized the court to order restitution. Id., at 60-64.
The court disagreed and ordered restitution. See Memorandum Opinion and Restitution Order in No. CR 06-02173-RB (D NM, Apr. 24, 2008), App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 571 F. 3d 1022 (CA10 2009). And, in light of differences among the Courts of Appeals, we granted Dolan’s petition for certiorari on the question. Compare United States v. Cheal, 389 F. 3d 35 (CA1 2004) (recognizing court’s authority to enter restitution order past 90 days), and United States v. Balentine, 569 F. 3d 801 (CA8 2009) (same), with United States v. Maung, 267 F. 3d 1113 (CA11 2001) (finding no such authority), and United States v. Farr, 419 F. 3d 621 (CA7 2005) (same).
II
A
There is no doubt in this case that the court missed the 90-day statutory deadline “for the final determination of the victim’s losses.” § 3664(d)(5). No one has offered any excuse for the court’s doing so. Nor did any party seek an extension or “tolling” of the 90 days for equitable or for other reasons. All the information needed to determine the requisite restitution amount was available before the 90-day period had ended. Thus, the question before us concerns the consequences of the missed deadline where, as here, the statute does not specify them.
In answering this kind of question, this Court has looked to statutory language, to the relevant context, and to what they reveal about the purposes that a time limit is designed to serve. The Court’s answers have varied depending upon the particular statute and time limit at issue. Sometimes we have found that the statute in question imposes a “jurisdictional” condition upon, for example, a court’s authority to hear a case, to consider pleadings, or to act upon motions that a party seeks to file. See, e. g., Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205 (2007). But cf. Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 455 (2004) (finding bankruptcy rule did not show legislative intent to “delineat[e] the classes of cases” and “persons” properly “within a court’s adjudicatory authority”); see also Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 160-161 (2010) (discussing use of term “jurisdictional”). The expiration of a “jurisdictional” deadline prevents the court from permitting or taking the action to which the statute attached the deadline. The prohibition is absolute. The parties cannot waive it, nor can a court extend that deadline for equitable reasons. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U. S. 130, 133-134 (2008).
In other instances, we have found that certain deadlines are more ordinary “claims-processing rules,” rules that do not limit a court’s jurisdiction, but rather regulate the timing of motions or claims brought before the court. Unless a party points out to the court that another litigant has missed such a deadline, the party forfeits the deadline’s protection. See, e. g., Kontrick v. Ryan, supra, at 454-456 (60-day bankruptcy rule deadline for creditor’s objection to debtor discharge); Eberhart v. United States, 546 U. S. 12, 19 (2005) (per curiam) (7-day criminal rule deadline for filing motion for a new trial).
In still other instances, we have found that a deadline seeks speed by creating a time-related directive that is legally enforceable but does not deprive a judge or other public official of the power to take the action to which the deadline applies if the deadline is missed. See, e. g., United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U. S. 711, 722 (1990) (missed deadline for holding bail detention hearing does not require judge to release defendant); Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U. S. 253, 266 (1986) (missed deadline for making final determination as to misuse of federal grant funds does not prevent later recovery of funds); Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U. S. 149, 171-172 (2003) (missed deadline for assigning industry retiree benefits does not prevent later award of benefits).
After examining the language, the context, and the purposes of the statute, we conclude that the provision before us sets forth this third kind of limitation. The fact that a sentencing court misses the statute’s 90-day deadline, even through its own fault or that of the Government, does not deprive the court of the power to order restitution.
B
Several considerations lead us to this conclusion. First, where, as here, a statute “does not specify a consequence for noncompliance with” its “timing provisions,” “federal courts will not in the ordinary course impose their own coercive sanction.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43, 63 (1993); see also Montalvo-Murillo, supra, at 717-721. Cf., e. g., Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U. S. C. § 3161(c)(1); § 3162(a)(2) (statute specifying that missed 70-day deadline requires dismissal of indictment); Zedner v. United States, 547 U. S. 489, 507-509 (2006) (“The sanction for a violation of the Act is dismissal”).
We concede that the statute here uses the word “shall,” § 3664(d)(5), but a statute’s use of that word alone has not always led this Court to interpret statutes to bar judges (or other officials) from taking the action to which a missed statutory deadline refers. See, e. g., Montalvo-Murillo, supra, at 718-719 (use of word “shall” in context of bail hearing makes duty “mandatory” but does not mean that the “sanction for breach” is “loss of all later powers to act”); Brock, supra, at 262 (same in context of misuse of federal funds); Barnhart, supra, at 158-168 (same in context of benefits assignments). See also Regions Hospital v. Shalala, 522 U. S. 448, 459, n. 3 (1998) (same in respect to federal official’s reporting date).
Second, the statute’s text places primary weight upon, and emphasizes the importance of, imposing restitution upon those convicted of certain federal crimes. Amending an older provision that left restitution to the sentencing judge’s discretion, the statute before us (entitled “The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996”) says “[njotwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant convicted of [a specified] offense ... , the court shall order . . . that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense.” §3663A(a)(l) (emphasis added); cf. § 3663(a)(1) (stating that a court “may” order restitution when sentencing defendants convicted of other specified crimes). The Act goes on to provide that restitution shall be ordered in the “full amount of each victim’s losses” and “without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.” § 3664(f)(1)(A).
Third, the Act’s procedural provisions reinforce this substantive purpose, namely, that the statute seeks primarily to ensure that victims of a crime receive full restitution. To be sure speed is important. The statute requires a sentencing judge to order the probation office to prepare a report providing “a complete accounting of the losses to each victim, any restitution owed pursuant to a plea agreement, and information relating to the economic circumstances of each defendant.” § 3664(a). The prosecutor, after consulting with all identified victims, must “promptly provide” a listing of the amount subject to restitution “not later than 60 days prior to the date initially set for sentencing” § 3664(d)(1) (emphasis added). And the provision before us says:
“If the victim’s losses are not ascertainable by the date that is 10 days prior to sentencing, the attorney for the Government or the probation officer shall so inform the court, and the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing.” § 3664(d)(5).
But the statute seeks speed primarily to help the victims of crime and only secondarily to help the defendant. Thus, in the sentence following the language we have just quoted, the statute continues:
“If the victim subsequently discovers further losses, the victim shall have 60 days after discovery of those losses in which to petition the court for an amended restitution order.” Ibid.
The sentence imposes no time limit on the victim’s subsequent discovery of losses. Consequently, a court might award restitution for those losses long after the original sentence was imposed and the 90-day time limit has expired. That fact, along with the Act’s main substantive objectives, is why we say that the Act’s efforts to secure speedy determination of restitution is primarily designed to help victims of crime secure prompt restitution rather than to provide defendants with certainty as to the amount of their liability. Cf. S. Rep. No. 104-179, p. 20 (1995) (recognizing “the need for finality and certainty in the sentencing process,” but also stating that the “sole due process interest of the defendant being protected ... is the right not to be sentenced on the basis of invalid premises or inaccurate information”); see also ibid. (“[Jjustiee cannot be considered served until full restitution is made”).
Fourth, to read the statute as depriving the sentencing court of the power to order restitution would harm those— the victims of crime — who likely bear no responsibility for the deadline’s being missed and whom the statute also seeks to benefit. Cf. § 3664(g)(1) (“No victim shall be required to participate in any phase of a restitution order”). The potential for such harm — to third parties — normally provides a strong indication that Congress did not intend a missed deadline to work a forfeiture, here depriving a court of the power to award restitution to victims. See Brock, 476 U. S., at 261-262 (parties concede and court assumes that official can “proceed after the deadline” where “inaction” would hurt third party); see also 3 N. Singer & J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction §57:19, pp. 73-74 (7th ed. 2008) (hereinafter Singer, Statutory Construction) (missing a deadline does not remove power to exercise a duty where there is no “language denying performance after a specified time,” and especially “where a mandatory construction might do great injury to persons not at fault, as in a case where slight delay on the part of a public officer might prejudice private rights or the public interest” (footnote omitted)).
Fifth, we have previously interpreted similar statutes similarly. In Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U. S. 711, for example, we considered the Bail Reform Act of 1984, which states that a “judicial officer shall hold a hearing” to determine whether to grant bail to an arrested person and that “hearing shall be held immediately upon the person’s first appearance before the judicial officer.” (A continuance of up to five days may also be granted.) 18 U. S. C. § 3142(f) (emphasis added). The judicial officer missed this deadline, but the Court held that the judicial officer need not release the detained person. Rather, “once the Government discovers that the time limits have expired, it may [still] ask for a prompt detention hearing and make its case to detain based upon the requirements set forth in the statute.” 495 U. S., at 721.
The Court reasoned that “a failure to comply” with the hearing deadline “does not so subvert the procedural scheme ... as to invalidate the hearing.” Id., at 717. Missing the deadline did not diminish the strength of the Government’s interest in preventing release to avert the likely commission of crimes — the very objective of the Act. Id., at 720. Nor would mandatory release of the detained person “proportion-[atelyj” repair the “inconvenience and uncertainty a timely hearing would have spared him.” Id., at 721.
Here, as in Montalvo-Murillo, neither the language nor the structure of the statute requires denying the victim restitution in order to remedy a missed hearing deadline. As in Montalvo-Murillo, doing so would defeat the basic purpose of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. And, here, as in Montalvo-Murillo, that remedy does not “proportionately]” repair the harm caused the defendant through delay, particularly where, as here, the defendant “knew about restitution,” including the likely amount, well before expiration of the 90-day time limit. App. 62. Indeed, our result here follows from Montalvo-Murillo a fortiori, for here delay at worst postpones the day of financial reckoning. In Montalvo-Murillo, delay postponed a constitutionally guaranteed bail hearing with the attached risk that the defendant would remain improperly confined in jail. See 495 U. S., at 728 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (noting the seriousness “of the deprivation of liberty that physical detention imposes”).
Nor does Montalvo-Murillo stand alone. The Court there found support in similar cases involving executive officials charged with carrying out mandatory public duties in a timely manner. See id., at 717-718 (citing French v. Edwards, 13 Wall. 506, 511 (1872); Brock, supra, at 260). Those cases, in turn, are consistent with numerous similar decisions made by courts throughout the Nation. See, e. g., Taylor v. Department of Transp., 260 N. W. 2d 521, 522-523 (Iowa 1977); Hutchinson v. Ryan, 154 Kan. 751, 756-757, 121 P. 2d 179, 182 (1942); State v. Industrial Comm’n, 233 Wis. 461, 466, 289 N. W. 769, 771 (1940); see also 3 Singer, Statutory Construction §57:19, at 74 (citing cases).
Sixth, the defendant normally can mitigate any harm that a missed deadline might cause — at least if, as here, he obtains the relevant information regarding the restitution amount before the 90-day deadline expires. A defendant who fears the deadline will be (or just has been) missed can simply tell the court, which will then likely set a timely hearing or take other statutorily required action. See § 3664(d)(4) (providing that “court may require additional documentation or hear testimony”); § 3664(d)(5). Though a deliberate failure of the sentencing court to comply with the statute seems improbable, should that occur, the defendant can also seek mandamus. See All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a); La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U. S. 249 (1957). Cf. Brock, supra, at 260, n. 7 (noting availability of district court action to compel agency compliance with time-related directive).
C
Petitioner Dolan, however, believes we have understated the harm to a defendant that a missed deadline can cause. To show this he makes a three-part argument: (1) A defendant cannot appeal a sentence unless it is part of a “final judgment”; (2) a judgment setting forth a sentence is not “final” until it contains a definitive determination of the amount of restitution; and (3) to delay the determination of the amount of restitution beyond the 90-day deadline is to delay the defendant’s ability to appeal for more than 90 days — perhaps to the point where his due process rights are threatened. Brief for Petitioner 28-33.
The critical problem with this argument lies in its third step. As we have said, a defendant who, like petitioner here, knows that restitution will be ordered and is aware of the restitution amount prior to the expiration of the 90-day deadline can usually avoid additional delay simply by pointing to the statute and asking the court to grant a timely hearing. That did not happen here. And that minimal burden on the defendant is a small cost relative to the prospect of depriving innocent crime victims of their due restitution. (Should the court still refuse, the defendant could seek mandamus — which we believe will rarely be necessary.)
Even in the unlikely instances where that delay does cause the defendant prejudice — perhaps by depriving him of evidence to rebut the claimed restitution amount — the defendant remains free to ask the court to take that fact into account upon review. That inquiry might also consider the reason for the delay and the party responsible for its cause, i. e., whether the Government or the victim. Cf., e. g., United States v. Stevens, 211 F. 3d 1, 4-6 (CA2 2000) (tolling 90-day deadline for defendant’s bad-faith delay); United States v. Terlingo, 327 F. 3d 216, 218-223 (CA3 2003) (same). Adopting the dissent’s approach, by contrast, would permit a defendant’s bad-faith delay to prevent a timely order of restitution, potentially allowing the defendant to manipulate whether restitution could be awarded at all. But since we are not presented with such a case here, we need not decide whether, or how, such potential harm or equitable considerations should be taken into consideration.
In focusing upon the argument’s third step, we do not mean to imply that we accept the second premise, i. e., that a sentencing judgment is not “final” until it contains a definitive determination of the amount of restitution. To the contrary, strong arguments favor the appealability of the initial judgment irrespective of the delay in determining the restitution amount. The initial judgment here imposed a sentence of imprisonment and supervised release, and stated that restitution would be awarded. This Court has previously said that a judgment that imposes “discipline” may still be “freighted with sufficiently substantial indicia of finality to support an appeal.” Corey v. United States, 375 U. S. 169, 174, 175 (1963) (internal quotation marks omitted). And the Solicitor General points to statutes that say that a “judgment of conviction” that “includes” a “sentence to imprisonment” is a “final judgment.” 18 U. S. C. § 3582(b). So is a judgment that imposes supervised release (which can be imposed only in conjunction with a sentence of imprisonment). Ibid.; § 3583(a). So is a judgment that imposes a fine. § 3572(c). See Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34.
Moreover, § 3664(o) provides that a “sentence that imposes an order of restitution,” such as the later restitution order here, “is a final judgment.” Thus, it is not surprising to find instances where a defendant has appealed from the entry of a judgment containing an initial sentence that includes a term of imprisonment; that same defendant has subsequently appealed from a later order setting forth the final amount of restitution; and the Court of Appeals has consolidated the two appeals and decided them together. See, e. g., United States v. Stevens, supra; United States v. Maung, 267 F. 3d, at 1117; cf. United States v. Cheat, 389 F. 3d, at 51-53.
That the defendant can appeal from the earlier sentencing judgment makes sense, for otherwise the statutory 90-day restitution deadline, even when complied with, could delay appeals for up to 90 days. Defendants, that is, would be forced to wait three months before seeking review of their conviction when they could ordinarily do so within 14 days. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(b). Nonetheless, in light of the fact that the interaction of restitution orders with appellate time limits could have consequences extending well beyond cases like the present case (where there was no appeal from the initial conviction and sentence), we simply note the strength of the arguments militating against the second step of petitioner’s argument without deciding whether or when a party can, or must, appeal. We leave all such matters for another day.
The dissent, however, creates a rule that could adversely affect not just restitution, but other sentencing practices beyond the narrow circumstances presented here. Consider, for example, a judge who (currently lacking sufficient information) wishes to leave open, say, the amount of a fine, or a special condition of supervised release. In the dissent’s view, the entry of any such judgment would immediately deprive the judge of the authority later to fill in that blank, in the absence of a statute specifically providing otherwise. See post, at 622-624 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.). Thus, the sentencing judge would either have to (1) forgo the specific dollar amount or potential condition, or (2) wait to enter any judgment until all of the relevant information is at hand. The former alternative would sometimes deprive judges of the power to enter components of a sentence they may consider essential. The latter alternative would require the defendant to wait — perhaps months — before taking an appeal.
As we have pointed out, our precedents do not currently place the sentencing judge in any such dilemma. See supra, at 611-612, 614-615. And we need not now depart from those precedents when this case does not require us to do so; when the issue has not been adequately briefed; when the lower court had no opportunity to consider the argument (which the petitioner may well have forfeited); and when the rule would foreclose the current practices of some district courts and unnecessarily cabin the discretion they properly exercise over scheduling and sentencing matters. Cf., e. g., Stevens, supra, at 3; Cheat, supra, at 47 (illustrating district court practices).
Certainly there is no need to create this rule in the context of restitution, for provisions to which the dissent refers are silent about whether restitution can or cannot be ordered after an initial sentencing. See, e. g., §§ 3551(b), (c) (“A sanction authorized by [criminal forfeiture and restitution statutes] may be imposed in addition to the [rest of the] sentence”); § 3663A(c)(l) (mandatory orders of restitution “shall apply in all sentencing proceedings [for specified offenses]”). And even on the dissent’s theory, the statute elsewhere provides the necessary substantive authorization: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant convicted of [a specified] offense ..., the court shall order . . . that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense.” §3663A(a)(l) (emphasis added). The dissent cannot explain why a separate statutory provision regarding procedures as to when a “court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s losses,” § 3664(d)(5), automatically divests a eourt of this distinct substantive authority. While of course that provision does not “plainly” confer “power to act after sentencing,” post, at 625 (emphasis deleted), neither does it “plainly” remove it or require that all sentencing matters be concluded at one point in time. (And the dissent’s assertion, see post, at 626 — that it uses the term “authority” not in its “jurisdictional” sense, but rather in the sense that a court lacks “authority” to “impose a sentence above the . . . maximum” — introduces a tenuous analogy that may well confuse this Court’s precedents regarding the term “jurisdictional.” See supra, at 610-611.)
In any event, unless one reads the relevant statute’s 90-day deadline as an ironclad limit upon the judge's authority to make a final determination of the victim’s losses, the statute before us itself provides adequate authority to do what the sentencing judge did here — essentially fill in an amount-related blank in a judgment that made clear that restitution was “applicable.” App. 49 (boldface deleted). Since the sentencing judge’s later order did not “correct” an “error” in the sentence, Rule 35 does not apply. Compare Fed. Rule Crim. Proe. 35(a) with post, at 622-623. Hence the dissent’s claim that there is no other statute that creates authority (even were we to assume all else in its favor, which we do not) is merely to restate the question posed in this case, not to answer it.
Moreover, the dissent’s reading creates a serious statutory anomaly. It reads the statute as permitting a sentencing judge to order restitution for a “victim” who “subsequently discovers further losses” a month, a year, or 10 years after entry of the original judgment, while at the same time depriving that judge of the power to award restitution to a victim whose “losses are not ascertainable” within 90 days. Compare § 3664(d)(5) (first sentence) with § 3664(d)(5) (second sentence). How is that a sensible reading of a statute that makes restitution mandatory for victims?
Finally, petitioner asks ús to apply the “rule of lenity” in favor of his reading of the statute. Dolan has not provided us with an example of an instance in which the “rule of lenity” has been applied to a statutory time provision in the criminal context. See United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76 (1820) (applying rule in interpreting substantive criminal statute); Bifulco v. United States, 447 U. S. 381, 387, 400 (1980) (applying rule in interpreting “penalties”). But, assuming for argument’s sake that the rule might be so applied, and after considering the statute’s text, structure, and purpose, we nonetheless cannot find a statutory ambiguity sufficiently “grievous” to warrant its application in this case. Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 139 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Caron v. United States, 524 U. S. 308, 316 (1998) (rejecting application of rule where the “ambiguous” reading “is an implausible reading of the congressional purpose”).
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 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.
Per Curiam.
In October and November 1971, appellee Alberta Lessard was subjected to a period of involuntary commitment under the Wisconsin State Mental Health Act, Wis. Stat. § 51.001 et seq. While in confinement, she filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on behalf óf herself and all other persons 18 years of age or older who were being held involuntarily pursuant to the Wisconsin involuntary-commitment laws, alleging that the statutory scheme was violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jurisdiction was predicated on 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) and 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Since both declaratory and injunctive relief were sought, a District Court of three judges was convened, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281.
After hearing argument and receiving briefs, the District Court filed a comprehensive opinion, declaring the Wisconsin statutory scheme unconstitutional. 349 F. Supp. 1078. The opinion concluded by stating that
“Alberta Lessard and the other members of her class are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief against further enforcement of the present Wisconsin scheme against them. . . . [Miss Lessard] is also entitled to an injunction against any further extensions of the invalid order which continues to make her subject to the jurisdiction of the hospital authorities.” Id., at 1103.
Over nine months later, the District Court entered a judgment, which simply stated that
“It is Ordered and Adjudged that judgment be and hereby is entered in accordance with the Opinion heretofore entered . . . .”
The defendant-appellants now seek to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253. That statute provides that
“Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.”
In response, the appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Relying upon this Court’s decision in Gunn v. University Committee to End the War, 399 U. S. 383, she claims that the District Court’s judgment did not constitute “an order granting or denying” an injunction.
In Gunn, a statutory three-judge court had found a Texas breach of the peace statute unconstitutional. There, as here, the opinion of the District Court concluded by stating that the plaintiffs “are entitled to . . . injunctive relief.” University Committee to End the War v. Gunn, 289 F. Supp. 469, 475 (WD Tex.). The District Court in Gunn, however, entered no further order or judgment of any kind; the concluding paragraph of the opinion was the only mention of injunctive relief. Thus, we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, because of the total absence of any order “granting or denying” an injunction.
Although the language of the District Court opinion here parallels that in Gunn, there is thus an important distinction between the two cases. While the record in Gunn was devoid of any order granting injunctive relief, there was in the present case a judgment entered “in accordance with the Opinion.” Since the opinion of the District Court by its own terms authorizes the granting of injunctive relief to the appellee, we believe that the judgment here is sufficient to invoke our jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253.
Yet, although sufficient to invoke our appellate jurisdiction, the District Court’s order provides a wholly inadequate foundation upon which to premise plenary judicial review. Rule 65 (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:
“Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained . . . .”
The order here falls far short of satisfying the second and third clauses of Rule 65 (d). Neither the brief judgment order nor the accompanying opinion is “specific” in outlining the “terms” of the'injunctive relief granted; nor can it be said that the order describes “in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts sought to be restrained.” Rather, the defendants are simply told not to enforce “the present Wisconsin scheme” against those in the appellee’s class.
As we have emphasized in the past, the specificity provisions of Rule 65 (d) are no mere technical requirements. The Rule was designed to prevent uncertainty and confusion on the part of those faced with injunctive orders, and to avoid the possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree too vague to be understood. International Longshoremen’s Assn. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn., 389 U. S. 64, 74-76; Gunn, supra, at 388-389. See generally 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 65.11; 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2955. Since an injunctive order prohibits conduct under threat of judicial punishment, basic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed.
The requirement of specificity in injunction orders performs a second important function. Unless the trial court carefully frames its orders of injunctive relief, it is impossible for an appellate tribunal to know precisely what it is reviewing. Gunn, supra, at 388. We can hardly begin to assess the correctness of the judgment entered by the District Court here without knowing its precise bounds. In the absence of specific injunctive relief, informed and intelligent appellate review is greatly complicated, if not made impossible.
Hence, although the order below is sufficient to invoke our appellate jurisdiction, it plainly does not satisfy the important requirements of Rule 65 (d). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
The record in this case suggests that a good deal of confusion has been engendered by the absence of a specific injunctive order. About six months after the opinion in this action was entered, the appellee submitted a memorandum to the District Court, alleging numerous instances of “noncompliance” with the decision and requesting affirmative judicial relief. No action was taken on this request, and, on July 18, 1973, both the appellee and the appellants joined in a "Motion to Reconvene for Clarification of Opinion.” That motion outlined the uncertainty that had followed the District Court’s original opinion, and asked the court to “clarify” its precise holdings. The District Court has taken no action on this joint motion, perhaps because of the subsequent filing of a notice of appeal.
"The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon. When it is founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be a deadly one. Congress responded to that danger by requiring that a federal court frame its orders so that those who must obey them will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbid.” International Longshoremen’s Assn. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn., 389 U. S. 64, 76.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Stewart join.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court integrated the Wisconsin Bar by an order which created “The State Bar of Wisconsin” on January 1, 1957, under Rules and Bylaws promulgated by the court. In re Integration of the Bar, 273 Wis. 281; id., p. vii; 77 N. W. 2d 602. The order originally was effective for a two-year trial- period, but in 1958 was continued indefinitely. In re Integration of the Bar, 5 Wis. 2d 618, 93 N. W. 2d 601. Alleging that the “rules and by-laws required the plaintiff to enroll in the State Bar of Wisconsin and to pay dues to the treasurer of the State Bar of Wisconsin on the penalty of being deprived of his livelihood as a practicing lawyer, if he should fail to do so,” the appellant, a Wisconsin lawyer, brought this action in the Circuit Court of Dane County for the refund of $15 annual dues for 1959 paid by him under protest to appellee, the Treasurer of the State Bar. He attached to his complaint a copy of the letter with which he had enclosed his check for the dues.'He stated in the letter that he paid under protest because “I do not like to be coerced to support an organization which is authorized and directed to engage in political and propaganda activities.... A major portion of the activities of the State Bar as prescribed by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin are of a political and propaganda nature.” His complaint alleges more specifically that the State Bar promotes “law reform” and “makes and opposes proposals for changes in... laws and constitutional provisions and argues to legislative bodies and their committees and to the lawyers and to the people with respect to the adoption of changes in... codes, laws and constitutional provisions.” He alleges further that in the course of this activity “the State Bar of Wisconsin has used its employees, property and funds in active, unsolicited opposition to the adoption of legislation by the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin, which was favored by the plaintiff, all contrary to plaintiff’s convictions and beliefs.” His complaint concludes: “The plaintiff bases this action on his claim that the defendant has unjustly received, held, and disposed of funds of the plaintiff in the amount of $15.00, which to the knowledge of the defendant were paid to the defendant by the plaintiff unwillingly and under coercion, and that such coercion was and is entailed in the rules and by-laws of the State Bar of Wisconsin continued in effect by the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin... ; and the said order insofar as it coerces the plaintiff to support the State Bar of Wisconsin, is unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States...
The appellee demurred to the complaint on the ground, among others, that it failed to state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the complaint was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, on appeal, stated that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to determine the questions raised by the complaint. However, treating the case as if originally and properly brought in the Supreme Court, the court considered appellant’s constitutional claims, not only on the allegations of the complaint, but also upon the facts, of which it took judicial notice, as to its own actions leading up to the challenged order, and as to all activities, including legislative activities, of the State Bar since its creation. The judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing the complaint was affirmed. 10 Wis. 2d 230, 102 N. W. 2d 404. The Supreme Court held that the requirement that appellant be an enrolled dues-paying member of the State Bar did not abridge his rights of freedom of association, and also that his rights to free speech were not violated because the State Bar used his money to support legislation with which he disagreed.
An appeal was brought here by appellant under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), which authorizes our review of a final judgment rendered by the highest court of a State “By appeal, where is drawn in question the validity of a [state] statute... We postponed to the hearing on the merits the question whether the order continuing the State Bar indefinitely under the Rules and Bylaws is a “statute” for the purposes of appeal under § 1257 (2). 364 U. S. 810.
We think that the order is a “statute” for the purposes of § 1257 (2). Under that, Section, the legislative character of challenged state action, rather than the nature of the agency of the State performing the act, is decisive of the question of jurisdiction. It is not necessary that the state legislature itself should have taken the action drawn in question. In construing the similar jurisdictional provision in the Judiciary Act of 1867, 14 Stat. 385, we said: “Any enactment, from whatever source originating, to which a State gives the force of law is a statute of the State, within the meaning of the clause cited relating to the jurisdiction of this court.” Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176, 183. We likewise said of the provision of the Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 936, which is the present § 1257 (2): “... the jurisdictional provision uses the words 'a statute of any State’ in their larger sense and is not intended to make a distinction between acts of a state legislature and other exertions of the State’s law-making power, but rather to include every act legislative in character to which the State gives its sanction.” King Manufacturing Co. v. City Council, 277 U. S. 100, 104-105. Thus this Court has upheld jurisdiction on appeal of challenges to municipal ordinances, e. g., King Manufacturing Co. v. City Council, supra; Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413; certain types of orders of state regulatory commissions, e. g., Lake Erie & Western R. Co. v. State Public Utilities Comm’n, 249 U. S. 422; and some orders of other state agencies, e. g., Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U. S. 245, 257-258. It is true that in these cases the state agency the action of which was called in question was exercising authority delegated to it by the legislature. However, this fact was not determinative, but was merely relevant to the character of the State’s action. The absence of such a delegation does not preclude consideration of the exercise of authority as a statute.
We are satisfied that this appeal is from an act legislative in nature and within § 1257 (2). Integration of the Bar was effected through an interplay of action by the legislature and the court directed to fashioning a policy for the organization of the legal profession. The Wisconsin Legislature initiated the movement for integration of the Bar in 1943 when it passed the statute, chapter 315 of the Wisconsin Laws for that year, now Wis. Rev. Stat. § 256.31, providing:
“(1) There shall be an association to be known as the ‘State Bar of Wisconsin’ composed of persons licensed to practice law in this state, and membership in such association shall be a condition precedent to the right to practice law in Wisconsin.
“(2) The supreme court by appropriate orders shall provide for the organization and government of the association and shall define the rights, obligations and conditions of membership therein, to the end that such association shall promote the public interest by maintaining high standards of conduct in the legal profession and by aiding in the efficient administration of justice.”
The State Supreme Court held that this statute was not binding upon it because “[t]he power to integrate the bar is an incident to the exercise of the judicial power....” Integration of Bar Case, 244 Wis. 8, 40, 11 N. W. 2d 604, 619. The court twice refused to order integration, 244 Wis. 8, 11 N. W. 2d 604, 249 Wis. 523, 25 N. W. 2d 500, before taking the actions called in question on this appeal, 273 Wis. 281, 77 N. W. 2d 602, 5 Wis. 2d 618, 93 N. W. 2d 601. Nevertheless, the court in rejecting the first petition, 244 Wis., at pp. 51-52, 11 N. W. 2d, at pp. 623-624, recognized that its exercise of the power to order integration of the Bar would not be adjudicatory, but an action in accord with and in implementation of the legislative declaration of public policy. The court said:
“It is obvious that whether the general welfare requires that the bar be treated as a corporate body is a matter for the consideration of the legislature.... While the legislature has no constitutional power to compel the court to act or, if it acts, to act in a particular way in the discharge of the judicial function, it may nevertheless with propriety, and in the exercise of its power and the discharge of its duty, declare itself upon questions relating to the general welfare which includes the integration of the bar. The court, as has been exemplified during the entire history of the state, will respect such declarations and, as already indicated, adopt them so far as they do not embarrass the court or impair its constitutional functions.”
Integration of the Bar in Wisconsin bore no resemblance to adjudication. The State Supreme Court’s action disposed of no litigation between parties. Rather the court sought to regulate the profession by applying its orders to all present members of the Bar and to all persons coming within the described class in the future. Cf. Hamilton v. Regents, supra, p. 258; King Manufacturing Co. v. City Council, supra, p. 104. As such, the action had the characteristics of legislation. We conclude that the appeal is cognizable under § 1257 (2). We therefore proceed to the consideration of the merits.
The core of appellant’s argument is that he cannot constitutionally be compelled to join and give support to an organization which has among its functions the expression of opinion on legislative matters and which utilizes its property, funds and employees for the purposes of influencing legislation and public opinion toward legislation. But his compulsory enrollment imposes only the duty to pay dues. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin so interpreted its order and its interpretation is of course binding on us. The court said: “The rules and by-laws of the State Bar, as approved by this court, do not compel the plaintiff to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend its meetings or vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he has been subjected by the integration of the bar is the payment of the annual dues of $15 per year.” 10 Wis. 2d, at p. 237, 102 N. W. 2d, at p. 408. We therefore are confronted, as we were in Railway Employes’ Department v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, only with a question of compelled financial support of group activities, not with involuntary membership in any other aspect. Cf. International Association of Machinists v. Street, decided today, ante, p. 740, at pp. 748-749.
A review of the activities of the State Bar authorized under the Rules and Bylaws is necessary to decision. The purposes of the organization are stated as follows in Rule 1, § 2: “to aid the courts in carrying on and improving the administration of justice; to foster and maintain on the part of those engaged in the practice of law high ideals of integrity, learning, competence and public service and high standards of conduct; to safeguard the proper professional interests of the members of the bar; to encourage the formation and activities of local bar associations; to provide a forum for the discussion of subjects pertaining to the practice of law, the science of jurisprudence and law reform, and the relations of the bar to the public, and to publish information relating thereto; to the end that the public responsibilities of the legal profession may be more effectively discharged.” To achieve these purposes standing committees and sections are established. The Rules also assign the organization a major role in the State’s procedures for the discipline of members of the bar for unethical conduct. A Committee on Grievances is provided for each of the nine districts into which the State is divided. Each committee receives and investigates complaints of alleged misconduct of lawyers within its district. Each committee also- investigates and processes petitions for reinstatement of lawyers and petitions for late enrollment in the State Bar of lawyers who fail to enroll within a designated period after becoming eligible to enroll.
The State Legislature and the State Supreme Court have informed us of the public interest sought to be served by the integration of the bar. The statute states its desirability “to the end that such association shall promote the public interest by maintaining high standards of conduct in the legal profession and by aiding in the efficient administration of justice.” This theme is echoed in the several Supreme Court opinions. The first opinion after the passage of the statute noted the “widespread general recognition of the fact that the conduct of the bar is a matter of general public interest and concern.” 244 Wis. 8, 16, 11 N. W. 2d 604, 608. But the court’s examination at that time of existing procedures governing admission and discipline of lawyers and the prevention of the unauthorized practice of the law persuaded the court that the public interest was being adequately served without integration. The same conclusion was reached when the matter was reviewed again in 1946. At that time, in addition to reviewing the desirability of integration in the context of the problems of admission and discipline, the court considered its utility in other fields. The matter of post-law school or post-admission education of lawyers was one of these. The court believed, however, that while an educational program was a proper objective, the one proposed was “nebulous in outline and probably expensive in execution.” 249 Wis. 523, 530, 25 N. W. 2d 500, 503. The court also observed, “There are doubtless many other useful activities for which dues might properly be used, but what they are does not occur to us and no particular one seems to press for action.” 249 Wis. 523, 530, 25 N. W. 2d 500, 503.
The court concluded in 1956, however, that integration might serve the public interest and should be given a two-year trial. It decided to “require the bar to act as a unit to promote high standards of practice and the economical and speedy enforcement of legal rights,” 273 Wis. 281, 283, 77 N. W. 2d 602, 603, because it had come to the conclusion that efforts to accomplish these ends in the public interest through voluntary association had not been effective. “ [T] oo many lawyers have refrained or refused to join,... membership in the voluntary association has become static, and... a substantial minority of the lawyers in the state are not associated with the State Bar Association.” 273 Wis. 281, 283, 77 N. W. 2d 602, 603. When the order was extended indefinitely in 1958 the action was expressly grounded on the finding that, “Members of the legal profession by their admission to the bar become an important part of [the] process [of administering justice].... An independent, active, and intelligent bar is necessary to the efficient administration of justice by the courts.” 5 Wis. 2d 618, 622, 93 N. W. 2d 601, 603.
The appellant attacks the power of the State to achieve these goals through integration on the ground that because of its legislative activities, the State Bar partakes of the character of a political party. But on their face the purposes and the designated activities of the State Bar hardly justify this characterization. The inclusion among its purposes that it be a forum for a “discussion of... law reform” and active in safeguarding the “proper professional interests of, the members of the bar,” in unspecified ways, does not support it. Only two of the 12 committees, Administration of Justice, and Legislation, are expressly directed to concern themselves in a substantial way with legislation. Authority granted the other committees directs them to deal largely with matters which appear to be wholly outside the political process and to concern the internal affairs of the profession.
We do not understand the appellant to contend that the State Bar is a sham organization deliberately designed to further a program of political action. Nor would such a contention find support in this record. Legislative activity is carried on under a statement of policy which followed the recommendations of a former president of the voluntary Wisconsin Bar Association, Alfred La-France. He recommended that the legislative activity of the State Bar should have two distinct aspects: (1) “the field of legislative reporting or the dissemination of information concerning legislative proposals.... This is a service-information function that is both useful to the general membership and to the local bar associations”; and (2) “promotional or positive legislative activity.” As to the latter he advised that “the rule of substantial unanimity should be observed. Unless the lawyers of Wisconsin are substantially for or against a proposal, the State Bar should neither support nor oppose the proposal.” Wis. Bar Bull., Aug. 1957, pp. 41-42. “We must remember that we are an integrated Bar, that the views of the minority must be given along with the views of the majority where unanimity does not appear. The State Bar represents all of the lawyers of this state and in that capacity we must safeguard the interests of all.” Id., p. 44. The rules of policy and procedure for legislative activity follow these recommendations.
Under its charter of legislative action, the State Bar has participated in political activities in these principal categories:
(1) its executive director is registered as a lobbyist in accordance with state law. For the legislative session 1959-1960, the State Bar listed a $1,400 lobbying expense; this was a percentage of the salary of the executive director, based on an estimate of the time he spent in seeking to influence legislation, amounting to 5% of his salary for the two years. The registration statement signed by the then president of the State Bar added the explanatory note: “His activities as a lobbyist on behalf of the State Bar are incidental to his general work and occupy only a small portion of his time.”
(2) The State Bar, through its Board of Governors or Executive Committee, has taken a formal position with respect to a number of questions of legislative policy. These have included such subjects as an increase in the salaries of State Supreme Court justices; making attorneys notaries public; amending the Federal Career Compensation Act to apply to attorneys employed with the Armed Forces the same provisions for special pay and promotion available to members of other professions; improving pay scales of attorneys in state service; court reorganization; extending personal jurisdiction over nonresidents; allowing the recording of unwitnessed conveyances; use of deceased partners’ names in firm names; revision of the law governing federal tax liens; law clerks for State Supreme Court justices; curtesy and dower; securities transfers by fiduciaries; jurisdiction of county courts over the administration of inter vivos trusts; special appropriations for research for the State Legislative Council.
(3) The standing committees, particularly the Committees on Legislation and Administration of Justice, and the sections have devoted considerable time to the study of legislation, the formulation of recommendations, and the support of various proposals. For example, the president reported in 1960 that the Committee on Legislation “has been extremely busy, and through its efforts in cooperation with other interested agencies has been instrumental in securing the passage of the Court Reorganization bill, the bill of the Judicial Council expanding personal jurisdiction, and at this recently resumed session a bill providing clerks for our Supreme Court, and other bills of importance to the administration of justice.” Wis. Bar Bull., Aug. 1960, p. 41. See also id., June 1959, pp. 64-65. A new subcommittee, on federal legislation, was set up by this committee following a study which found need for such a group “to deal with federal legislation affecting the practice of law, or lawyers as a class, or the jurisdiction, procedure and practice of the Federal courts and other Federal tribunals, or creation of new Federal courts or judgeships affecting this state, and comparable subjects... Board of Governors Minutes, Dec. 11, 1959. Furthermore, legislative recommendations and activities have not been confined to those standing committees with the express function in the bylaws of considering legislative proposals. See, e. g., Report of the Committee on Legal Aid, Wis. Bar Bull., June 1960, p. 61; Report of the Committee on Legal Aid, id., June 1959, pp. 61-62. Many of the positions on legislation taken on behalf of the State Bar by the Board of Governors or the Executive Committee have also followed studies and recommendations by the sections. See, e. g., Report of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, Wis. Bar Bull., June 1960, p. 51; Report of the Corporation and Business Law Section, id., p. 56.
(4) A number of special committees have been constituted, either ad hoc to consider particular legislative proposals, or to perform continuing functions which may involve the consideration of legislation. Thus special committees have considered such subjects as extension of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents, law clerks for State Supreme Court justices, and revision of the federal tax lien laws. The Special Committee on World Peace through Law, which has encouraged the formation of similar committees on the local level, has sponsored debates on subjects such as the repeal of the Connally reservation, believing that “the general knowledge of laymen as well as of lawyers concerning the possibility of world peace through law is limited and requires a constant program of education and discussion.” Wis. Bar Bull., June 1960, p. 54.
(5) The Wisconsin Bar Bulletin, sent to each member, prints articles suggesting changes in state and federal law. And other publications of the State Bar deal with the progress of legislation.
But it seems plain that legislative activity is not the major activity of the State Bar. The activities without apparent political coloration are many. The Supreme Court provided in an appendix to the opinion below, “an analysis of [State-Bar]... activities and the public purpose served thereby.” 10 Wis. 2d, at p. 246,102 N. W. 2d, at p. 412. The court found that “The most extensive activities of the State Bar are those directed toward postgraduate education of lawyers,” and that “Postgraduate education of lawyers is in the public interest because it promotes the competency of lawyers to handle the legal matters entrusted to them by those of the general public who employ them.” 10 Wis. 2d, at p. 246, 102 N. W. 2d, at pp. 412-413. It found that the State Bar’s participation in the handling of grievances improved the efficiency and effectiveness of this work. It found that the public interest was furthered by the Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law which was carrying on “a constant program since numerous trades and occupations keep expanding their services and frequently start offering services which constitute the practice of the law.” 10 Wis. 2d, at p. 248, 102 N. W. 2d, at p. 413. The court also concluded that the Legal Aid Committee had “done effective and noteworthy work to encourage the local bar associations of the state to set up legal-aid systems in their local communities.... Such committee has also outlined recommended procedures for establishing and carrying through such systems of providing legal aid.” 10 Wis. 2d, at p. 249, 102 N. W. 2d, at p. 414. In the field of public relations the court found that the “chief activity” of the State Bar was the “preparation, publication, and distribution to the general public of pamphlets dealing with various transactions and happenings with which laymen are frequently confronted, which embody legal problems.” 10 Wis. 2d, at p. 247, 102 N. W. 2d, at p. 413. Moreover, a number of studies have been made of programs, not involving political action, to further the economic well-being of the profession.
This examination of the purposes and functions of the State Bar shows its multifaceted character, in fact as well as in conception. In our view the case presents a claim of impingement upon freedom of association no different from that which we decided in Railway Employes’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225. We there held that § 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 152, Eleventh, did not on its face abridge protected rights of association in authorizing union-shop agreements between interstate railroads and unions of their employees conditioning the employees’ continued employment on payment of union dues, initiation fees and assessments. There too the record indicated that the organizations engaged in some activities similar to the legislative activities of which the appellant complains. See International Association of Machinists v. Street, ante, p. 748, note 5. In rejecting Hanson’s claim of abridgment of his rights of freedom of association, we said, “On the present record, there is no more an infringement or impairment of First Amendment rights than there would be in the case of a lawyer who by state law is required to be a member of an integrated bar.” 351 U. S., at 238. Both in purport and in practice the bulk of State Bar activities serve the function, or at least so Wisconsin might reasonably believe, of elevating the educational and ethical standards of the Bar to the end of improving the quality of the legal service available to the people of the State, without any reference to the political process. It cannot be denied that this is a legitimate end of state policy. We think that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in order to further the State’s legitimate interests in raising the quality of professional services, may constitutionally require that the costs of improving the profession in this fashion should be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program, the lawyers, even though the organization created to attain the objective also engages in some legislative activity. Given the character of the integrated bar shown on this record, in the light of the limitation of the membership requirement to the compulsory payment of reasonable annual dues, we are unable to find any impingement upon protected rights of association.
However, appellant would have us go farther and decide whether his constitutional rights of free speech are infringed if his dues money is used to support the political activities of the State Bar. The State Supreme Court treated the case as raising the question whether First Amendment rights were violated “because part of his dues money is used to support causes to which he is opposed.” 10 Wis. 2d, at p. 238, 102 N. W. 2d, at p. 409. The Court in rejecting appellant’s argument reasoned that “[t]he right to practice law is not a right but is a privilege subject to regulation.... The only limitation upon the state’s power to regulate the privilege of the practice of law is that the regulations adopted do not impose an unconstitutional burden or deny due process.” 10 Wis. 2d, at pp. 237-238,102 N. W. 2d, at p. 408. The Court found no such burden because “... the public welfare will be promoted by securing and publicizing the composite judgment of the members of the bar of the state on measures directly affecting the administration of justice and the practice of law. The general public and the legislature are entitled to know how the profession as a whole stands on such type of proposed legislation.... The only challenged interference with his liberty is the exaction of annual dues to the State Bar, in the nature of the imposition of an annual license fee, not unreasonable or unduly burdensome in amount, part of which is used to advocate causes to which he is opposed. However, this court, in which is vested the power of the state to regulate the practice of law, has determined that it promotes the public interest to have public expression of the views of a majority of the lawyers of the state, with respect to legislation affecting the administration of justice and the practice of law, the same to be voiced through their own democratically chosen representatives comprising the board of governors of the State Bar. The public interest so promoted far outweighs the slight inconvenience to the plaintiff resulting from his required payment of the annual dues.” 10 Wis. 2d, at pp. 239, 242, 102 N. W. 2d, at pp. 409, 411.
We are persuaded that on this record we have no sound basis for deciding appellant's constitutional claim insofar as it rests on the assertion that his rights of free speech are violated by the use of his money for causes which he opposes. Even if the demurrer is taken as admitting all the factual allegations of the complaint, even if these ■ allegations are construed most expansively, and even if, like the Wisconsin Supreme Court, we take judicial notice of the political activities of the State Bar, still we think that the issue of impingement upon rights of free speech through the use of exacted dues is no more concretely presented for adjudication than it was in Hanson. Compare International Association of Machinists v. Street, ante, p. 740, at pp. 747-749. Nowhere are we clearly apprised as to the views of the appellant on any particular legislative issues on which the State Bar has taken a position, or as to the way in which and the degree to which funds compulsorily exacted from its members are used to support the organization’s political activities. There is an allegation in the complaint that the State Bar had “used its employees, property and funds in active, unsolicited opposition to the adoption of legislation by the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin, which was favored by the plaintiff, all contrary to the plaintiff’s convictions and beliefs,” but there is no indication of the nature of this legislation, nor of appellant’s views on particular proposals, nor of whether any of his dues were used to support the State Bar’s positions. There is an allegation that the State Bar’s revenues amount to about $90,000 a year, of which $80,000 is derived from dues, but there is no indication in the record as to how political expenditures are financed and how much has been expended for political causes to which appellant objects. The facts of which the Supreme Court took judicial notice do not enlighten us on these gaps in the record. The minutes of the Board of Governors and Executive Committee of the State Bar show that the organization has taken one position or another on a wide variety of issues, but those minutes give no indication of appellant’s views as to any of such issues or of what portions of the expenditure of funds to propagate the State Bar’s views may be properly apportioned to his dues payments. Nor do the other publications of the State Bar. The Supreme Court assumed, as apparently the trial court did in passing on the demurrer, that the appellant was personally opposed to some of the legislation supported by the State Bar. But its opinion still gave no description of any specific measures he opposed, or the extent to which the State Bar actually utilized dues funds for specific purposes to which he had objected. Appellant’s phrasing of the question presented on appeal in this Court is not responsive to any of these inquiries as to facts which may be relevant to the determination of constitutional questions surrounding the political expenditures. It merely asks whether a requirement of financial support of an association which, “among other things, uses its property, funds and employees for the purpose of influencing a broad range of legislation and public opinion” can be constitutionally imposed on him. This statement of the question, just as does his complaint, appears more a claim of the right to be free from compelled financial support of the organization because of its political activities, than a challenge by appellant to the use of his dues money for particular political causes of which he disapproves. Moreover, although the court below purported to decide as against all Fourteenth Amendment claims that the appellant could be compelled to pay his annual dues, even though “part... is used to support causes to which he is opposed,” on oral argument here appellant disclaimed any necessity to show that he had opposed the position of the State Bar on any particular issue and asserted that it was sufficient that he opposed the use of his money for any political purposes at all. In view of the state of the record and this disclaimer, we think that we would not be justified in passing on the constitutional question considered below. “[T]he questions involving the power of... [the State] come here not so shaped by the record and by the proceedings below as to bring those powers before this Court as leanly and as sharply as judicial judgment upon an exercise of... [state] power requires.” United States v. C. I. O., 335 U. S. 106, 126 (concurring opinion). Cf. United States v. U.A.W.C. I.O., 352 U. S. 567, 589-592.
We, therefore, intimate no view as to the correctness of the conclusion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that the appellant may constitutionally be compelled to contribute his financial support to political activities which he opposes. That issue is reserved, just as it was in Hanson, see International Association of Machinists v. Street, ante, p. 740, at 746-749. Upon this understanding we four vote to affirm. Since three of our colleagues are of the view that the claim which we do not decide is properly here and has no merit, and on that ground vote to affirm, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan,
with whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter joins, concurring in the judgment.
I think it most unfortunate that the right of the Wisconsin Integrated Bar to use, in whole or in part, the dues of dissident members to carry on legislative and other programs of law reform — doubtless among the most useful and significant branches of its authorized activities — should be left in such disquieting Constitutional uncertainty. The effect of that uncertainty is compounded by the circumstance that it will doubtless also reach into the Integrated Bars of twenty-five other States.
I must say, with all respect, that the reasons stated in the plurality opinion for avoiding decision of this Constitutional issue can hardly be regarded as anything but trivial. For, given the unquestioned fact that the Wisconsin Bar uses or threatens to use, over appellant's protest, some part of its receipts to further or oppose legislation on matters of law reform and the administration of justice, I am at a loss to understand how it can be thought that this record affords “no sound basis” for adjudicating the issue simply because we are not “clearly apprised as to the views of the appellant on any particular legislative issues on which-the State Bar has taken a position, or as to the way in which and the degree to which funds compulsorily exacted from its members are used to support the organization’s political activities” (ante, pp. 845-846). I agree with my Brother Black that the Constitutional issue is inescapably before us.
Unless one is ready to fall prey to what are at best but alluring abstractions on rights of free speech and association, I think he will be hard put to it to find any solid basis for the Constitutional qualms which, though unexpressed, so obviously underlie the plurality opinion, or for the views of my two dissenting Brothers, one of whom finds unconstitutional the entire Integrated Bar concept (post, pp. 877-885), and the other of whom holds the operations of such a Bar unconstitutional to the extent that they involve taking “the money of protesting lawyers” and using “it to support causes they are against” (post, p
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is one of criminal contempt for refusal to answer questions at trial.' Petitioner, admittedly a high executive officer of the Communist Party of California, and 13 codefendants were indicted and convicted of conspiracy to violate the Smith Act. During the trial, petitioner refused on June 30, 1952, to answer 11 questions relating to whether persons other than herself were members of the Communist Party. The District Court held petitioner in contempt of court for each refusal to answer, and imposed 11 concurrent sentences of one year each, which were to commence upon petitioner’s release from custody following execution of the five-year sentence imposed in the conspiracy case. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 227 F. 2d 851. We granted certiorari. 350 U. S. 947. The principal question presented is whether the finding of a separate contempt for each refusal constitutes an improper multiplication of contempts. We hold that it does, and find that only one contempt has been committed.
The circumstances of petitioner’s conviction are these. After the Government had rested its case in the Smith Act trial, all but four of the defendants — petitioner and three others — rested their cases. Petitioner took the stand and testified in her own defense. During the afternoon of the first day of her cross-examination, June 26, 1952, she refused to answer four questions about the Communist membership of a nondefendant and of a codefendant who had rested his case. In refusing to answer, she stated, “. . . [T]hat is a question which, if I were to answer, could only lead to a situation in which a person could be caused to suffer the loss of his job . . . and perhaps be subjected to further harassment, and ... I cannot bring myself to contribute to that.” She added, “However many times I am asked and in however many forms, to identify a person as a communist, I can’t bring myself to do it . . . .” The District Court adjudged her guilty of civil contempt for refusing to answer these questions, and committed her to jail until she should purge herself by answering the questions or until further order of the court. She was confined for the remainder of the trial.
On the third day of petitioner’s cross-examination, June 30, 1952, despite instructions from the court to answer, petitioner refused to answer 11 questions which in one way or another called for her to identify nine other persons as Communists. The stated ground for refusal in these instances was petitioner’s belief that either the person named or his family could “be hurt by” such testimony. She expressed a willingness to identify others as Communists — and in one instance did so — if such identification would not hurt them. The judge stated that he expected to treat these 11 refusals as criminal contempt under Rule 42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Adjudication of the contempt was deferred until completion of the principal case.
After conviction and imposition of sentences in the conspiracy case, the court, acting under 18 U. S. C. § 401, found petitioner guilty of “eleven separate criminal contempts” for her 11 refusals to answer questions on June 30. No question is raised as to the form or content of the specifications.
The court sentenced petitioner to imprisonment for one year on each of the 11 separate specifications of criminal contempt. The sentences were to run concurrently and were to commence upon her release from custody following execution of the five-year sentence imposed on the conspiracy charge. Upon imposing sentence, the court stated that if petitioner answered the 11 questions then or within 60 days, while he had authority to modify the sentence under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, he would be inclined to accept her submission to the authority of the court. However, petitioner persisted in her refusal.
The summary contempt power in the federal courts, “. . . although arbitrary in its nature and liable to abuse, is absolutely essential to the protection of the courts in the discharge of their functions. Without it, judicial tribunals would be at the mercy of the disorderly and violent, who respect neither the laws enacted for the vindication of public and private rights, nor the officers charged with the duty of administering them.” Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 313 (1888). The Judiciary Act of 1789 contained a section making it explicit that federal courts could “punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same . . . .” 1 Stat. 73, 83. After United States District Judge Peck’s acquittal in 1831 on charges of high misdemeanors for summarily punishing a member of the bar for contempt in publishing a critical comment on one of his judgments, Congress modified the statute. In the Act of 1831, the contempt power was limited to specific situations such as disobedience to lawful orders. 4 Stat. 487. See Frankfurter and Landis, Power of Congress Over Procedure in Criminal Contempts in “Inferior” Federal Courts, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 1010, 1023-1038. The present code provision is substantially similar. We have no doubt that the refusals in question constituted contempt within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. §401 (3).
This case presents three issues. Petitioner claims that the sentences were imposed to coerce her into answering the questions instead of to punish her, making the con-tempts civil rather than criminal and the sentences to a prison term after the close of the trial a violation of Fifth Amendment due process. Second, petitioner argues that her several refusals to answer on both June 26 and June 30 constituted but a single contempt which was total and complete on June 26, so that imposition of contempt sentences for the June 30 refusals was in violation of due process. Finally, petitioner contends that her one-year sentences were so severe as to violate due process and constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
I.
While imprisonment cannot be used to coerce evidence after a trial has terminated, Yates v. United States, 227 F. 2d 844; cf. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 443, 449 (1911), it is unquestioned that imprisonment for a definite term may be imposed to punish the contemnor in vindication of the authority of the court. We do not believe that the sentences under review in this case were imposed for the purpose of coercing answers to the 11 questions. Rather, the record clearly shows that the order was made to “vindicate the authority of the court”' by punishing petitioner’s “defiance” thereof. The sentencing judge did express the hope that petitioner would still “purge herself to the extent that she bows to the authority of the court” by answering the questions either at the time of the sentencing or within 60 days thereafter. In doing so, however, he acted pursuant to the power of the court under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rather than under any theory of civil contempt. Indeed, in express negation of the latter idea, he stated that should she answer the questions, “[i]t could have no effect upon this proceeding and need not be accepted as a purge, because of the fact that the time has passed ... for the administration of justice in this case to be affected by it.”
II.
Petitioner contends that the refusals of June 26 and June 30 constituted no more than a single contempt because the questions asked all related to identification of others as Communists, after she made it clear on June 26 that she would not be an informer. She urges that the single contempt was completed on June 26 since the area of refusal was “carved out” on that day. From this, petitioner concludes that no contempt was committed on June 30 and that imposition of criminal contempt sentences for refusals of that day to answer violates due process guaranties.
A witness, of course, cannot “pick and choose” the questions to which an answer will be given. The management of the trial rests with the judge and no party can be permitted to usurp that function. See United States v. Gates, 176 F. 2d 78, 80. However, it is equally clear that the prosecution cannot multiply contempts by repeated questioning on the same subject of inquiry within which a recalcitrant witness already has refused answers. See United States v. Orman, 207 F. 2d 148.
Even though we assume the Government correct in its contention that the 11 questions in this case covered more than a single subject of inquiry, it appears that every question fell within the area of refusal established by petitioner on the first day of her cross-examination. The Government admits, pursuant to the holding of United States v. Costello, 198 F. 2d 200, that only one contempt would result if Mrs. Yates had flatly refused on June 26 to answer any questions and had maintained such a position. We deem it a fortiori true that where a witness draws the lines of refusal in less sweeping fashion by declining to answer questions within a generally defined area of interrogation, the prosecutor cannot multiply contempts by further questions within that area. The policy of the law must be to encourage testimony; a witness willing to testify freely as to all areas of investigation but one, should not be subject to more numerous charges of contempt than a witness unwilling to give any testimony at all.
Having once carved out an area of refusal, petitioner remained within its boundaries in all her subsequent refusals. The slight modification on June 30 of the area of refusal did not carry beyond the boundaries already established. Whereas on June 26 the witness refused to identify other persons as Communists, on June 30 she refused to do so only if those persons would be hurt by her identification. Although the latter basis is not identical to the former, the area of refusal set out by it necessarily fell within the limits drawn on June 26. We agree with petitioner that only one contempt is shown on the facts of this case.
That conclusion, however, does not establish petitioner’s contention that no contempt whatsoever 'was committed by her refusal to answer the 11 questions of June 30. The contempt of this case, although single, was of a continuing nature: each refusal on June 30 continued the witness’ defiance of proper authority. Certainly a party who persisted in refusing to perform specific acts required by a mandatory injunction would be in continuing contempt of court. We see no meaningful distinction between that situation and petitioner’s persistent refusal to answer questions within a defined area.
Though there was but one contempt, imposition of the civil sentence for the refusals of June 26 is no barrier to criminal punishment for the refusals of June 30. The civil and criminal sentences served distinct purposes, the one coercive, the other punitive and deterrent; that the same act may give rise to these distinct sanctions presents no double jeopardy problem. Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148, 150 (1956); United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 299 (1947). Clearly, if the civil and criminal sentences could have been imposed simultaneously by the court on June 26, as the United Mine Workers case holds, it scarcely can be argued that the court’s failure to invoke the criminal sanction until June 30 was fatal to its criminal contempt powers. Indeed, the more salutary procedure would appear to be that a court should first apply coercive remedies in an effort to persuade a party to obey its orders, and only make use of the more drastic criminal sanctions when the disobedience continues. Had the court imposed a civil sentence and found petitioner guilty of criminal contempt on June 26, it could have postponed imposition of a criminal sentence until termination of the principal case. The distinction between that procedure and the one followed here is entirely formal.
III.
While the sentences imposed were concurrent, it may be that the court’s judgment as to the proper penalty was affected by the view that petitioner had committed 11 separate contempts. In addition, petitioner has now served a total of over 70 days in jail awaiting final disposition of the several proceedings against her. The conspiracy conviction and another criminal contempt conviction have been reversed, and the sentences imposed here have been termed “severe” by the Court of Appeals. 227 F. 2d 851, 855. Moreover, the court should consider “. . . the extent of the willful and deliberate defiance of the court’s order [and] the seriousness of the consequences of the contumacious behaviour . . . .” United States v. United Mine Workers, supra, at 303. In this regard, petitioner’s understandable reluctance to be an informer, although legally insufficient to explain her refusals to answer, is a factor, as is her apparently courteous demeanor and the fact that her refusals seem to have had no perceptible effect on the outcome of the trial. All of this points up the necessity, we think, of having the trial judge reconsider the sentence in the cool reflection of subsequent events.
The contempt convictions on specifications II-XI, inclusive, are reversed. The contempt conviction on specification I is affirmed, but the sentence on that conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for resentencing in the light of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Burton agrees with the Court of Appeals and the trial court that petitioner’s refusals to answer when ordered to do so by the trial court on June 30 constituted at least nine contempts of court. However, in view of all the circumstances, he now joins in the judgment of this Court remanding the case for resentencing.
This Court reversed the convictions in the principal case. Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957).
At the morning session petitioner indicated that she would answer questions as to the Party membership of codefendants who had not rested their cases, and in fact she did so.
The trial ended on Aug. 5, 1952. Petitioner was confined under the judgment of conviction in the principal case until Aug. 30, 1952, when she was released on bail pending appeal in that case. She was reconfined on Sept. 4, 1952, this time under the civil contempt order of June 26. She was released on bail on Sept. 6,1952, pending appeal from the order directing her reconfinement. That order was reversed on appeal on the ground that petitioner could not purge herself of the civil contempt since the trial had ended. Yates v. United States, 227 F. 2d 844. Petitioner was again confined on Sept. 8, 1952, after the District Court, on that same day, adjudged her in criminal contempt of court for her June 26 refusals to answer. She was released on bail on Sept. 11, 1952, pending appeal from that judgment, which was later reversed on appeal because the district judge had given her no notice at the time of the trial that he expected to hold her in criminal contempt for the June 26 refusals. Yates v. United States, 227 F. 2d 848. Neither the civil nor the criminal contempt sentences for the June 26 refusals, nor their reversals, are under review in the present case.
“A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.”
"§ 401. Power, op court.
“A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
“(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
“(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
“(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”
Stansbury, Report of the Trial of James H. Peck (1833).
See note 5, supra.
“Correction or Reduction op Sentence.
. . The court may reduce a sentence within 60 days after the sentence is imposed . . . .”
Nor does the finding of a single contempt mean that the criminal contempt sentence under review in this case constitutes double jeopardy because the court also imposed a criminal contempt sentence for the June 26 refusals. The latter was reversed on appeal, note 3, supra, and in any event was imposed after the criminal contempt sentence for the June 30 refusals.
In addition, the sentences imposed were ordered to commence upon completion of the five-year sentence in the conspiracy case. Reversal of the conspiracy conviction has rendered uncertain the date at which the sentences here imposed would begin.
Cf. Nilva v. United States, 352 U. S. 385, 396 (1957).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, Amos Reece, a Negro, was convicted of the rape of a white woman in Cobb County, Georgia. He contends here that Georgia’s rule of practice requiring him to challenge the composition of the grand jury before indictment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, 211 Ga. 339, 85 S. E. 2d 773, and we granted certiorari because of the important issues involved, 349 U. S. 944.
Reece was arrested on October 20, 1953, and was held in the county jail until his indictment three days later. On October 24, the day after his indictment, two local attorneys were appointed by the trial court to defend him. On October 30, before his arraignment, Reece moved to quash the indictment on the ground that Negroes had been systematically excluded from service on the grand jury. This motion was overruled after a hearing. On the same day, petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to be electrocuted. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the motion to quash was properly denied because, by Georgia practice, objections to a grand jury must be made before the indictment is returned, 210 Ga. 578, 82 S. E. 2d 10, but reversed the case on another ground, not pertinent here, and remanded it for a new trial.
Before his second trial Reece filed a special plea in abatement which alleged systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury commission, the grand jury which indicted him and the petit jury about to be put upon him. This plea also stated that petitioner had neither knowledge of the grand jury nor the benefit of counsel before his indictment. The State’s demurrer to this plea was sustained, and petitioner was again tried, convicted and sentenced to be electrocuted. It is this judgment which is here for review.
At the outset the State contends that the case is not properly before us because petitioner did not apply for a writ of certiorari within 90 days after the first judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia. This contention is clearly without substance. A timely application for certiorari to review the second judgment was made, and the case is properly here. 28 U. S. C. § 1257. We have jurisdiction to consider all of the substantial federal questions determined in the earlier stages of the litigation, Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163, 172-173, and our right to re-examine such questions is not affected by a ruling that the first decision of the state court became the law of the case, Davis v. O’Hara, 266 U. S. 314.
This Court over the past 50 years has adhered to the view that valid grand-jury selection is a constitutionally protected right. The indictment of a defendant by a grand jury from which members of his race have been systematically excluded is a denial of his right to equal protection of the laws. Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U. S. 463; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587; Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226; Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442. Where no opportunity to challenge the grand-jury selection has been afforded a defendant, his right may be asserted by a plea in abatement or a motion to quash before arraignment, United States v. Gale, 109 U. S. 65, 72. Of course, if such a motion is controverted it must be supported by evidence, Patton v. Mississippi, supra; Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316.
We mention these principles since the State contests the merits of Reece’s claim of systematic exclusion. In the hearing on his motion to quash before the first trial, he presented uncontradicted evidence to support the following facts: no Negro had served on the grand jury in Cobb County for the previous 18 years; the 1950 census showed that the county had a white population of 55,606 and a Negro population of 6,224; the same census showed a population of 16,201 male white citizens over 21 years of age, and 1,710 male Negro citizens over 21 years of age. Petitioner’s motion alleged, and this was not contradicted, that there were 534 names on the grand-jury list and of this number only six were Negroes. Of the six Negroes, one did not reside in the county and the other five testified in this proceeding. Two were over 80 years of age: one was partially deaf and the other in poor health. The remaining three were 62 years of age. Each of the witnesses had lived in the county for at least 30 years. None had ever served on a grand jury nor heard of any other Negro serving on a grand jury in the county. The Clerk and Deputy Clerk of the court testified that the jury boxes had been revised in 1952, that there was no discrimination or systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand-jury list, that six Negroes were on the list, and that neither had ever known a Negro to serve on a grand jury in Cobb County.
This evidence, without more, is sufficient to make a strong showing of systematic exclusion. The sizable Negro population in the county, the fact that all-white juries had been serving for as long as witnesses could remember, and the selection on the jury list of a relatively few Negroes who would probably be disqualified for actual jury service all point to a discrimination "ingenious or ingenuous,” Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 132. This evidence placed the burden on the State to refute it, Patton v. Mississippi, supra, and mere assertions of public officials that there has not been discrimination will not suffice. See Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475. However, we do not decide this issue. It is sufficient to say that petitioner’s motion stated and his evidence supported a prima facie constitutional claim.
Georgia’s rule of practice provides that when an “accused has been arrested for the commission of a penal offense and is committed to jail, he is apprised of the fact that his case or the charge against him will undergo grand-jury investigation, and it is incumbent upon him to raise objections to the competency of the grand jurors before they find an indictment against him.” Reece v. State, 210 Ga. 578, 82 S. E. 2d 10. This rule goes back to 1882, Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 11, and has been consistently followed in that State. A similar requirement was considered by this Court in Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442. In that case the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provided that a challenge to the array must be made before the grand jury was impaneled and that anyone confined in the jail at the time would, at his request, be brought into court to make such challenge. The defendant in Carter moved to quash the indictment after the grand jury had been impaneled but before his arraignment. Since the grand jury had been impaneled before the commission of the offense for which the defendant was indicted, this Court held that he “never had any opportunity to challenge the array of the grand jury, and was entitled to present the objection on which he relied by motion to quash.” 177 U. S., at 447. In the present case, as in Carter, the right to object to a grand jury presupposes an opportunity to exercise that right. Gale v. United States, 109 U. S. 65, 72. Michel v. Louisiana, post, p. 91.
We may now turn to the present case to see if Reece was afforded such opportunity. He was indicted by a grand jury that was impaneled and sworn eight days before his arrest. It adjourned the day before his arrest and was reconvened two days later by an order which did not list him as one against whom a case would be presented. Reece is a semi-illiterate Negro of low mentality. We need not decide whether, with the assistance of counsel, he would have had an opportunity to raise his objection during the two days he was in jail before indictment. But it is utterly unrealistic to say that he had such opportunity when counsel was not provided for him until the day after he was indicted. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, this Court held that the assignment of counsel in a state prosecution at such time and under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of a capital case is a denial of due process of law. The effective assistance of counsel in such a case is a constitutional requirement of due process which no member of the Union may disregard. Georgia should have considered Reece’s motion to quash on its merits.
In view of this disposition, it is not necessary that we consider other issues first raised by Reece in his plea in abatement at the second trial.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act requires convicted sex offenders to register with law enforcement authorities, and much of the information is made public. We must decide whether the registration requirement is a retroactive punishment prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause.
I
A
The State of Alaska enacted the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act (Act) on May 12,1994. 1994 Alaska Sess. Laws ch. 41. Like its counterparts in other States, the Act is termed a “Megan’s Law.” Megan Kanka was a 7-year-old New Jersey girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered in 1994 by a neighbor who, unknown to the victim’s family, had prior convictions for sex offenses against children. The crime gave impetus to laws for mandatory registration of sex offenders and corresponding community notification. In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, title 17, 108 Stat. 2038, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 14071, which conditions certain federal law enforcement funding on the States’ adoption of sex offender registration laws and sets minimum standards for state programs. By 1996, every State, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government had enacted some variation of Megan’s Law.
The Alaska law, which is our concern in this case, contains two components: a registration requirement and a notification system. Both are retroactive. 1994 Alaska Sess. Laws ch. 41, § 12(a). The Act requires any “sex offender or child kidnapper who is physically present in the state” to register, either with the Department of Corrections (if the individual is incarcerated) or with the local law enforcement authorities (if the individual is at liberty). Alaska Stat. §§ 12.63.010(a), (b) (2000). Prompt registration is mandated. If still in prison, a covered sex offender must register within 30 days before release; otherwise he must do so within a working day of his conviction or of entering the State. § 12.63.010(a). The sex offender must provide his name, aliases, identifying features, address, place of employment, date of birth, conviction information, driver’s license number, information about vehicles to which he has access, and postconviction treatment history. § 12.63.010(b)(1). He must permit the authorities to photograph and fingerprint him. § 12.63.010(b)(2).
If the offender was convicted of a single, nonaggra-vated sex crime, he must provide annual verification of the submitted information for 15 years. §§ 12.63.010(d)(1), 12.63.020(a)(2). If he was convicted of an aggravated sex offense or of two or more sex offenses, he must register for life and verify the information quarterly. §§ 12.63.010(d)(2), 12.63.020(a)(1). The offender must notify his local police department if he moves. § 12.63.010(c). A sex offender who knowingly fails to comply with the Act is subject to criminal prosecution. §§ 11.56.835, 11.56.840.
The information is forwarded to the Alaska Department of Public Safety, which maintains a central registry of sex offenders. § 18.65.087(a). Some of the data, such as fingerprints, driver’s license number, anticipated change of address, and whether the offender has had medical treatment afterwards, are kept confidential. §§ 12.63.010(b), 18.65.087(b). The following information is made available to the public: “the sex offender's or child kidnapper’s name, aliases, address, photograph, physical description, description[,] license [and] identification numbers of motor vehicles, place of employment, date of birth, crime for which convicted, date of conviction, place and court of conviction, length and conditions of sentence, and a statement as to whether the offender or kidnapper is in compliance with [the update] requirements ... or cannot be located.” § 18.65.087(b). The Act does not specify the means by which the registry information must be made public. Alaska has chosen to make most of the nonconfidential information available on the Internet.
B
Respondents John Doe I and John Doe II were convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, an aggravated sex offense. John Doe I pleaded nolo contendere after a court determination that he had sexually abused his daughter for two years, when she was between the ages of 9 and 11; John Doe II entered a nolo contendere plea to sexual abuse of a 14-year-old child. Both were released from prison in 1990 and completed rehabilitative programs for sex offenders. Although convicted before the passage of the Act, respondents are covered by it. After the initial registration, they are required to submit quarterly verifications and notify the authorities of any changes. Both respondents, along with respondent Jane Doe, wife of John Doe I, brought an action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, seeking to declare the Act void as to them under the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, § 10, cl. 1, of the Constitution and the Due Process Clause of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska granted summary judgment for petitioners. In agreement with the District Court, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined the state legislature had intended the Act to be a nonpunitive, civil regulatory scheme; but, in disagreement with the District Court, it held the effects of the Act were punitive despite the legislature’s intent. In consequence, it held the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Doe I v. Otte, 259 F. 3d 979 (2001). We granted certiorari. 534 U. S. 1126 (2002).
II
This is the first time we have considered a claim that a sex offender registration and notification law constitutes retroactive punishment forbidden by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The framework for our inquiry, however, is well established. We must “ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish ‘civil’ proceedings.” Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, 361 (1997). If the intention of the legislature was to impose punishment, that ends the inquiry. If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory scheme is “ ‘so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State’s] intention’ to deem it ‘civil.’ ” Ibid. (quoting United States v. Ward, 448 U. S. 242, 248-249 (1980)). Because we “ordinarily defer to the legislature’s stated intent,” Hendricks, supra, at 361, “ ‘only the clearest proof’ will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty,” Hudson v. United States, 522 U. S. 93, 100 (1997) (quoting Ward, supra, at 249); see also Hendricks, supra, at 361; United States v. Ursery, 518 U. S. 267, 290 (1996); United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U. S. 354, 365 (1984).
A
Whether a statutory scheme is civil or criminal “is first of all a question of statutory construction.” Hendricks, supra, at 361 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hudson, supra, at 99. We consider the statute’s text and its structure to determine the legislative objective. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 617 (1960). A conclusion that the legislature intended to punish would satisfy an ex post facto challenge without further inquiry into its effects, so considerable deference must be accorded to the intent as the legislature has stated it.
The courts “must first ask whether the legislature, in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly or impliedly a preference for one label or the other.” Hudson, supra, at 99 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Alaska Legislature expressed the objective of the law in the statutory text itself. The legislature found that “sex offenders pose a high risk of reoffending,” and identified “protecting the public from sex offenders” as the “primary governmental interest” of the law. 1994 Alaska Sess. Laws ch. 41, § 1. The legislature further determined that “release of certain information about sex offenders to public agencies and the general public will assist in protecting the public safety.” Ibid. As we observed in Hendricks, where we examined an ex post facto challenge to a postincareeration confinement of sex offenders, an imposition of restrictive measures on sex offenders adjudged to be dangerous is “a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective and has been historically so regarded.” 521 U. S., at 363. In this case, as in Hendricks, “[njothing on the face of the statute suggests that the legislature sought to create anything other than a civil . . . scheme designed to protect the public from harm.” Id., at 361.
Respondents seek to cast doubt upon the nonpunitive nature of the law’s declared objective by pointing out that the Alaska Constitution lists the need for protecting the public as one of the purposes of criminal administration. Brief for Respondents 23 (citing Alaska Const., Art. I, § 12). As the Court stated in Flemming v. Nestor, rejecting an ex post facto challenge to a law terminating benefits to deported aliens, where a legislative restriction “is an incident of the State’s power to protect the health and safety of its citizens,” it will be considered “as evidencing an intent to exercise that regulatory power, and not a purpose to add to the punishment.” 363 U. S., at 616 (citing Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189 (1898)). The Court repeated this principle in 89 Firearms, upholding a statute requiring forfeiture of unlicensed firearms against a double jeopardy challenge. The Court observed that, in enacting the provision, Congress “ ‘was concerned with the widespread traffic in firearms and with their general availability to those whose possession thereof was contrary to the public interest.’” 465 U. S., at 364 (quoting Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S. 814, 824 (1974)). This goal was “plainly more remedial than punitive.” 465 U. S., at 364. These precedents instruct us that even if the objective of the Act is consistent with the purposes of the Alaska criminal justice system, the State’s pursuit of it in a regulatory scheme does not make the objective punitive.
Other formal attributes of a legislative enactment, such as the manner of its codification or the enforcement procedures it establishes, are probative of the legislature’s intent. See Hendricks, supra, at 361; Hudson, supra, at 103; 89 Firearms, supra, at 363. In this case these factors are open to debate. The notification provisions of the Act are codified in the State’s “Health, Safety, and Housing Code,” § 18, confirming our conclusion that the statute was intended as a nonpunitive regulatory measure. Cf. Hendricks, supra, at 361 (the State’s “objective to create a civil proceeding is evidenced by its placement of the Act within the [State’s] probate code, instead of the criminal code” (citations omitted)). The Act’s registration provisions, however, are codified in the State’s criminal procedure code, and so might seem to point in the opposite direction. These factors, though, are not dispositive. The location and labels of a statutory provision do not by themselves transform a civil remedy into a criminal one. In 89 Firearms, the Court held a forfeiture provision to be a civil sanction even though the authorizing statute was in the criminal code. 465 U. S., at 364-365. The Court rejected the argument that the placement demonstrated Congress’ “intention to create an additional criminal sanction,” observing that “both criminal and civil sanctions may be labeled ‘penalties.’” Id., at 364, n. 6.
The same rationale applies here. Title 12 of Alaska’s Code of Criminal Procedure (where the Act’s registration provisions are located) contains many provisions that do not involve criminal punishment, such as civil procedures for disposing of recovered and seized property, Alaska Stat. § 12.36.010 et seq. (2000); laws protecting the confidentiality of victims and witnesses, § 12.61.010 et seq.; laws governing the security and accuracy of criminal justice information, §12.62.110 et seq.; laws governing civil postconviction actions, § 12.72.010 et seq.; and laws governing actions for writs of habeas corpus, § 12.75.010 et seq., which under Alaska law are “independent civil proceeding^],” State v. Hannagan, 559 P. 2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1977). Although some of these provisions relate to criminal administration, they are not in themselves punitive. The partial codification of the Act in the State’s criminal procedure code is not sufficient to support a conclusion that the legislative intent was punitive.
The procedural mechanisms to implement the Act do not alter our conclusion. After the Act’s adoption Alaska amended its Rules of Criminal Procedure concerning the acceptance of pleas and the entering of criminal judgments. The rule on pleas now requires the court to “infor[m] the defendant in writing of the requirements of [the Act] and, if it can be determined by the court, the period of registration required.” Alaska Rule Grim. Proc. 11(c)(4) (2002). Similarly, the written judgments for sex offenses and child kid-napings “must set out the requirements of [the Act] and, if it can be determined by the court, whether that conviction will require the offender or kidnapper to register for life or a lesser period.” Alaska Stat. § 12.55.148(a) (2000).
The policy to alert convicted offenders to the civil consequences of their criminal conduct does not render the consequences themselves punitive. When a State sets up a regulatory scheme, it is logical to provide those persons subject to it with clear and unambiguous notice of the requirements and the penalties for noncompliance. The Act requires registration either before the offender’s release from confinement or within a day of his conviction (if the offender is not imprisoned). Timely and adequate notice serves to apprise individuals of their responsibilities and to ensure compliance with the regulatory scheme. Notice is important, for the scheme is enforced by criminal penalties. See §§11.56.835, 11.56.840. Although other methods of notification may be available, it is effective to make it part of the plea colloquy or the judgment of conviction. Invoking the criminal process in aid of a statutory regime does not render the statutory scheme itself punitive.
Our conclusion is strengthened by the fact that, aside from the duty to register, the statute itself mandates no procedures. Instead, it vests the authority to promulgate implementing regulations with the Alaska Department of Public Safety, §§ 12.63.020(b), 18.65.087(d) — an agency charged with enforcement of both criminal and civil regulatory laws. See, e. g., § 17.30.100 (enforcement of drug laws); § 18.70.010 (fire protection); § 28.05.011 (motor vehicles and road safety); §44.41.020 (protection of life and property). The Act itself does not require the procedures adopted to contain any safeguards associated with the criminal process. That leads us to infer that the legislature envisioned the Act’s implementation to be civil and administrative. By contemplating “distinctly civil procedures,” the legislature “indicate[d] clearly that it intended a civil, not a criminal sanction.” Ursery, 518 U. S., at 289 (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original).
We conclude, as did the District Court and the Court of Appeals, that the intent of the Alaska Legislature was to create a civil, nonpunitive regime.
B
In analyzing the effects of the Act we refer to the seven factors noted in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 168-169 (1963), as a useful framework. These factors, which migrated into our ex post facto case law from double jeopardy jurisprudence, have their earlier origins in cases under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, as well as the Bill of Attainder and the Ex Post Facto Clauses. See id., at 168-169, and nn. 22-28. Because the Mendoza-Martinez factors are designed to apply in various constitutional contexts, we have said they are “neither exhaustive nor disposi-tive,” United States v. Ward, 448 U. S., at 249; 89 Firearms, 465 U. S., at 365, n. 7, but are “useful guideposts,” Hudson, 522 U. S., at 99. The factors most relevant to our analysis are whether, in its necessary operation, the regulatory scheme: has been regarded in our history and traditions as a punishment; imposes an affirmative disability or restraint; promotes the traditional aims of punishment; has a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose; or is excessive with respect to this purpose.
A historical survey can be useful because a State that decides to punish an individual is likely to select a means deemed punitive in our tradition, so that the public will recognize it as such. The Court of Appeals observed that the sex offender registration and notification statutes “are of fairly recent origin,” 259 F. 3d, at 989, which suggests that the statute was not meant as a punitive measure, or, at least, that it did not involve a traditional means of punishing. Respondents argue, however, that the Act — and, in particular, its notification provisions — resemble shaming punishments of the colonial period. Brief for Respondents 33-34 (citing A. Earle, Curious Punishments of Bygone Days 1-2 (1896)).
Some colonial punishments indeed were meant to inflict public disgrace. Humiliated offenders were required “to stand in public with signs cataloguing their offenses.” Hirsch, From Pillory to Penitentiary: The Rise of Criminal Incarceration in Early Massachusetts, 80 Mich. L. Rev. 1179, 1226 (1982); see also L. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History 38 (1993). At times the labeling would be permanent: A murderer might be branded with an “M,” and a thief with a “T.” R. Semmes, Crime and Punishment in Early Maryland 35 (1938); see also Massaro, Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law, 89 Mich. L. Rev. 1880, 1913 (1991). The aim was to make these offenders suffer “permanent stigmas, which in effect cast the person out of the community.” Ibid.; see also Friedman, supra, at 40; Hirsch, supra, at 1228. The most serious offenders were banished, after which they could neither return to their original community nor, reputation tarnished, be admitted easily into a new one. T. Blomberg & K. Lucken, American Penology: A History of Control 30-31 (2000). Respondents contend that Alaska’s compulsory registration and notification resemble these historical punishments, for they publicize the crime, associate it with his name, and, with the most serious offenders, do so for life.
Any initial resemblance to early punishments is, however, misleading. Punishments such as whipping, pillory, and branding inflicted physical pain and staged a direct confrontation between the offender and the public. Even punishments that lacked the corporal component, such as public shaming, humiliation, and banishment, involved more than the dissemination of information. They either held the person up before his fellow citizens for face-to-face shaming or expelled him from the community. See Earle, supra, at 20, 35-36, 51-52; Massaro, supra, at 1912-1924; Semmes, supra, at 39-40; Blomberg & Lucken, supra, at 30-31. By contrast, the stigma of Alaska’s Megan’s Law results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public. Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objective as punishment. On the contrary, our criminal law tradition insists on public indictment, public trial, and public imposition of sentence. Transparency is essential to maintaining public respect for the criminal justice system, ensuring its integrity, and protecting the rights of the accused. The publicity may cause adverse consequences for the convicted defendant, running from mild personal embarrassment to social ostracism. In contrast to the colonial shaming punishments, however, the State does not make the publicity and the resulting stigma an integral part of the objective of the regulatory scheme.
The fact that Alaska posts the information on the Internet does not alter our conclusion. It must be acknowledged that notice of a criminal conviction subjects the offender to public shame, the humiliation increasing in proportion to the extent of the publicity. And the geographic reach of the Internet is greater than anything which could have been designed in colonial times. These facts do not render Internet notification punitive. The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender. Widespread public access is necessary for the efficacy of the scheme, and the attendant humiliation is but a collateral consequence of a valid regulation.
The State’s Web site does not provide the public with means to shame the offender by, say, posting comments underneath his record. An individual seeking the information must take the initial step of going to the Department of Public Safety’s Web site, proceed to the sex offender registry, and then look up the desired information. The process is more analogous to a visit to an official archive of criminal records than it is to a scheme forcing an offender to appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality. The Internet makes the document search more efficient, cost effective, and convenient for Alaska’s citizenry.
We next consider whether the Act subjects respondents to an “affirmative disability or restraint.” Mendoza-Martinez, supra, at 168. Here, we inquire how the effects of the Act are felt by those subject to it. If the disability or restraint is minor and indirect, its effects are unlikely to be punitive.
The Act imposes no physical restraint, and so does not resemble the punishment of imprisonment, which is the paradigmatic affirmative disability or restraint. Hudson, 522 U. S., at 104. The Act’s obligations are less harsh than the sanctions of occupational debarment, which we have held to be nonpunitive. See ibid, (forbidding further participation in the banking industry); De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U. S. 144 (1960) (forbidding work as a union official); Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189 (1898) (revocation of a medical license). The Act does not restrain activities sex offenders may pursue but leaves them free to change jobs or residences.
The Court of Appeals sought to distinguish Hawker and cases which have followed it on the grounds that the disability at issue there was specific and “narrow,” confined to particular professions, whereas “the procedures employed under the Alaska statute are likely to make [respondents] completely unemployable” because “employers will not want to risk loss of business when the public learns that they have hired sex offenders.” 259 F. 3d, at 988. This is conjecture. Landlords and employers could conduct background checks on the criminal records of prospective employees or tenants even with the Act not in force. The record in this case contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred through the use of routine background checks by employers and landlords. The Court of Appeals identified only one incident from the 7-year history of Alaska’s law where a sex offender suffered community hostility and damage to his business after the information he submitted to the registry became public. Id., at 987-988. This could have occurred in any event, because the information about the individual’s conviction was already in the public domain.
Although the public availability of the information may have a lasting and painful impact on the convicted sex offender, these consequences flow not from the Act’s registration and dissemination provisions, but from the fact of conviction, already a matter of public record. The State makes the facts underlying the offenses and the resulting convictions accessible so members of the public can take the precautions they deem necessary before dealing with the registrant.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the requirement of periodic updates imposed an affirmative disability. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals was under a misapprehension, albeit one created by the State itself during the argument below, that the offender had to update the registry in person. Id., at 984, n. 4. The State’s representation was erroneous. The Alaska statute, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. And, as respondents conceded at the oral argument before us, the record contains no indication that an in-person appearance requirement has been imposed on any sex offender subject to the Act. Tr. of Oral Arg. 26-28.
The Court of Appeals held that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release in terms of the restraint imposed. 259 F. 3d, at 987. This argument has some force, but, after due consideration, we reject it. Probation and supervised release entail a series of mandatory conditions and allow the supervising officer to seek the revocation of probation or release in case of infraction. See generally Johnson v. United States, 529 U. S. 694 (2000); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U. S. 868 (1987). By contrast, offenders subject to the Alaska statute are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. Although registrants must inform the authorities after they change their facial features (such as growing a beard), borrow a car, or seek psychiatric treatment, they are not required to seek permission to do so. A sex offender who fails to comply with the reporting requirement may be subjected to a criminal prosecution for that failure, but any prosecution is a proceeding separate from the individual’s original offense. Whether other constitutional objections can be raised to a mandatory reporting requirement, and how those questions might be resolved, are concerns beyond the scope of this opinion. It suffices to say the registration requirements make a valid regulatory program effective and do not impose punitive restraints in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
The State concedes that the statute might deter future crimes. Respondents seize on this proposition to argue that the law is punitive, because deterrence is one purpose of punishment. Brief for Respondents 37. This proves too much. Any number of governmental programs might deter crime without imposing punishment. “To hold that the mere presence of a deterrent purpose renders such sanctions ‘criminal’ . . . would severely undermine the Government’s ability to engage in effective regulation.” Hudson, supra, at 105: see also Ursery, 518 U. S., at 292; 89 Firearms, 465 U. S., at 364.
The Court of Appeals was incorrect to conclude that the Act’s registration obligations were retributive because “the length of the reporting requirement appears to be measured by the extent of the wrongdoing, not by the extent of the risk posed.” 259 F. 3d, at 990. The Act, it is true, differentiates between individuals convicted of aggravated or multiple offenses and those convicted of a single'nonaggravated offense. Alaska Stat. § 12.63.020(a)(1) (2000). The broad categories, however, and the corresponding length of the reporting requirement, are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.
The Act’s rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose is a “[m]ost significant” factor in our determination that the statute’s effects are not punitive. Ursery, supra, at 290. As the Court of Appeals acknowledged, the Act has a legitimate nonpunitive purpose of “public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community].” 259 F. 3d, at 991. Respondents concede, in turn, that “this alternative purpose is valid, and rational.” Brief for Respondents 38. They contend, however, that the Act lacks the necessary regulatory connection because it is not “narrowly drawn to accomplish the stated purpose.” Ibid. A statute is not deemed punitive simply because it lacks a close or perfect fit with the nonpunitive aims it seeks to advance. The imprecision respondents rely upon does not suggest that the Act’s nonpunitive purpose is a “sham or mere pretext.” Hendricks, 521 U. S., at 371 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
In concluding the Act was excessive in relation to its regulatory purpose, the Court of Appeals relied in large part on two propositions: first, that the statute applies to all convicted sex offenders without regard to their future dangerousness; and, second, that it places no limits on the number of persons who have access to the information. 259 F. 3d, at 991-992. Neither argument is persuasive.
Alaska could conclude that a conviction for a sex offense provides evidence of substantial risk of recidivism. The legislature’s findings are consistent with grave concerns over the high rate of recidivism among convicted sex offenders and their dangerousness as a class. The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is “frightening and high.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U. S. 24, 34 (2002); see also id., at 33 (“When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault” (citing U. S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex Offenses and Offenders 27 (1997); U. S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p. 6 (1997))).
The Ex Post Facto Clause does not preclude a State from making reasonable categorical judgments that conviction of specified crimes should entail particular regulatory consequences. We have upheld against ex post facto challenges laws imposing regulatory burdens on individuals convicted of crimes without any corresponding risk assessment. See De Veau, 363 U. S., at 160; Hawker, 170 U. S., at 197. As stated in Hawker: “Doubtless, one who has violated the criminal law may thereafter reform and become in fact possessed of a good moral character. But the legislature has power in cases of this kind to make a rule of universal application ....” Ibid. The State’s determination to legislate with respect to convicted sex offenders as a class, rather than require individual determination of their dangerousness, does not make the statute a punishment under the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Our decision in Hendricks, on which respondents rely, Brief for Respondents 39, is not to the contrary. The State’s objective in Hendricks was involuntary (and potentially indefinite) confinement of “particularly dangerous individuals.” 521 U. S., at 357-358, 364. The magnitude of the restraint made individual assessment appropriate. The Act, by contrast, imposes the more minor condition of registration. In the context of the regulatory scheme the State can dispense with individual predictions of future dangerousness and allow the public to assess the risk on the basis of accurate, nonprivate information about the registrants’ convictions without violating the prohibitions of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
The duration of the reporting requirements is not excessive. Empirical research on child molesters, for instance, has shown that, “[cjontrary to conventional wisdom, most re-offenses do not occur within the first several years after release,” but may occur “as late as 20 years following release.” National Institute of Justice, R. Prentky, R. Knight, & A. Lee, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues 14 (1997).
The Court of Appeals’ reliance on the wide dissemination of the information is also unavailing. The Ninth Circuit highlighted that the information was available “world-wide” and “[b]roadcas[t]” in an indiscriminate manner. 259 F. 3d, at 992. As we have explained, however, the notification system is a passive one: An individual must seek access to the information. The Web site warns that the use of displayed information “to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution.” http://www.dps.state. ak.us/nSorcr/asp/ (as visited Jan. 17, 2003) (available in the Clerk of Court’s case file). Given the general mobility of our population, for Alaska to make its registry system available and easily accessible throughout the State was not so excessive a regulatory requirement as to become a punishment. See D. Schram & C. Milloy, Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism 13 (1995) (38% of recidivist sex offenses in the State of Washington took place in jurisdictions other than where the previous offense was committed).
The excessiveness inquiry of our ex post facto jurisprudence is not an exercise in determining whether the legislature has made the best choice possible to address the problem it seeks to remedy. The question is whether the regulatory means chosen are reasonable in light of the non-punitive objective. The Act meets this standard.
The two remaining Mendoza-Martinez factors — whether the regulation comes into play only on a finding of scienter and whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime — are of little weight in this case. The regulatory scheme applies only to past conduct, which was, and is, a crime. This is a necessary beginning point, for recidivism is the statutory concern. The obligations the statute imposes are the responsibility of registration, a duty not predicated upon some present or repeated violation.
Our examination of the Act’s effects leads to the determination that respondents cannot show, much less by the clearest proof, that the effects of the law negate Alaska’s intention to establish a civil regulatory scheme. The Act is nonpuni-tive, and its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 delivered theopinion of the Court. This case involves the extent to which the Fourteenth Amendment and the “one man, one vote” principle apply in the election of local governmental officials. Appellants are residents and taxpayers of the Kansas City School District, one of eight separate school' districts that have combined to form the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City. Under Missouri law separate school districts may vote by referendum to establish a consolidated junior college district and elect six trustees to conduct and manage the necessary affairs of that district. The state law also provides that these trustees shall be apportioned among the separate school districts on the basis of “school enumeration,” defined as the number of persons between the ages of six and 20 years, who reside in each district. In the case of the Kansas City School District this apportionment plan results in the election of three trustees, or 50% of the total number, from that district. Since that district contains approximately 60% of the total school enumeration in the junior college district, appellants brought suit claiming that their right to vote for trustees was being unconstitutionally diluted in violation of the, Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the suit, stating that the “one man, one vote” principle was not applicable in this case. 432 S. W. 2d 328 (1968). We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal, 393 U. S. 1115 (1969), and for the reasons set forth below we reverse and hold that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the trustees of this junior college district be apportioned in a manner that does not deprive any voter of his right to have his own vote given as much weight, as far as is practicable, as that of any other voter in the junior college district.
In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964), we held that the Constitution requires that “as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” Id., at 7-8. Because of this requirement we struck down a Georgia statute which allowed glaring discrepancies among the populations in that State’s congressional districts. In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964), and the companion cases, we considered state laws that had apportioned state legislatures in a way that again showed glaring discrepancies in the number of people who lived in different legislative districts. In an elaborate opinion in Reynolds we called attention to prior cases indicating that a qualified voter has a constitutional right to vote in elections without having his vote wrongfully denied, debased, or diluted. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651 (1884); United States v. Mosley, 238 U. S. 383 (1915); Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 (1915); Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939); United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299 (1941). Applying the basic principle of Wesberry, we therefore held that the various state apportionment schemes denied some voters the right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to have their votes given the same weight as that of other voters. Finally, in Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968), we applied this same principle to the election of Texas county commissioners, holding that a qualified voter in a local election also has constitutional right to have his vote counted with substantially the same weight as that of any other voter a case where the elected officials exercised “general governmental powers over the entire geographic area served by the body.” Id., at 485.
case argue that the junior college trustees exercised general governmental powers over the entire district and that under Avery the State was thus required to apportion the trustees according to popula-on an equal basis, as far as practicable. Appellants that since the trustees can levy and collect taxes, bonds with certain restrictions, hire and fire teachers, contracts, collect fees, supervise and discipline stu-pass on petitions to annex school districts, acquire property by condemnation, and in general manage the operations of the junior college, their powers are equiv-for apportionment purposes, to those exercised by county commissioners in Avery. We feel that these while not fully as broad as those of the Midland Commissioners, certainly show that the trustees perforin important governmental functions within the districts, and we think these powers are general enough and have sufficient impact throughout the district to justify the conclusion that the principle which we applied in Avery should also be applied here.
This Court has consistently held in a long series of cases, that in situations involving elections, the States are required to insure that each person’s vote counts as much, insofar as it is practicable, as any other person’s. We have applied this principle in congressional elections, state legislative elections, and local elections. The consistent theme of those decisions is that the right to vote in an election is protected by the United States Constitution against dilution or debasement. While the particular offices involved in these cases have varied, in each case a constant factor is the decision of the government to have citizens participate individually by ballot in the selection of certain people who carry out governmental functions. Thus in the case now before us, while the office of junior college trustee differs in certain respects from those offices considered in prior cases, it is exactly the same in the one crucial factor — these officials are elected by popular vote.
I When a court is asked to decide whether a State is ¡required by the Constitution to give each qualified voter I the same power in an election open to all, there is no dis-I cernible, valid reason why constitutional distinctions I should be drawn on the basis of the purpose of the elec-one person’s vote is given less weight through ”j unequal apportionment, his right to equal voting partid- j pation is impaired just as much when he votes for a school | board member as when he votes for a state legislator, f While there are differences in the powers of different f officials, the crucial consideration is the right of each I qualified voter to participate on an equal footing in the j election process. It should be remembered that in cases j like this one we are asked by voters to insure that they | are given equal treatment, and from their perspective the I harm from unequal treatment is the same in any election, | regardless of the officials selected. *4
a election were to be the determining factor in deciding whether voters are entitled equal voting power, courts would be faced with the difficult job of distinguishing between various elections. cannot readily.perceive judicially manageable stand-to aid in such a task. It might be suggested that apportionment is required only in “important” elections, but good judgment and common sense tell that what might be a vital election to one voter well be a routine one to another. In some in-the election of a local sheriff may be far more important than the election of a United States Senator. there is any way of determining the importance of a particular governmental official, we think the of the State to select that official by popular is a strong enough indication that the choice is an one. This is so because in our country pop-election has traditionally been the method followed government by the people is most desired.
we distinguish for appor-purposes between elections for “legislative” and those for “administrative” officers. Such suggestion would leave courts with an equally unman-principle since be classified in the neat categories favored by texts,” Avery, supra, at 482, and it must also be rejected. We therefore hold today that as a general whenever a state or local government decides to persons by popular election to perform governmental functions, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that each qualified must be given an equal opportunity to participate that election, and when members of an elected are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials. It is course possible that there might be some case in which State elects certain functionaries whose duties are so removed from normal governmental activities and disproportionately affect different groups that a popu-election in compliance with Reynolds, supra, might not be required, but certainly we see nothing in the present case that indicates that the activities of these trustees fit in that category. Education has traditionally been a vital governmental function, and these trustees, whose election the State has opened to all qualified voters, are governmental officials in every relevant sense of that term.
In this particular case the man, one ciple is to some extent already reflected in the Missouri statute. That act provides that if no one or more of the component school districts has 33%% or more of the total enumeration of the junior college district, then all six trustees are elected at large. If, however, one or more districts has between 33%% and 50% of the total enumeration, each such district elects two trustees and the rest are elected at large from the remaining districts. Similarly, if one district has between 50% and 66%% of the enumeration it elects three trustees, and if one district has more than 66%% it elects four trustees. This scheme thus allocates increasingly more trustees to large districts as they represent an increasing proportion of the total enumeration.
statutory scheme reflects to some extent a principle of equal voting power, it does so in a way that does not comport with constitutional requirements. This is so because the Act necessarily results in a systematic discrimination against voters in the more populous school districts. This discrimination occurs because whenever a large district’s percentage of the total enumeration falls within a certain percentage range it is always allocated the number of trustees corresponding the bottom of that range. Unless a particular large district has exactly 33%%■, 50%, or 66%% of the total enumeration it will always have proportionally fewer trustees than the small districts. As has been pointed out, in the case of the Kansas City School District approximately 60% of the total enumeration entitles that district to only 50% of the trustees. Thus while voters large school districts may frequently have less effective voting power than residents of small districts, they can never have more. Such built-in discrimination against voters in large districts cannot be sustained as a sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate that each person’s vote count as much as another’s, as far as practicable. Consequently Missouri cannot allocate the college trustees according to the statutory formula employed in this case. We would be faced with a dif-question if the deviation presented in this case resulted from a plan that not contain a built-in bias in favor of small districts, rather from the inherent mathematical complications equally apportioning a small number of trustees among a limited number of component districts. We said before that mathematical exactitude is not required, Wesberry, supra, at 18, Reynolds, supra, at 577, a plan that does not automatically discriminate in favor of certain districts is.
In holding that the guarantee each voter applies in all elections of governmental officials, we do not feel that the States will be inhibited finding ways to insure that legitimate political goals representation are achieved. We have previously up-against constitutional challenge an election scheme required that candidates be residents of certain districts that did not contain equal numbers of people. Dusch v. Davis, 387 U. S. 112 (1967). Since all the officials in that case were elected at large, the right of voter was given equal treatment. We have also that where a State chooses to select members of an official body by appointment rather than election, and that choice does not itself offend the Constitution, the fact that each official does not “represent” the same number of people does not deny those people equal protection of the laws. Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U. S. 105 (1967); cf. Fortson v. Morris, 385 U. S. 231 (1966). And a State may, in certain cases, limit the a group or class of people. As we said before, “[vjiable local governments may need many innovations, numerous combinations of old and new devices, great flexibility in municipal arrangements to meet changing urban conditions. We see nothing in the Constitution to prevent experimentation.” Sailors, supra, at 110-111. But once a State has decided use the process of popular election and “once the class voters is chosen and their qualifications specified, we see no constitutional way by which equality of voting power may be evaded.” Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, 381 (1963).
judgment below reversed and the case is remanded to the Missouri Supreme Court for proceedings not inconsistent with opinion.
and remanded.
Mo.Rev. Stat. §§ 178.800, 178.820 (Cum. Supp. 1967).
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 167.011 (Cum. Supp. 1967).
For the years 1963 through 1967, the actual eenumeration in the City School District varied between 63.55% and 59.49%. 38.
WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633 (1964); Maryland Committee v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656 (1964); Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678 (1964); Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695 (1964); Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U. S. 713 (1964).
Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 167.161,171.011, 177.031, 177.041, 178.770, 178.850-178.890 (Cum. Supp. 1967).
The Midland County Commissioners establishedand main-the county jail, appointed numerous county officials, made built roads and bridges, administered the county welfare performed duties in connection with elections, set the county tax rate, issued bonds, adopted the county budget, built and ran hospitals, airports, and libraries, fixed school district boundaries, established a housing authority, and determined the election districts for county commissioners. Avery, supra, at 476-477.
Wesberry, supra; Reynolds, supra; cases cited n. 4 supra; Avery, supra; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368 (1963); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73 (1966); Swann v. Adams, 385 U. S. 440 (1967).
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 178.820 (Cum. Supp. 1967).
There issome question in this case whether school enumeration figures, rather than actual population figures, can be used as a basis of apportionment. Cf. Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 90-95 (1966). There is no need to time since, even if school enumeration is a permissible basis, the present statute fails to apportion trustees constitutionally.
The statute case are elected from component districts rather than at large must be residents of the district from which they are elected. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 178.820 (2) (Cum. Supp. 1967).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 8 (a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA or Act) empowers agents of the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to search the work area of any employment facility within the Act’s jurisdiction. The purpose of the search is to inspect for safety hazards and violations of OSHA regulations. No search warrant or other process is expressly required under the Act.
On the morning of September 11, 1975, an OSHA inspector entered the customer service area of Barlow’s, Inc., an electrical and plumbing installation business located in Pocatello, Idaho. The president and general manager, Ferrol G. “Bill” Barlow, was on hand; and the OSHA inspector, after showing his credentials, informed Mr. Barlow that he wished to conduct a search of the working areas of the business. Mr. Barlow inquired whether any complaint had been received about his company. The inspector answered no, but that Barlow’s, Inc., had simply turned up in the agency’s selection process. The inspector again asked to enter the nonpublic area of the business; Mr. Barlow’s response was to inquire whether the inspector had a search warrant. The inspector had none. Thereupon, Mr. Barlow refused the inspector admission to the employee area of his business. He said he was relying on his rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Three months later, the Secretary petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Idaho to issue an order compelling Mr. Barlow to admit the inspector. The requested order was issued on December 30, 1975, and was presented to Mr. Barlow on January 5, 1976. Mr. Barlow again refused admission, and he sought his own injunctive relief against the warrantless searches assertedly permitted by OSHA. A three-judge court was convened. On December 30, 1976, it ruled in Mr. Barlow’s favor. 424 F. Supp. 437. Concluding that Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 528-529 (1967), and See v. Seattle, 387 U. S. 541, 543 (1967), controlled this case, the court held that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant for the type of search involved here and that the statutory authorization for warrantless inspections was unconstitutional. An injunction against searches or inspections pursuant to § 8 (a) was entered. The Secretary appealed, challenging the judgment, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 430 U. S. 964.
I
The Secretary urges that warrantless inspections to enforce' OSHA are reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Among other things, he relies on § 8 (a) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 657 (a), which authorizes inspection of business premises without a warrant and which the Secretary urges represents a congressional construction of the Fourth Amendment that the courts should not reject. Regrettably, we are unable to agree.
The Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment protects commercial buildings as well as private homes. To hold otherwise would belie the origin of that Amendment, and the American colonial experience. An important forerunner of the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Virginia Rill of Rights, specifically opposed “general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed.” The general warrant was a recurring point of contention in the Colonies immediately preceding the Revolution. The particular offensiveness it engendered was acutely felt by the merchants and businessmen whose premises and products were inspected for compliance with the several parliamentary revenue measures that most irritated the colonists. “•[T]he Fourth Amendment’s commands grew in large measure out of the colonists’ experience with the writs of assistance... [that] granted sweeping power to customs officials and other agents of the King to search at large for smuggled goods.” United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1977). See also G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 355 (1977). Against this background, it is untenable that the ban on warrantless searches was not intended to shield places of business as well as of residence.
This Court has already held that warrantless searches are generally unreasonable, and that this rule applies to commercial premises as well as homes. In Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, at 528-529, we held:
“[E]xcept in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is 'unreasonable' unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.”
On the same day, we also ruled:
“As we explained in Camara, a search of private houses is presumptively unreasonable if conducted without a warrant. The businessman, like the occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property. The businessman, too, has that right placed in jeopardy if the decision to enter and inspect for violation of regulatory laws can be made and enforced by the inspector in the field without official authority evidenced by a warrant.” See v. Seattle, supra, at 543.
These same cases also held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches protects against warrantless intrusions during civil as well as criminal investigations. Ibid. The reason is found in the “basic purpose of this Amendment... [which] is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.” Camara, supra, at 528. If the government intrudes on a person’s property, the privacy interest suffers whether the government’s motivation is to investigate violations of criminal laws or breaches of other statutory or regulatory standards. It therefore appears that unless some recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies, See v. Seattle would require a warrant to conduct the inspection sought in this case.
The Secretary urges that an exception from the search warrant requirement has been recognized for “pervasively regulated businesses],” United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311, 316 (1972), and for “closely regulated” industries “long subject to close supervision and inspection.” Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U. S. 72, 74, 77 (1970). These cases are indeed exceptions, but they represent responses to relatively unique circumstances. Certain industries have such a history of government oversight that no reasonable expectation of privacy, see Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351-352 (1967), could exist for a proprietor over the stock of such an enterprise. Liquor (Colonnade) and firearms (Biswell) are industries of this type; when an entrepreneur embarks upon such a business, he has voluntarily chosen to subject himself to a full arsenal of governmental regulation.
Industries such as these fall within the “certain carefully defined classes of cases,” referenced in Camara, 387 U. S., at 528. The element that distinguishes these enterprises from ordinary businesses is a long tradition of close government supervision, of which any person who chooses to enter such a business must already be aware. “A central difference between those cases [Colonnade and Biswell] and this one is that businessmen engaged in such federally licensed and regulated enterprises accept the burdens as well as the benefits of their trade, whereas the petitioner here was not engaged in any regulated or licensed business. The businessman in a regulated industry in effect consents to the restrictions placed upon him.” Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266, 271 (1973).
The clear import of our cases is that the closely regulated industry of the type involved in Colonnade and Biswell is the exception. The Secretary would make it the rule. Invoking the Walsh-Healey Act of 1936, 41 U. S. C. § 35 et seq., the Secretary attempts to support a conclusion that all businesses involved in interstate commerce have long been subjected to close supervision of employee safety and health conditions. But the degree of federal involvement in employee working circumstances has never been of the order of specificity and pervasiveness that OSHA mandates. It is quite unconvincing to argue that the imposition of minimum wages and maximum hours on employers who contracted with the Government under the Walsh-Healey Act prepared the entirety of American interstate commerce for regulation of working conditions to the minutest detail. Nor can any but the most fictional sense of voluntary consent to later searches be found in the single fact that one conducts a business affecting interstate commerce; under current practice and law, few businesses can be conducted without having some effect on interstate commerce.
The Secretary also attempts to derive support for a Colonnade-Biswell-type exception by drawing analogies from the field of labor law. In Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793 (1945), this Court upheld the rights of employees to solicit for a union during nonworking time where efficiency was not compromised. By opening up his property to employees, the employer had yielded so much of his private property rights as to allow those employees to exercise § 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act. But this Court also held that the private property rights of an owner prevailed over the intrusion of nonemployee organizers, even in nonworking areas of the plant and during nonworking hours. NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U. S. 105 (1956).
The critical fact in this case is that entry over Mr. Barlow’s objection is being sought by a Government agent. Employees are not being prohibited from reporting OSHA violations. What they observe in their daily functions is undoubtedly beyond the employer’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The Government inspector, however, is not an employee. Without a warrant he stands in no better position than a member of the public. What is observable by the public is observable, without a warrant, by the Government inspector as well. The owner of a business has not, by the necessary utilization of employees in his operation, thrown open the areas where employees alone are permitted to the warrantless scrutiny of Government agents. That an employee is free to report, and the Government is free to use, any evidence of noncompliance with OSHA that the employee observes furnishes no justification for federal agents to enter a place of business from which the public is restricted and to conduct their own warrantless search.
II
The Secretary nevertheless stoutly argues that the enforcement scheme of the Act requires warrantless searches, and that the restrictions on search discretion contained in the Act and its regulations already protect as much privacy as a warrant would. The Secretary thereby asserts the actual reasonableness of OSHA searches, whatever the general rule against warrantless searches might be. Because “reasonableness is still the ultimate standard,” Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S., at 539, the Secretary suggests that the Court decide whether a warrant is needed by arriving at a sensible balance between the administrative necessities of OSHA inspections and the incremental protection of privacy of business owners a warrant would afford. He suggests that only a decision exempting OSHA inspections from the Warrant Clause would give “full recognition to the competing public and private interests here at stake.” Ibid.
The Secretary submits that warrantless inspections are essential to the proper enforcement of OSHA because they afford the opportunity to inspect without prior notice and hence to preserve the advantages of surprise. While the dangerous conditions outlawed by the Act include structural defects that cannot be quickly hidden or remedied, the Act also regulates a myriad of safety details that may be amenable to speedy alteration or disguise. The risk is that during the interval between an inspector’s initial request to search a plant and his procuring a warrant following the owner’s refusal of permission, violations of this latter type could be corrected and thus escape the inspector’s notice. To the suggestion that warrants may be issued ex parte and executed without delay and without prior notice, thereby preserving the element of surprise, the Secretary expresses concern for the administrative strain that would be experienced by the inspection system, and by the courts, should ex parte warrants issued in advance become standard practice.
We are unconvinced, however, that requiring warrants to inspect will impose serious burdens on the inspection system or the courts, will prevent inspections necessary to enforce the statute, or will make them less effective. In the first place, the great majority of businessmen can be expected in normal course to consent to inspection without warrant; the Secretary has not brought to this Court’s attention any widespread pattern of refusal. In those cases where an owner does insist on a warrant, the Secretary argues that inspection efficiency will be impeded by the advance notice and delay. The Act’s penalty provisions for giving advance notice of a search, 29 U. S. C. § 666 (f), and the Secretary’s own regulations, 29 CFR § 1903.6 (1977), indicate that surprise searches are indeed contemplated. However, the Secretary has also promulgated a regulation providing that upon refusal to permit an inspector to enter the property or to complete his inspection, the inspector shall attempt to ascertain the reasons for the refusal and report to his superior, who shall “promptly take appropriate action, including compulsory process, if necessary.” 29 CFR § 1903.4 (1977). The regulation represents a choice to proceed by process where entry is refused; and on the basis of evidence available from present practice, the Act’s effectiveness has not been crippled by providing those owners who wish to refuse an initial requested entry with a time lapse while the inspector obtains the necessary process. Indeed, the kind of process sought in this case and apparently anticipated by the regulation provides notice to the business operator. If this safeguard endangers the efficient administration of OSHA, the Secretary should never have adopted it, particularly when the Act does not require it. Nor is it immediately apparent why the advantages of surprise would be lost if, after being refused entry, procedures were available for the Secretary to seek an ex parte warrant and to reappear at the premises without further notice to the establishment being inspected.
Whether the Secretary proceeds to secure a warrant or other process, with or without prior notice, his entitlement to inspect will not depend on his demonstrating probable cause to believe that conditions in violation of OSHA exist on the premises. Probable cause in the criminal law sense is not required. For purposes of an administrative search such as this, probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant may be based not only on specific evidence of an existing violation but also on a showing that “reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an... inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular [establishment].” Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S., at 538. A warrant showing that a specific business has been chosen for an OSHA search on the basis of a general administrative plan for the enforcement of the Act derived from neutral sources such as, for example, dispersion of employees in various types of industries across a given area, and the desired frequency of searches in any of the lesser divisions of the area, would protect an employer’s Fourth Amendment rights. We doubt that the consumption of enforcement energies in the obtaining of such warrants will exceed manageable proportions.
Finally, the Secretary urges that requiring a warrant for OSHA inspectors will mean that, as a practical matter, war-rantless-search provisions in other regulatory statutes are also constitutionally infirm. The reasonableness of a warrantless search, however, will depend upon the specific enforcement needs and privacy guarantees of each statute. Some of the statutes cited apply only to a single industry, where regulations might already be so pervasive that a Colonnade-Biswell exception to the warrant requirement could apply. Some statutes already envision resort to federal-court enforcement when entry is refused, employing specific language in some cases and general language in others. In short, we base today’s opinion on the facts and law concerned with OSHA and do not retreat from a holding appropriate to that statute because of its real or imagined effect on other, different administrative schemes.
Nor do we agree that the incremental protections afforded the employer’s privacy by a warrant are so marginal that they fail to justify the administrative burdens that may be entailed. The authority to make warrantless searches devolves almost unbridled discretion upon executive and administrative officers, particularly those in the field, as to when to search and whom to search. A warrant, by contrast, would provide assurances from a neutral officer that the inspection is reasonable under the Constitution, is authorized by statute, and is pursuant to an administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria. Also, a warrant would then and there advise the owner of the scope and objects of the search, beyond which limits the inspector is not expected to proceed. These are important functions for a warrant to perform, functions which underlie the Court’s prior decisions that the Warrant Clause applies to inspections for compliance with regulatory statutes. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967); See v. Seattle, 387 U. S. 541 (1967). We conclude that the concerns expressed by the Secretary do not suffice to justify warrantless inspections under OSHA or vitiate the general constitutional requirement that for a search to be reasonable a warrant must be obtained.
III
We hold that Barlow’s was entitled to a declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional insofar as it purports to authorize inspections without warrant or its equivalent and to an injunction enjoining the Act’s enforcement to that extent. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the Secretary, upon presenting appropriate credentials to the owner, operator, or agent in charge, is authorized—
“(1) to enter without delay and at reasonable times any factory, plant, establishment, construction site, or other area, workplace or environment where work is performed by an employee of an employer; and
“(2) to inspect and' investigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, any such place of employment and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and to question privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent, or employee.” 84 Stat. 1598, 29 U. S. C. § 657 (a).
This is required by the Act. See n. 1, supra.
A regulation of the Secretary, 29 CFR § 1903.4 (1977), requires an inspector to seek compulsory process if an employer refuses a requested search. See infra, at 317, and n. 12.
No res judicata bar arose against Mr. Barlow from the December 30, 1975, order authorizing a search, because the earlier decision reserved the constitutional issue. See 424 F. Supp. 437.
H. Commager, Documents of American History 104 (8th ed. 1968).
See, e. g., Dickerson, Writs of Assistance as a Cause of the Revolution in The Era of the American Revolution 40 (R. Morris ed. 1939).
The Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, and the tea tax of 1773 are notable examples. See Commager, supra, n. 5, at 53, 63. For commentary, see 1 S. Morison, H. Commager, & W. Leuchtejiburg, The Growth of the American Republic 143, 149, 159 (1969).
The Government has asked that Mr. Barlow be ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for refusing to honor the inspection order, and its position is that the OSHA inspector is now entitled to enter at once, over Mr. Barlow’s objection.
Cf. Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U. S. 861 (1974).
The automobile-search cases cited by the Secretary are even less helpful to his position than the labor cases. The fact that automobiles occupy a special category in Fourth Amendment case law is by now beyond doubt due, among other factors, to the quick mobility of a car, the registration requirements of both the car and the driver, and the more available opportunity for plain-view observations of a car’s contents. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, 441-442 (1973); see also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 48-51 (1970). Even so, probable cause has not been abandoned as a requirement for stopping and searching an automobile.
We recognize that today’s holding itself might have an impact on whether owners choose to resist requested searches; we can only await the development of evidence not present on this record to determine how serious an impediment to effective enforcement this might be.
It is true, as the Secretary asserts, that § 8 (a) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 657 (a), purports to authorize inspections without warrant; but it is also true that it does not forbid the Secretary from proceeding to inspect only by warrant or other process. The Secretary has broad authority to prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out his responsibilities under this chapter, “including rules and regulations dealing with the inspection of an employer’s establishment.” § 8 (g) (2), 29 U. S. C. § 657 (g) (2). The regulations with respect to inspections are contained in 29 CFR Part 1903 (1977). Section 1903.4, referred to in the text, provides as follows:
“Upon a refusal to permit a Compliance Safety and Health Officer, in the exercise of his official duties, to enter without delay and at reasonable times any place of employment or any place therein, to inspect, to review records, or to question any employer, owner, operator, agent, or employee, in accordance with § 1903.3, or to permit a representative of employees to accompany the Compliance Safety and Health Officer during the physical inspection of any workplace in accordance with § 1903.8, the Compliance Safety and Health Officer shall terminate the inspection or confine the inspection to other areas, conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, materials, records, or interviews concerning which no objection is raised. The Compliance Safety and Health Officer shall endeavor to ascertain the reason for such refusal, and he shall immediately report the refusal and the reason therefor to the Area Director. The Area Director shall immediately consult with the Assistant Regional Director and the Regional Solicitor, who shall promptly take appropriate action, including compulsory process, if necessary.”
When his representative was refused admission by Mr. Barlow, the Secretary proceeded in federal court to enforce his right to enter and inspect, as conferred by 29 U. S. C. § 657.
A change in the language of the Compliance Operations Manual for OSHA inspectors supports the inference that, whatever the Act’s administrators might have thought at the start, it was eventually concluded that enforcement efficiency would not be jeopardized by permitting employers to refuse entry, at least until the inspector obtained compulsory process. The 1972 Manual included a section specifically directed to obtaining “warrants,” and one provision of that section dealt with ex ■parte warrants: “In cases where a refusal of entry is to be expected from the past performance of the employer, or where the employer has given some indication prior to the commencement of the investigation of his intention to bar entry or limit or interfere with the investigation, a warrant should be obtained before the inspection is attempted. Cases of this nature should also be referred through the Area Director to the appropriate Regional Solicitor and the Regional Administrator alerted.” Dept. of Labor, OSHA Compliance Operations Manual V-7 (Jan. 1972).
The latest available manual, incorporating changes as of November 1977, deletes this provision, leaving only the details for obtaining “compulsory process” after an employer has refused entry. Dept. of Labor, OSHA Field Operations Manual, Vol. V, pp. V—4-V-5. In its present form, the Secretary’s regulation appears to permit establishment owners to insist on “process”; and hence their refusal to permit entry would fall short of criminal conduct within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. §§ 111 and 1114 (1976 ed.), which make it a crime forcibly to impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officials, including OSHA inspectors, while engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties.
The proceeding was instituted by filing an “Application for Affirmative Order to Grant Entry and for an Order to show cause why such affirmative order should not issue.” The District Court issued the order to show cause, the matter was argued, and an order then issued authorizing the inspection and enjoining interference by Barlow’s. The following is the order issued by the District Court:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the United States of America, United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, through its duly designated representative or representatives, are entitled to entry upon the premises known as Barlow’s Inc., 225 West Pine, Pocatello, Idaho, and may go upon said business premises to conduct an inspection and investigation as provided for in Section 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U. S. C. 651, et seq.), as part of an inspection program designed to assure compliance with that Act; that the inspection and investigation shall be conducted during regular working hours or at other reasonable times, within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, all as set forth in the regulations pertaining to such inspections promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, at 29 C. F. R., Part 1903; that appropriate credentials as representatives of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, shall be presented to the Barlow’s Inc. representative upon said premises and the inspection and investigation shall be commenced as soon as practicable after the issuance of this Order and shall be completed within reasonable promptness; that the inspection and investigation shall extend to the establishment or other area, workplace, or environment where work is performed by employees of the employer, Barlow’s Inc., and to all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, materials, and all other things therein (including but n,ot limited to records, files, papers, processes, controls, and facilities) bearing upon whether Barlow’s Inc. is furnishing to its employees employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to> its employees, and whether Barlow’s Inc. is complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Standards promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to that Act; that representatives of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration may, at the option of Barlow’s Inc., be accompanied by one or more employees of Barlow’s Inc., pursuant to Section 8 (e) of that Act; that Barlow’s Inc., its agents, representatives, officers, and employees are hereby enjoined and restrained from in anyway whatsoever interfering with the inspection and investigation authorized by this Order and, further, Barlow’s Inc. is hereby ordered and directed to, within five working days from the date of this Order, furnish a copy of this Order to its officers and managers, and, in addition, to post a copy of this Order at its employee’s bulletin board located upon the business premises; and Barlow’s Inc. is hereby ordered and directed to comply in all respects with this order and allow the inspection and investigation to take place without delay and forthwith.”
Insofar as the Secretary’s statutory authority is concerned, a regulation expressly providing that the Secretary could proceed ex parte to seek a warrant or its equivalent would appear to be as much within the Secretary’s power as the regulation currently in force and calling for “compulsory process.”
Section 8(f)(1), 29 U. S. C. §657 (f)(1), provides that employees or their representatives may give written notice to the Secretary of what they believe to be violations of safety or health standards and may request an inspection. If the Secretary then determines that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that such violation or danger exists, he shall make a special inspection in accordance with the provisions of this section as soon as practicable.” The statute thus purports to authorize a warrantless inspection in these circumstances.
The Secretary, Brief for Petitioner 9 n. 7, states that the Barlow inspection was not based on an employee complaint but was a "general schedule” investigation. “Such general inspections,” he explains, “now called Regional Programmed Inspections, are carried out in accordance with criteria based upon accident experience and the number of employees exposed in particular industries. U. S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Field Operations Manual, supra, 1 CCH Employment Safety and Health Guide ¶ 4327.2 (1976).”
The Federal Metal and Nonmetallie Mine Safety Act provides: “Whenever an operator... refuses to permit the inspection or investigation of any mine which is subject to this chapter... a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the Secretary in the district court of the United States for the district 30 U. S. C. § 733 (a). “The Secretary may institute a civil action for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or any other appropriate order in the district court... whenever such operator or his agent... refuses to permit the inspection of the mine.... Each court shall have jurisdiction to provide such relief as may be appropriate.” 30 U. S. C. § 818. Another example is the Clean Air Act, which grants federal district courts jurisdiction “to require compliance” with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to inspect under 42 U. S. C. § 7414 (1976 ed., Supp. I), when the Administrator has commenced “a civil action” for injunctive relief or to recover a penalty. 42 U. S. C. § 7413 (b)(4) (1976 ed., Supp. I).
Exemplary language is contained in the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 which provides for inspections by the Secretary of Agriculture; federal district courts are vested with jurisdiction “specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain violations of this chapter, and shall have jurisdiction in all other kinds of cases arising under this chapter.” 7 U. S. C. § 2146 (c) (1976 ed.). Similar provisions are included in other agricultural inspection Acts; see, e. g., 21 U. S. C. § 674 (meat product inspection) ; 21 U. S. C. § 1050 (egg product inspection). The Internal Revenue Code, whose excise tax provisions requiring inspections of businesses are cited by the Secretary, provides: “The district courts... shall have such jurisdiction to make and issue in civil actions, writs and orders of injunction... and such other orders and processes, and to render such... decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” 26 U. S. C. § 7402 (a). For gasoline inspections, federal district courts are granted jurisdiction to restrain violations and enforce standards (one of which, 49 U. S. C. § 1677, requires gas transporters to permit entry or inspection). The owner is to be afforded the opportunity for notice and response in most cases, but “failure to give such notice and afford such opportunity shall not preclude the granting of appropriate relief [by the district court].” 49 U. S. C. § 1679 (a).
The application for the inspection order filed by the Secretary in this case represented that “the desired inspection and investigation are contemplated as a part of an inspection program designed to assure compliance with the Act and are authorized by Section 8 (a) of the Act.” The program was not described, however, or any facts presented that would indicate why an inspection of Barlow’s establishment was within the program. The order that issued concluded generally that the inspection authorized was “part of an inspection program designed to assure compliance with the Act.”
Section 8 (a) of the Act, as set forth in 29 U. S. C. § 657 (a), provides that “[i]n order to carry out the purposes of this chapter” the Secretary may enter any establishment, area, work place or environment “where work is performed by an employee of an employer” and “inspect and investigate” any such place of employment and all “pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and... question privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent, or employee.” Inspections are to be carried out “during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner.” The Secretary’s regulations echo the statutory language in these respects. 29 CFR § 1903.3 (1977). They also provide that inspectors are to explain the nature and purpose of the inspection and to “indicate generally the scope of the inspection.” 29 CFR § 1903.7 (a) (1977). Environmental samples and photographs are authorized, 29 CFR § 1903.7 (b) (1977), and inspections are to be performed so as “to preclude unreasonable disruption of the operations of the employer’s establishment.” 29 CFR § 1903.7 (d) (1977). The order that issued in this case reflected much of the foregoing statutory and regulatory language.
Delineating the scope of a search with some care is particularly important where documents are involved. Section 8 (c) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 657 (c), provides that an employer must “make, keep and preserve, and make available to the Secretary [of Labor] or to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare” such records regarding his activities relating to OSHA as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe by regulation as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the statute or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational accidents and illnesses. Regulations requiring employers to maintain records of and to make periodic reports on “work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses” are also contemplated, as are rules requiring accurate records of employee exposures to potential toxic materials and harmful physical agents.
In describing the scope of the warrantless inspection authorized by the statute, § 8 (a) does not expressly include any records among those items or things that may be examined, and § 8 (c) merely provides that the employer is to “make available” his pertinent records and to make periodic reports.
The Secretary’s regulation, 29 CFR § 1903.3 (1977), however, expressly includes among the inspector’s powers the authority “to review records required by the Act and regulations published in this chapter, and other records which are directly related to the purpose of the inspection.” Further, § 1903.7 requires inspectors to indicate generally “the records specified in § 1903.3 which they wish to review” but “such designations of records shall not preclude access to additional records specified in § 1903.3.” It is the Secretary’s position, which we reject, that an inspection of documents of this scope may be effected without a warrant.
The order that issued in this case included among the objects and things to be inspected “all other things therein (including but not limited to records, files, papers, processes, controls and facilities) bearing upon whether Barlow’s, Inc. is furnishing to its employees employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees, and whether Barlow’s, Inc. is complying with.. the OSHA regulations.
The injunction entered by the District Court, however, should not be understood to forbid the Secretary from exercising the inspection authority conferred by § 8 pursuant to regulations and judicial process that satisfy the Fourth Amendment. The District Court did not address the issue whether the order for inspection that was issued
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Not infrequently, an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant on appeal concludes that an appeal would be frivolous and requests that the appellate court allow him to withdraw or that the court dispose of the case without the filing of merits briefs. In Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967), we held that, in order to protect indigent defendants’ constitutional right to appellate counsel, courts must safeguard against the risk of granting such requests in cases where the appeal is not actually frivolous. We found inadequate California’s procedure — which permitted appellate counsel to withdraw upon filing a conelusory letter stating that the appeal had “no merit” and permitted the appellate court to affirm the conviction upon reaching the same conclusion following a review of the record. We went on to set forth an acceptable procedure. California has since adopted a new procedure, which departs in some respects from the one that we delineated in Anders. The question is whether that departure is fatal. We hold that it is not. The procedure we sketched in Anders is a prophylactic one; the States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant’s right to appellate counsel.
I
A
Under California’s new procedure, established in People v. Wende, 25 Cal. 3d 436, 441-442, 600 P. 2d 1071, 1074-1075 (1979), and followed in numerous cases since then, see, e. g., People v. Rowland, 75 Cal. App. 4th 61, 63, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 900, 901 (1999), counsel, upon concluding that an appeal would be frivolous, files a brief with the appellate court that summarizes the procedural and factual history of the case, with citations of the record. He also attests that he has reviewed the record, explained his evaluation of the case to his client, provided the client with a copy of the brief, and informed the client of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. He further requests that the court independently examine the record for arguable issues. Unlike under the An-ders procedure, counsel following Wende neither explicitly states that his review has led him to conclude that an appeal would be frivolous (although that is considered implicit, see Wende, 25 Cal. 3d, at 441-442, 600 P. 2d, at 1075) nor requests leave to withdraw. Instead, he is silent on the merits of the case and expresses his availability to brief any issues on which the court might desire briefing. See generally id., at 438, 441-442, 600 P. 2d, at 1072, 1074-1075.
The appellate court, upon receiving a “Wende brief,” must “conduct a review of the entire record,” regardless of whether the defendant has filed a pro se brief. Id., at 441-442, 600 P. 2d, at 1074-1075. The California Supreme Court in Wende required such a thorough review notwithstanding a dissenting Justice’s argument that it was unnecessary and exceeded the review that a court performs under Anders. See 25 Cal. 3d, at 444-445, 600 P. 2d, at 1077 (Clark, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part); see also id., at 444, 600 P 2d, at 1076 (“The precise holding in Anders was that a ‘no merit’ letter... ‘was not enough.’... Just what is ‘enough’ is not clear, but the majority of the court in that case did not require an appellate court to function as co-counsel”). If the appellate court, after its review of the record pursuant to Wende, also finds the appeal to be frivolous, it may affirm. See id., at 443, 600 P 2d, at 1076 (majority opinion). If, however, it finds an arguable (i. e., nonfrivolous) issue, it orders briefing on that issue. Id., at 442, n. 3, 600 P. 2d, at 1075, n. 3.
B
In 1990, a California state-court jury convicted respondent Lee Robbins of second-degree murder (for fatally shooting his former roommate) and of grand theft of an automobile (for stealing a truck that he used to flee the State after committing the murder). Robbins was sentenced to 17 years to life. He elected to represent himself at trial, but on appeal he received appointed counsel. His appointed counsel, concluding that an appeal would be frivolous, filed with the California Court of Appeal a brief that complied with the Wende procedure. Robbins also availed himself of his right under Wende to file a pro se supplemental brief, filing a brief in which he contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the prosecutor violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence.
The California Court of Appeal, agreeing with counsel's assessment of the case, affirmed. The court explained that it had “examined the entire record” and had, as a result, concluded both that counsel had fully complied with his responsibilities under Wende and that “no arguable issues exist.” App. 39. The court added that the two issues that Robbins raised in his supplemental brief had no support in the record. Ibid. The California Supreme Court denied Robbins’ petition for review.
After exhausting state postconviction remedies, Robbins filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254. Robbins renewed his Brady claim, argued that the state trial court had erred by not allowing him to withdraw his waiver of his right to trial counsel, and added nine other claims of trial error. In addition, and most importantly for present purposes, he claimed that he had been denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because his appellate counsel’s Wende brief failed to comply with Anders v. California, 386 U. S., at 744. Anders set forth a procedure for an appellate counsel to follow in seeking permission to withdraw from the representation when he concludes that an appeal would be frivolous; that procedure includes the requirement that counsel file a brief “referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal,” ibid.
The District Court agreed with Robbins’ last claim, concluding that there were at least two issues that, pursuant to Anders, counsel should have raised in his brief (in a Wende brief, as noted above, counsel is not required to raise issues): first, whether the prison law library was adequate for Robbins’ needs in preparing his defense after he elected to dismiss his appointed counsel and proceed pro se at trial, and, second, whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to withdraw his waiver of counsel. The District Court did not attempt to determine the likelihood that either of these two issues would have prevailed in an appeal. Rather, it simply concluded that, in the language of the Anders procedure, these issues “might arguably” have “support[ed] the appeal,” App. 51, n. 6 (citing Anders), and thus that Robbins’ appellate counsel, by not including them in his brief, deviated from the procedure set forth in Anders. The court concluded that such a deviation amounted to deficient performance by counsel. In addition, rather than requiring Robbins to show that he suffered prejudice from this deficient performance, the District Court applied a presumption of prejudice. App. 49. Thus, based simply on a finding that appellate counsel’s brief was inadequate under Anders, the District Court ordered California to grant respondent a new appeal within 30 days or else release him from custody.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court on the Anders issue. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, Anders, together with Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963), which held that States must provide appointed counsel to indigent criminal defendants on appeal, “set forth the exclusive procedure through which appointed counsel’s performance can pass constitutional muster.” 152 F. 3d 1062, 1066 (1998). Rejecting petitioner’s argument that counsel’s brief was sufficient because it complied with Wende, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the brief was deficient because it did not, as the Anders procedure requires, identify any legal issues that arguably could have supported the appeal. 152 F. 3d, at 1066-1067. The court did not decide whether a counsel’s deviation from Anders, standing alone, would warrant a new appeal, see 152 F. 3d, at 1066-1067, but rather concluded that the District Court’s award of relief was proper because counsel had failed to brief the two arguable issues that the District Court identified. The Ninth Circuit remanded, however, for the District Court to consider respondent’s 11 claims of trial error. Id., at 1069. The court reasoned that if Robbins prevailed on any of these claims, it would be unnecessary to order the California Court of Appeal to grant a new direct appeal. We granted certiorari. 526 U. S. 1003 (1999).
II
A
In Anders, we reviewed an earlier California procedure for handling appeals by convicted indigents. Pursuant to that procedure, Anders’ appointed appellate counsel had filed a letter stating that he had concluded that there was “no merit to the appeal,” 386 U. S., at 739-740. Anders, in response, sought new counsel; the State Court of Appeal denied the request, and Anders filed a pro se appellate brief. That court then issued an opinion that reviewed the four claims in his pro se brief and affirmed, finding no error (or no prejudicial error). People v. Anders, 167 Cal. App. 2d 65, 333 P. 2d 854 (1959). Anders thereafter sought a writ of habeas corpus from the State Court of Appeal, which denied relief, explaining that it had again reviewed the record and had found the appeal to be “ 'without merit/ ” Anders, 386 U. S., at 740 (quoting unreported memorandum opinion).
We held that “California’s action does not comport with fair procedure and lacks that equality that is required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 741. We placed the case within a line of precedent beginning with Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956), and continuing with Douglas, supra, that imposed constitutional constraints on States when they choose to create appellate review. In finding the California procedure to have breached these constraints, we compared it to other procedures we had found invalid and to statutory requirements in the federal courts governing appeals by indigents with appointed counsel. Anders, supra, at 741-743. We relied in particular on Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674 (1958) (per curiam), a case involving federal statutory requirements, and quoted the following passage from it:
“'If counsel is convinced, after conscientious investigation, that the appeal is frivolous, of course, he may ask to withdraw on that account. If the court is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the possible grounds of appeal, and agrees with counsel’s evaluation of the case, then leave to withdraw may be allowed and leave to appeal may be denied.’” Anders, supra, at 741-742 (quoting Ellis, supra, at 675).
In Anders, neither counsel, the state appellate court on direct appeal, nor the state habeas courts had made any finding of frivolity. We concluded that a finding that the appeal had “no merit” was not adequate, because it did not mean that the appeal was so lacking in prospects as to be “frivolous”: “We cannot say that there was a finding of frivolity by either of the California courts or that counsel acted in any greater capacity than merely as amicus curiae which was condemned in Ellis” 386 U.S., at 743.
Having rejected the California procedure, we proceeded, in a final, separate section, to set out what would be an acceptable procedure for treating frivolous appeals:
“[I]f counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court — not counsel — then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. If it so finds it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal insofar as federal requirements are concerned, or proceed to a decision on the merits, if state law so requires. On the other hand, if it finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.” Id., at 744.
We then concluded by explaining how this procedure would be better than the California one that we had found deficient. Among other things, we thought that it would “induce the court to pursue all the more vigorously its own review because of the ready references not only to the record but also to the legal authorities as furnished it by counsel.” Id., at 745.
B
The Ninth Circuit ruled that this final section of Anders, even though unnecessary to our holding in that case, was obligatory upon the States. We disagree. We have never so held; we read our precedents to suggest otherwise; and the Ninth Circuit’s view runs contrary to our established practice of permitting the States, within the broad bounds of the Constitution, to experiment with solutions to difficult questions of policy.
In McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U. S. 429 (1988), we rejected a challenge to Wisconsin’s variation on the Anders procedure. Wisconsin had departed from Anders by requiring Anders briefs to discuss why each issue raised lacked merit. The defendant argued that this rule was contrary to Anders and forced counsel to violate his ethical obligations to his client. We, however, emphasized that the right to appellate representation does not include a right to present frivolous arguments to the court, 486 U. S., at 436, and, similarly, that an attorney is “under an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal,” ibid, (footnote omitted). Anders, we explained, merely aims to “assure the court that the indigent defendant’s constitutional rights have not been violated.” 486 U. S., at 442. Because the Wisconsin procedure adequately provided such assurance, we found no constitutional violation, notwithstanding its variance from Anders. See 486 U. S., at 442-444. We did, in McCoy, describe the procedure at issue as going “one step further” than Anders, McCoy, supra, at 442, thus suggesting that An-ders might set a mandatory minimum, but we think this description of the Wisconsin procedure questionable, since it provided less effective advocacy for an indigent — in at least one respect — than does the Anders procedure. The Wisconsin procedure, by providing for one-sided briefing by counsel against his own client’s best claims, probably made a court more likely to rule against the indigent than if the court had simply received an Anders brief.
In Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U. S. 551 (1987), we explained that the Anders procedure is not “an independent constitutional command,” but rather is just “a prophylactic framework” that we established to vindicate the constitutional right to appellate counsel announced in Douglas. 481 U. S., at 555. We did not say that our Anders procedure was the only prophylactic framework that could adequately vindicate this right; instead, by making clear that the Constitution itself does not compel the Anders procedure, we suggested otherwise. Similarly, in Penson v. Ohio, 488 U. S. 75 (1988), we described Anders as simply erecting “safeguards.” 488 U. S., at 80.
It is true that in Penson we used some language suggesting that Anders is mandatory upon the States, see 488 U. S., at 80-82, but that language was not necessary to the decision we reached. We had no reason in Penson to determine whether the Anders procedure was mandatory, because the procedure at issue clearly failed under Douglas, see infra, at 280. Further, counsel’s action in Penson was closely analogous to the action of counsel that we found invalid in Anders, see Penson, supra, at 77-78, so there was no need to rely on the Anders procedure, as opposed to just the Anders holding, to find counsel’s action improper. See 488 U. S., at 77 (“The question presented by this case is remarkably similar [to the one presented in Anders] and therefore requires a similar answer”).
Finally, any view of the procedure we described in the last section of Anders that converted it from a suggestion into a straitjaeket would contravene our established practice, rooted in federalism, of allowing the States wide discretion, subject to the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, to experiment with solutions to difficult problems of policy. In Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956), which we invoked as the foundational ease for our holding in Anders, see Anders, 386 U. S., at 741, we expressly disclaimed any pretensions to rulemaking authority for the States in the area of indigent criminal appeals. We imposed no broad rule or procedure but merely held unconstitutional Illinois’ requirement that indigents pay a fee to receive a trial transcript that was essential for bringing an appeal. Justice Frankfurter, who provided the necessary fifth vote for the holding in Griffin, emphasized that it was not for this Court “to tell Illinois what means are open to the indigent and must be chosen. Illinois may prescribe any means that are within the wide area of its constitutional discretion” and “may protect itself so that frivolous appeals are not subsidized and public moneys not needlessly spent.” 351 U. S., at 24 (opinion concurring in judgment). He added that while a State could not “bolt the door to equal justice,” it also was not obliged to “support a wasteful abuse of the appellate process.” Ibid. The Griffin plurality shared this view, explaining that the Court was not holding “that Illinois must purchase a stenographer’s transcript in every case where a defendant cannot buy it. The Supreme Court [of Illinois] may find other means of affording adequate and effective appellate review to indigent defendants.” Id., at 20.
In a related context, we stated this basic principle of federalism in the very Term in which we decided Anders. We emphatically reaffirmed that the Constitution “has never been thought [to] establish this Court as a rule-making organ for the promulgation of state rules of criminal procedure.” Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 564 (1967) (citing, inter alia, Griffin, supra). Accord, Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437, 443-444, 447-448 (1992). Justice Stewart, concurring in Spencer, explained further:
“If the Constitution gave me a roving commission to impose upon the criminal courts of Texas my own notions of enlightened policy, I would not join the Court’s opinion.... [But] [t]he question is whether those procedures fall below the minimum level the Fourteenth Amendment will tolerate. Upon that question, I am constrained to join the opinion and judgment of the Court.” 385 U. S., at 569.
We have continued to reiterate this principle in recent years. See Finley, 481 U. S., at 559 (refusing to accept the premise that “when a State chooses to offer help to those seeking relief from convictions, the Federal Constitution dictates the exact form such assistance must assume”); ibid, (explaining that States have “substantial discretion to develop and implement programs to aid prisoners seeking to secure post-conviction review”); Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U. S. 1, 13 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“[N]or does it seem to me that the Constitution requires the States to follow any particular federal model in [posteonviction] proceedings.... States [have] considerable discretion”); id., at 14 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (“[J]udicial imposition of a categorical remedy... might pretermit other responsible solutions being considered in Congress and state legislatures”). Although Finley and Murray involved postconviction proceedings (in which there is no constitutional right to counsel) rather than direct appeal, we think, as the language of Griffin suggests, that the principle is the same in both contexts. For in Griffin, as here, there was an underlying constitutional right at issue.
In short, it is more in keeping with our status as a court, and particularly with our status as a court in a federal system, to avoid imposing a single solution on the States from the top down. We should, and do, evaluate state procedures one at a time, as they come before us, see Murray, supra, at 14, while leaving “the more challenging task of crafting appropriate procedures... to the laboratory of the States in the first instance,” Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 U. S. 261, 292 (1990) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We will not cavalierly “imped[e] the States’ ability to serve as laboratories for testing solutions to novel legal problems.” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 24 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Accordingly, we hold that the Anders procedure is merely one method of satisfying the requirements of the Constitution for indigent criminal appeals. States may — and, we are confident, will — craft procedures that, in terms of policy, are superior to, or at least as good as, that in Anders. The Constitution erects no barrier to their doing so.
III
Having determined that California’s Wende procedure is not unconstitutional merely because it diverges from the An-ders procedure, we turn to consider the Wende procedure on its own merits. We think it clear that California’s system does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, for it provides “a criminal appellant pursuing a first appeal as of right [the] minimum safeguards necessary to make that appeal ‘adequate and effective,’” Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 392 (1985) (quoting Griffin, 351 U. S., at 20 (plurality opinion)).
A
As we have admitted on numerous occasions, “ ‘[t]he precise rationale for the Griffin and Douglas lines of cases has never been explicitly stated, some support being derived from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and some from the Due Process Clause of that Amendment.’ ” Evitts, supra, at 403 (quoting Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600, 608-609 (1974) (footnote omitted)). But our case law reveals that, as a practical matter, the two Clauses largely converge to require that a State’s procedure “affor[d] adequate and effective appellate review to indigent defendants,” Griffin, 351 U. S., at 20 (plurality opinion). A State’s procedure provides such review so long as it reasonably ensures that an indigent’s appeal will be resolved in a way that is related to the merit of that appeal. See id., at 17-18 (plurality opinion) (state law regulating indigents’ appeals bore “no rational relationship to a defendant’s guilt or innocence”); id., at 22 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment) (law imposed “differentiations... that have no relation to a rational policy of criminal appeal”); Douglas, 372 U. S., at 357 (decision of first appeal “without benefit of counsel,... no matter how meritorious [an indigent’s] case may turn out to be,” discriminates between rich and poor rather than between “possibly good and obviously bad cases” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U. S. 305, 310 (1966) (state appellate system must be “free of unreasoned distinctions”); Evitts, supra, at 404 (law in Griffin “decided the appeal in a way that was arbitrary with respect to the issues involved”). Compare Finley, supra, at 556 (“The equal protection guarantee... only... assure[s] the indigent defendant an adequate opportunity to present his claims fairly in the context of the State’s appellate process” (quoting Ross, supra, at 616)), with Evitts, supra, at 405 (“[D]ue process... [requires] States... to offer eaeh defendant a fair opportunity to obtain an adjudication on the merits of his appeal” (discussing Griffin and Douglas))
In determining whether a particular state procedure satisfies this standard, it is important to focus on the underlying goals that the procedure should serve — to ensure that those indigents whose appeals are not frivolous receive the counsel and merits brief required by Douglas, and also to enable the State to “protect itself so that frivolous appeals are not subsidized and public moneys not needlessly spent,” Griffin, supra, at 24 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). For although, under Douglas, indigents generally have a right to counsel on a first appeal as of right, it is equally true that this right does not include the right to bring a frivolous appeal and, concomitantly, does not include the right to counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal. See McCoy, 486 U. S., at 436-438; Douglas, supra, at 357; see also United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, 656, n. 19 (1984) (“Of course, the Sixth Amendment does not require that [trial] counsel do what is impossible or unethical”); cf. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U. S. 157, 175 (1986) (no violation of Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel refuses to violate ethical duty not to assist his client in presenting perjured testimony). To put the point differently, an indigent defendant who has his appeal dismissed because it is frivolous has not been deprived of “a fair opportunity” to bring his appeal, Evitts, supra, at 405; see Finley, 481 U. S., at 556, for fairness does not require either counsel or a full appeal once it is properly determined that an appeal is frivolous. The obvious goal of Anders was to prevent this limitation on the right to appellate counsel from swallowing the right itself, see Penson, 488 U. S., at 83-84; McCoy, supra, at 444, and we do not retreat from that goal today.
B
We think the Wende procedure reasonably ensures that an indigent’s appeal will be resolved in a way that is related to the merit of that appeal. Whatever its strengths or weaknesses as a matter of policy, we cannot say that it fails to afford indigents the adequate and effective appellate review that the Fourteenth Amendment requires. A comparison of the Wende procedure to the procedures evaluated in our chief cases in this area makes this evident.
The Wende procedure is undoubtedly far better than those procedures we have found inadequate. Anders itself, in disapproving the former California procedure, chiefly relied on three precedents: Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674 (1958) (per curiam), Eskridge v. Washington Bd. of Prison Terms and Paroles, 357 U. S. 214 (1958) (per curiam), and Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477 (1963). See Anders, 386 U. S., at 741-743. Although we did. not, in Anders, explain in detail why the California procedure was inadequate under each of these precedents, our particularly heavy reliance on Ellis makes clear that a significant factor was that the old California procedure did not require either counsel or the court to determine that the appeal was frivolous; instead, the procedure required only that they determine that the defendant was unlikely to prevail on appeal. Compare Anders, supra, at 741-742 (“ ‘If counsel is convinced, after conscientious investigation, that the appeal is frivolous, of course, he may ask to withdraw.... If the court... agrees with counsel’s evaluation of the case, then leave to withdraw may be allowed and leave to appeal may be denied’ ” (quoting Ellis, supra, at 675)), with Anders, supra, at 743 (“We cannot say that there was a finding of frivolity”). See also McCoy, supra, at 437 (quoting same passage from Ellis that we quoted in Anders). This problem also appears to have been one of the flaws in the procedures at issue in Eskridge and Lane. The former involved a finding only that there had been “‘no grave or prejudicial errors’” at trial, Anders, supra, at 742 (quoting Eskridge, supra, at 215), and the latter, a finding only that the appeal “‘would be unsuccessful,’ ” Anders, supra, at 743 (quoting Lane, supra, at 482). Wende, by contrast, requires both counsel and the court to find the appeal to be lacking in arguable issues, which is to say, frivolous. See 25 Cal. 3d, at 439, 441-442, 600 P. 2d, at 1073, 1075; see id., at 441, 600 P. 2d, at 1074 (reading Anders as finding old California procedure deficient largely “because the court itself did not make an express finding that the appeal was frivolous”).
An additional problem with the old California procedure was that it apparently permitted an appellate court to allow counsel to withdraw and thereafter to decide the appeal without appointing new counsel. See Anders, supra, at 740, n. 2. We resolved any doubt on this point in Penson, where we struck down a procedure that allowed counsel to withdraw before the court had determined whether counsel’s evaluation of the ease was accurate, 488 U. S., at 82-83, and, in addition, allowed a court to decide the appeal without counsel even if the court found arguable issues, id., at 83 (stating that this latter flaw was the “[m]ost significan[t]” one). Thus, the Penson procedure permitted a basic violation of the Douglas right to have counsel until a case is determined to be frivolous and to receive a merits brief for a nonfrivolous appeal. See 488 U. S., at 88 (“[I]t is important to emphasize that the denial of counsel in this case left petitioner completely without representation during the appellate court’s actual decisional process”); ibid, (defendant was “entirely without the assistance of counsel on appeal”). Cf. McCoy, supra, at 430-431, n. 1 (approving procedure under which appellate court first finds appeal to be frivolous and affirms, then relieves counsel). Under Wende, by contrast, Douglas violations do not occur, both because counsel does not move to withdraw and because the court orders briefing if it finds arguable issues. See Wende, supra, at 442, n. 3, 600 P. 2d, at 1075, n. 3; see also, e. g., Rowland, 75 Cal. App. 3d, at 61-62, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d, at 900-901.
In Anders, we also disapproved the old California procedure because we thought that a one-paragraph letter from counsel stating only his “bare conclusion” that the appeal had no merit was insufficient. 386 U. S., at 742. It is unclear from our opinion in Anders how much our objection on this point was severable from our objection to the lack of a finding of frivolity, because we immediately followed our description of counsel's “no merit” letter with a discussion of Ellis, Eskridge, and Lane, and the lack of such a finding. See 386 U. S., at 742-743. In any event, the Wende brief provides more than a one-paragraph “bare conclusion.” Counsel’s summary of the case’s procedural and factual history, with citations of the record, both ensures that a trained legal eye has searched the record for arguable issues and assists the reviewing court in its own evaluation of the ease.
Finally, an additional flaw with the procedures in Eskridge and Lane was that there was only one tier of review — by the trial judge in Eskridge (who understandably had little incentive to find any error warranting an appeal) and by the public defender in Lane. See Anders, supra, at 742-743. The procedure in Douglas itself was, in part, flawed for the same reason. See 372 U. S., at 354-355. The Wende procedure, of course, does not suffer from this flaw, for it provides at least two tiers of review.
Not only does the Wende procedure far exceed those procedures that we have found invalid, but it is also at least comparable to those procedures that we have approved. Turning first to the procedure we set out in the final section of Anders, we note that it has, from the beginning, faced “ 'consistent and severe criticism.’” In re Sade C., 13 Cal. 4th 952, 979, n. 7, 920 P. 2d 716, 731, n. 7 (1996) (quoting Note, 67 Texas L. Rev. 181, 212 (1988)). One of the most consistent criticisms, one with which we wrestled in McCoy, is that An-ders is in some tension both with counsel’s ethical duty as an officer of the court (which requires him not to present frivolous arguments) and also with his duty to further his client’s interests (which might not permit counsel to characterize his client’s claims as frivolous). California, through the Wende procedure, has made a good-faith effort to mitigate this problem by not requiring the Wende brief to raise legal issues and by not requiring counsel to explicitly describe the case as frivolous. See Wende, 25 Cal. 3d, at 441-442, 600 P. 2d, at 1074-1075.
Another criticism of the Anders procedure has been that it is incoherent and thus impossible to follow. Those making this criticism point to our language in Anders suggesting that an appeal could be both “wholly frivolous” and at the same time contain arguable issues, even though we also said that an issue that was arguable was “therefore not frivolous.” Anders, supra, at 744. In other words, the Anders procedure appears to adopt gradations of frivolity and to use two different meanings for the phrase “arguable issue.” The Wende procedure attempts to resolve this problem as well, by drawing the line at frivolity and by defining arguable issues as those that are not frivolous.
Finally, the Wende procedure appears to be, in some ways, better than the one we approved in McCoy and, in other ways, worse. On balance, we cannot say that the latter, assuming
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the scope of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee, as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296 (2004). Those decisions are rooted in the historic jury function — determining whether the prosecution has proved each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. They hold that it is within the jury’s province to determine any fact (other than the existence of a prior conviction) that increases the maximum punishment authorized for a particular offense. Thus far, the Court has not extended the Apprendi and Blakely line of decisions beyond the offense-specific context that supplied the historic grounding for the decisions. The question here presented concerns a sentencing function in which the jury traditionally played no part: When a defendant has been tried and convicted of multiple offenses, each involving discrete sentencing prescriptions, does the Sixth Amendment mandate jury determination of any fact declared necessary to the imposition of consecutive, in lieu of concurrent, sentences?
Most States continue the common-law tradition: They entrust to judges’ unfettered discretion the decision whether sentences for discrete offenses shall be served consecutively or concurrently. In some States, sentences for multiple offenses are presumed to run consecutively, but sentencing judges may order concurrent sentences upon finding cause therefor. Other States, including Oregon, constrain judges’ discretion by requiring them to find certain facts before imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences. It is undisputed that States may proceed on the first two tracks without transgressing the Sixth Amendment. The sole issue in dispute, then, is whether the Sixth Amendment, as construed in Apprendi and Blakely, precludes the mode of proceeding chosen by Oregon and several of its sister States. We hold, in light of historical practice and the authority of States over administration of their criminal justice systems, that the Sixth Amendment does not exclude Oregon’s choice.
I
A
State laws, as just observed, prescribe a variety of approaches to the decision whether a defendant’s sentences for distinct offenses shall run concurrently or consecutively. Oregon might have followed the prevailing pattern by placing the decision within the trial court’s discretion in all, or almost all, circumstances. Instead, Oregon and several-other States have adopted a more restrained approach: They provide for judicial discretion, but constrain its exercise. In these States, to impose consecutive sentences, judges must make certain predicate factfindings.
The controlling statute in Oregon provides that sentences shall run concurrently unless the judge finds statutorily described facts. Ore. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(1) (2007). In most cases, finding such facts permits — but does not require — the judge to order consecutive sentences. Specifically, an Oregon judge may order consecutive sentences “[i]f a defendant is simultaneously sentenced for criminal offenses that do not arise from the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct.” §137.123(2). If the offenses do arise from the same course of conduct, the judge may still impose consecutive sentences if she finds either:
“(a) That the criminal offense . . . was an indication of defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense; or
“(b) The criminal offense ... caused or created a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or ... to a different victim . . . .” § 137.123(5).
B
On two occasions between December 1996 and July 1997, respondent Thomas Eugene Ice entered an apartment in the complex he managed and sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl. 343 Ore. 248,250,170 P. 3d 1049,1050 (2007). An Oregon jury convicted Ice of six crimes. For each of the two incidents, the jury found him guilty of first-degree burglary for entering with the intent to commit sexual abuse; first-degree sexual assault for touching the victim’s vagina; and first-degree sexual assault for touching the victim’s breasts. Ibid.
At sentencing, the judge made findings, pursuant to § 137.123, that permitted the imposition of consecutive sentences. First, the judge found that the two burglaries constituted “separate incident^].” Id., at 255,170 P. 3d, at 1053 (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on that finding, the judge had, and exercised, discretion to impose the two burglary sentences consecutively. Ibid.; see § 137.123(2).
Second, the court found that each offense of touching the victim’s vagina met the statutory criteria set forth in §137.123(5): Ice displayed a “willingness to commit more than one . . . offense” during each criminal episode, and his conduct “caused or created a risk of causing greater, qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim.” Id., at 253, 170 P. 3d, at 1051 (internal quotation marks omitted). These findings gave the judge discretion to impose the sentence for each of those sexual assault offenses consecutive to the associated burglary sentence. The court elected to do so. Ibid. The court ordered, however, that the sentences for touching the victim’s breasts run concurrently with the other sentences. Ibid. In total, the court sentenced Ice to 340 months’ imprisonment. App. 46-87.
Ice appealed his sentences. In relevant part, he argued that he had a Sixth Amendment right to have the jury, not the sentencing judge, find the facts that permitted the imposition of consecutive sentences. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment without opinion. 178 Ore. App. 415, 39 P. 3d 291 (2001).
The Oregon Supreme Court granted Ice’s petition for review and reversed, 4 to 2. 343 Ore., at 250, 170 P. 3d, at 1050. In the majority’s view, the rule of Apprendi applied, because the imposition of consecutive sentences increased “the quantum of punishment” imposed. 343 Ore., at 265,170 P. 3d, at 1058. The dissenting justices concluded that “[n]either the holding in Apprendi nor its reasoning supported] extending that decision to the question of consecutive sentencing.” Id., at 267, 170 P. 3d, at 1059 (opinion of Kistler, J.). State high courts have divided over whether the rule of Apprendi governs consecutive-sentencing decisions. We granted review to resolve the question. 552 U. S. 1256 (2008).
II
The Federal Constitution’s jury-trial guarantee assigns the determination of certain facts to the jury’s exclusive province. Under that guarantee, this Court held in Apprendi, “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U. S., at 490.
We have applied Apprendi’s rule to facts subjecting a defendant to the death penalty, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 602, 609 (2002), facts allowing a sentence exceeding the “standard” range in Washington’s sentencing system, Blakely, 542 U. S., at 304-305, and facts prompting an elevated sentence under then-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 244 (2005). Most recently, in Cunningham v. California, 549 U. S. 270 (2007), we applied Apprendi’s rule to facts permitting imposition óf an “upper term” sentence under California’s determinate sentencing law. All of these decisions involved sentencing for a discrete crime, not — as here — for multiple offenses different in character or committed at different times.
Our application of Apprendi’s rule must honor the “longstanding common-law practice” in which the rule is rooted. Cunningham, 549 U. S., at 281. The rule’s animating principle is the preservation of the jury’s historic role as a bulwark between the State and the accused at the trial for an alleged offense. See Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 477. Guided by that principle, our opinions make clear that the Sixth Amendment does not countenance legislative encroachment on the jury’s traditional domain. See id., at 497. We accordingly considered whether the finding of a particular fact was understood as within “the domain of the jury ... by those who framed the Bill of Rights.” Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545, 557 (2002) (plurality opinion). In undertaking this inquiry, we remain cognizant that administration of a discrete criminal justice system is among the basic sovereign prerogatives States retain. See, e. g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 201. (1977).
These twin considerations — historical practice and respect for state sovereignty — counsel against extending Apprendi’s rule to the imposition of sentences for discrete crimes. The decision to impose sentences consecutively is not within the jury function that “extends down centuries into the common law.” Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 477. Instead, specification of the regime for administering multiple sentences has long been considered the prerogative of state legislatures.
A
The historical record demonstratés that the jury played no role in the decision to impose sentences consecutively or concurrently. Rather, the choice rested exclusively with the judge. See, e. g., 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Law § 636, pp. 649-650 (2d ed. 1858) (“[W]hen there are two or more convictions, on which sentence remains to be pronounced; the judgment may direct, that each succeeding period of imprisonment shall commence on the termination of the period next preceding.”); A. Campbell, Law of Sentencing §9:22, p. 425 (3d ed. 2004) (“Firmly rooted in common law is the principle that the selection of either concurrent or consecutive sentences rests within the discretion of sentencing judges.”). This was so in England before the founding of our Nation, and in the early American States. Ice “has no quarrel with [this account] of consecutive sentencing practices through the ages.” Brief for Respondent 32. The historical record further indicates that a judge’s imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences was the prevailing practice.
In light of this history, legislative reforms regarding the imposition of multiple sentences do not implicate the core concerns that prompted our decision in Apprendi. There is no encroachment here by the judge upon facts historically found by the jury, nor any threat to the jury’s domain as a bulwark at trial between the State and the accused. Instead, the defendant — who historically may have faced consecutive sentences by default — has been granted by some modern legislatures statutory protections meant to temper the harshness of the historical practice.
It is no answer that, as Ice argues, “he was ‘entitled’ to” concurrent sentences absent the factfindings Oregon law requires. Brief for Respondent 43. In Ice’s view, because “the Oregon Legislature deviated from tradition” and enacted a statute that hinges consecutive sentences on fact-findings, Apprendi’s rule must be imported. Brief for Respondent 33. As we have described, the scope of the constitutional jury right must be informed by the historical role of the jury at common law. See, e. g., Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 98-100 (1970). It is therefore not the case that, as Ice suggests, the federal constitutional right attaches to every contemporary state-law “entitlement” to predicate findings.
For similar reasons, Cunningham, upon which Ice heavily relies, does not control his case. As stated earlier, we held in Cunningham that the facts permitting imposition of an elevated “upper term” sentence for a particular crime fell within the jury’s province. 549 U. S., at 274 (internal quotation marks omitted). The assignment of such a finding to the sentencing judge implicates Apprendi’s core concern: a legislative attempt to “remove from the [province of the] jury” the determination of facts that warrant punishment for a specific statutory offense. Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 490 (internal quotation marks omitted). We had no occasion to consider the appropriate inquiry when no erosion of the jury’s traditional role was at stake. Cunningham thus does not impede our conclusion that, as' Apprendi’s core concern is inapplicable to the issue at hand, so too is the Sixth Amendment’s restriction on judge-found facts.
B
States’ interest in the development of their penal systems, and their historic dominion in this area, also counsel against the extension of Apprendi that Ice requests. Beyond question, the authority of States over the administration of their criminal justice systems lies at the core of their sovereign status. See, e. g., Patterson, 432 U. S., at 201 (“It goes without saying that preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government.”). We have long recognized the role of the States as laboratories for devising solutions to difficult legal problems. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). This Court should not diminish that role absent impelling reason to do so.
It bears emphasis that state legislative innovations like Oregon’s seek to rein in the discretion judges possessed at common law to impose consecutive sentences at will. Limiting judicial discretion to impose consecutive sentences serves the “salutary objectives” of promoting sentences proportionate to “the gravity of the offense,” Blakely, 542 U. S., at 308, and of reducing disparities in sentence length, see 6 W. La-Fave, J. Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, Criminal Procedure § 26.3(f) (3d ed. 2007). All agree that a scheme making consecutive sentences the rule, and concurrent sentences the exception, encounters no Sixth Amendment shoal. To hem in States by holding that they may not equally choose to make concurrent sentences the rule, and consecutive sentences the exception, would make scant sense. Neither Apprendi nor our Sixth Amendment traditions compel strait jacketing the States in that manner.
Further, it is unclear how many other state initiatives would fall under Ice’s proposed expansion of Apprendi. As 17 States have observed in an amici brief supporting Oregon, States currently permit judges to make a variety of sentencing determinations other than the length of incarceration. Trial judges often find facts about the nature of the offense or the character of the defendant in determining, for example, the length of supervised release following service of a prison sentence; required attendance at drug rehabilitation programs or terms of community service; and the imposition of statutorily prescribed fines and orders of restitution. See Brief for State of Indiana et al. as Amici Curiae 11. Intruding Apprendi’s rule into these decisions on sentencing choices or accoutrements surely would cut the rule loose from its moorings.
Moreover, the expansion that Ice seeks would be difficult for States to administer. The predicate facts for consecutive sentences could substantially prejudice the defense at the. guilt phase of a trial. As a result, bifurcated or trifurcated trials might often prove necessary. Brief for State of Indiana, supra, at 14-15. We will not so burden the Nation’s trial courts absent any genuine affront to Apprendi's instruction.
We recognize that not every state initiative will be in harmony with Sixth Amendment ideals. But as we have previously emphasized, “structural democratic constraints exist to discourage legislatures from” pernicious manipulation of the rules we articulate. Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 490, n. 16. In any event, if confronted with such a manipulation, “we would be required to question whether the [legislative measure] was constitutional under this Court’s prior decisions.” Id., at 491, n. 16. The Oregon statute before us today raises no such concern.
Ill
Members of this Court have warned against “wooden, unyielding insistence on expanding the Apprendi doctrine far beyond its necessary boundaries.” Cunningham, 549 U. S., at 295 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). The jury-trial right is best honored through a “principled rationale” that applies the rule of the Apprendi cases “within the central sphere of their concern.” 549 U. S., at 295. Our disposition today — upholding an Oregon statute that assigns to judges a decision that has not traditionally belonged to the jury — is faithful to that aim.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Oregon Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
E. g., Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-37 (2005)); Idaho (Idaho Code § 18-308- (Lexis 2004)); Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-2204 (1995)). See generally Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae 9, n. 6 (listing laws of nine other States).
E. g., Florida (Fla. Stat. §921.16 (2007)); Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-4608 (2007)); Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-21 (2007)).
E.g., Maine (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, §1256 (2006); State v. Keene, 2007 ME 84, 927 A. 2d 398); Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b) (2006); State v. Allen, 259 S. W. 3d 671 (Tenn. 2008)); Oregon (Ore. Rev. Stat. § 137.123 (2007)).
Sentences must run consecutively, however, “[w]hen a defendant is sentenced for a crime committed while the defendant was incarcerated.” Ore. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(3).
Had the judge ordered concurrent service of all sentences, Ice’s time in prison would have been 90 months. App. 68, 75.
Preliminarily, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the consecutive-sentencing findings did not constitute elements of any specific crime, and therefore the jury-trial right safeguarded by the Oregon Constitution was not violated. 343 Ore. 248, 261-262, 170 P. 3d 1049, 1056 (2007).
Compare, e. g., People v. Wagener, 196 Ill. 2d 269,283-286, 752 N. E. 2d 430, 440-442 (2001) (holding that Apprendi does not apply); Keene, 927 A. 2d, at 405-408 (same), with State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N. E. 2d 470 (holding Apprendi applicable).
E. g., King v. Wilkes, 19 How. St. Tr. 1075, 1132-1136 (1770); see also Lee v. Walker, [1985] 1 Q. B. 1191, 1201 (C. A. 1984) (“[T]he High Court has always had inherent jurisdiction to impose consecutive sentences of imprisonment in any appropriate case where the court had power to imprison.”).
E.g., Russell v. Commonwealth, 7 Serg. & Rawle 489, 490 (Pa. 1822) (Judicial imposition of consecutive sentences has been “the common practice in the Courts of this State,” and it is “warranted by principle, practice, and authority.”); In re Walsh, 37 Neb. 454, 456, 55 N. W. 1075, 1076 (1893) (“[T]he great weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that... the court has power to impose cumulative sentences.”); In re Breton, 93 Me. 39, 42, 44 A. 125, 126 (1899) (same); Howard v. United States, 75 F. 986, 993 (CA6 1896) (“[A] rule which denies the court the power to impose cumulative sentences turns the trial and conviction on all the indictments except one into an idle ceremony.”).
E. g., Queen v. Cutbush, L. R. 2 Q. B. 379, 382, 10 Cox Crim. Cas. 489, 492 (1867) (“[R]ight and justice require [that] when a man has been guilty of separate offences, . . . that he should not escape from the punishment due to the additional offence, merely because he is already sentenced to be imprisoned for another offence.”); ibid, (noting that it had been the practice to impose consecutive sentences “so far as living judicial memory goes back”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question here is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment entitles a state prisoner to a hearing when he is transferred to a prison the conditions of which are substantially less favorable to the prisoner, absent a state law or practice conditioning such transfers on proof of serious misconduct or the occurrence of other events. We hold that it does not.
I
During a 2%-month period in 1974, there were nine serious fires at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk — a medium-security institution. Based primarily on reports from informants, the six respondent inmates were removed from the general prison population and placed in the Receiving Building, an administrative detention area used to process new inmates. Proceedings were then had before the Norfolk prison Classification Board with respect to whether respondents were to be transferred to another institution — possibly a maximum-security institution, the living conditions at which are substantially less favorable than those at Norfolk. Each respondent was notified of the classification hearing and was informed that the authorities had information indicating that he had engaged in criminal conduct.
Individual classification hearings were held, each respondent being represented by counsel. Each hearing began by the reading of a prepared statement by the Classification Board. The Board then heard, in camera and out of the respondents’ presence, the testimony of petitioner Meachum, the Norfolk prison superintendent, who repeated the information that had been received from informants. Each respondent was then told that the evidence supported the allegations contained in the notice but was not then — or ever — given transcripts or summaries of Meaehum’s testimony before the Board. Each respondent was allowed to present evidence in his own behalf; and each denied involvement in the particular infraction being investigated. Some respondents submitted supportive testimony or written statements from correction officers. A social worker also testified in the presence of each respondent, furnishing the respondent's criminal and custodial record, including prior rule infractions, if any, and other aspects of his performance and “general adjustment” at Norfolk.
The Board recommended that Boyce be placed in administrative segregation for 30 days; that Fano, Dus-sault, and McPhearson be transferred to Walpole, a maximum-security institution where the living conditions are substantially less favorable to the prisoners than those at Norfolk, and that DeBrosky and Hathaway be transferred to Bridgewater which has both maximum- and medium-security facilities. The reasons for its actions were stated in the Board's reports, which, however, were not then available to respondents. Although respondents were aware of the general import of the informants’ allegations and were told that the recommendations drew upon informant sources, the details of this information were not revealed to respondents and are not included in the Board's reports which are part of the record before us.
The Board’s recommendations were reviewed by the Acting Deputy Commissioner for Classification and Treatment and by the Commissioner of Corrections on the basis of the written report prepared by the Board. They accepted the recommendations of the Board with respect to Fano, Dussault, Hathaway, and McPhearson. DeBrosky and Royce were ordered transferred to Walpole. The transfers were carried out, with two exceptions. No respondent was subjected to disciplinary punishment upon arrival at the transfer prison. None of the transfers ordered entailed loss of good time or disciplinary confinement.
Meanwhile respondents had brought this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against petitioners Meachum, the prison superintendent; Hall, the State Commissioner of Corrections; and Dawber, the Acting Deputy for Classification and Treatment, alleging that respondents were being deprived of liberty without due process of law in that petitioners had ordered them transferred to a less favorable institution without an adequate factfinding hearing. They sought an injunction setting aside the ordered transfer, declaratory relief, and damages.
The District Court understood Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974), to entitle respondents to notice and hearing and held both constitutionally inadequate in this case. Respondents were ordered returned to the general prison population at Norfolk until transferred after proper notice and hearing. Petitioners were also ordered to promulgate regulations to establish procedures governing future transfer hearings involving informant testimony. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, 520 F. 2d 374, holding that the transfers from Norfolk to maximum-security institutions involved “a significant modification of the overall conditions of confinement” and that this change in circumstances was “serious enough to trigger the application of due process protections.” Id., at 377-378.
We granted the prison officials’ petition for writ of certiorari, 423 U. S. 1013 (1975), in order to determine whether the Constitution required petitioners to conduct a factfinding hearing in connection with the transfers in this case where state law does not condition the authority to transfer on the occurrence of specific acts of misconduct or other events and, if so, whether the hearings granted in this case were adequate. In light of our resolution of the first issue, we do not reach the second.
II
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any State from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The initial inquiry is whether the transfer of respondents from Norfolk to Walpole and Bridgewater infringed or implicated a “liberty” interest of respondents within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Contrary to the Court of Appeals, we hold that it did not. We reject at the outset 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. In Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972), a university professor was deprived of his job, a loss which was surely a matter of great substance, but because the professor had no property interest in his position, due process procedures were not required in connection with his dismissal. We there held that the determining factor is the nature of the interest involved rather than its weight. Id., at 570-571.
Similarly, we cannot agree that any change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner involved is sufficient to invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause by its own force forbids the State from convicting any person of crime and depriving him of his liberty without complying fully with the requirements of the Clause. But given a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution. The Constitution does not require that the State have more than one prison for convicted felons; nor does it guarantee that the convicted prisoner will be placed in any particular prison if, as is likely, the State has more than one correctional institution. The initial decision to assign the convict to a particular institution is not subject to audit under the Due Process Clause, although the degree of confinement in one prison may be quite different from that in another. The conviction has sufficiently extinguished the defendant’s liberty interest to empower the State to confine him in any of its prisons.
Neither, in our view, does the Due Process Clause in and of itself protect a duly convicted prisoner against transfer from one institution to another within the state prison system. Confinement in any of the State's institutions is within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose. That life in one prison is much more disagreeable than in another does not in itself signify that a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest is implicated when a prisoner is transferred to the institution with the more severe rules.
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.
Transfers between institutions, for example, are made for a variety of reasons and often involve no more than informed predictions as to what would best serve institutional security or the safety and welfare of the inmate. Yet under the approach urged here, any transfer, for whatever reason, would require a hearing as long as it could be said that the transfer would place the prisoner in substantially more burdensome conditions that he had been experiencing. We are unwilling to go so far.
Wolff v. McDonnell, on which the Court of Appeals heavily relied, is not to the contrary. Under that case, the Due Process Clause entitles a state prisoner to certain procedural protections when he is deprived of good-time credits because of serious misconduct. But the liberty interest there identified did not originate in the Constitution, which “itself does not guarantee good-time credit for satisfactory behavior while in prison.” Id,, at 557. The State itself, not the Constitution, had “not only provided a statutory right to good time but also specifies that it is to be forfeited only for serious misbehavior.” Ibid. We concluded:
“[A] person’s liberty is equally protected, even when the liberty itself is a statutory creation of the State. The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 123 (1889). Since prisoners in Nebraska can only lose good-time credits if they are guilty of serious misconduct, the determination of whether such behavior has occurred becomes critical, and the minimum requirements of procedural due process appropriate for the circumstances must be observed.” Id., at 558.
The liberty interest protected in Wolff had its roots in state law, and the minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances were held required by the Due Process Clause “to insure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated.” Id., at 557. This is consistent with our approach in other due process cases such as Cross v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975); Board of Regents v. Roth, supra; Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970).
Here, Massachusetts law conferred no right on the prisoner to remain in the prison to which he was initially assigned, defeasible only upon proof of specific acts of misconduct. Insofar as we are advised, transfers between Massachusetts prisons are not conditioned upon the occurrence of specified events. On the contrary, transfer in a wide variety of circumstances is vested in prison officials. The predicate for invoking the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed and applied in Wolff v. McDonnell is totally nonexistent in this case.
Even if Massachusetts has not represented that transfers will occur only on the occurrence of certain events, it is argued that charges of serious misbehavior, as in this case, often initiate and heavily influence the transfer decision and that because allegations of misconduct may be erroneous, hearings should be held before transfer to a more confining institution is to be suffered by the prisoner. That an inmate’s conduct, in general or in specific instances, may often be a major factor in the decision of prison officials to transfer him is to be expected unless it be assumed that transfers are mindless events. A prisoner’s past and anticipated future behavior will very likely be taken into account in selecting a prison in which he will be initially incarcerated or to which he will be transferred to best serve the State’s penological goals.
A prisoner’s behavior may precipitate a transfer; and absent such behavior, perhaps transfer would not take place at all. But, as we have said, Massachusetts prison officials have the discretion to transfer prisoners for any number of reasons. Their discretion is not limited to instances of serious misconduct. As we understand it no legal interest or right of these respondents under Massachusetts law would have been violated by their transfer whether or not their misconduct had been proved in accordance with procedures that might be required by the Due Process Clause in other circumstances. Whatever expectation the prisoner may have in remaining at a particular prison so long as he behaves himself, it is too ephemeral and insubstantial to trigger procedural due process protections as long as prison officials have discretion to transfer him for whatever reason or for no reason at all.
Holding that arrangements like this are within reach of the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause would place the Clause astride the day-to-day functioning of state prisons and involve the judiciary in issues and discretionary decisions that are not the business of federal judges. We decline to so interpret and apply the Due Process Clause. The federal courts do not sit to supervise state prisons, the administration of which is of acute interest to the States. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 491-492 (1973); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319, 321 (1972); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483, 486 (1969). The individual States, of course, are free to follow another course, whether by statute, by rule or regulation, or by interpretation of their own constitutions. They may thus decide that prudent prison administration requires pretransfer hearings. Our holding is that the Due Process Clause does not impose a nationwide rule mandating transfer hearings.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals accordingly is
Reversed.
Respondents Fano, DeBrosky, and Dussault received the following notice:
“The department has received information through a reliable source that you were in possession of instruments that might be used as weapons and/or ammunition and that you had joined in plans to use these contraband items.
“These items and plans occurred during the period of serious unrest at MCI, Norfolk which included many fires that posed a significant threat to lives of persons at MCI, Norfolk as well as serious property damage.”
Respondents Hathaway and McPhearson received the following notice:
“The department has received information through reliable sources that you were significantly involved in the planning and execution of one or more of the serious fires occurring within MCI, Norfolk in the past few weeks. These fires caused considerable property damage and posed a very real threat to personal safety.”
Respondent Royce received the following notice:
“The department has received information through a reliable source that you were involved in the trafficking of contraband in MCI, Norfolk (narcotics, barbiturates and/or amphetamines).
“This occurred during a period of serious unrest at MCI, Norfolk which included many fires, that posed a significant threat to the lives of persons at MCI, Norfolk as well as serious property damage.”
With respect to Dussault, the Board recorded:
“Reasons for decision:
“1. The 'reliable sources' were deemed acceptable as reliable because they had produced truthful and verifiable information prior to incidents, which were then avoided and serious harm prevented.
“2. Mr. Dussault has not made significant use of program facilities at MCI Norfolk. He has, in effect only been doing time.
“To Mr. Dussavlt & Attorney:
“There is sufficient & significant information that has been made available to the committee that indicates to us that you have placed yourself in a situation at MCI Norfolk so that adequate programming cannot be provided at this time.”
The Board’s statement of reasons for its decision with respect to Fano was:
“1. The inclosed summary of informant information was considered. The sources are considered quite reliable in this case and tend to corroborate each other. In addition, the number of times the subject was named in conjunction with the unrest at Norfolk adds weight in the judgment of this board to the reliability of this information.
“2. The seriousness of his involvements were considered extreme. The danger posed by weapons and materials used for violence weighs very heavily against remaining in this population. In addition, the type of involvement of this man as an organizer, leader and [ejnforcer was considered detrimental to the institution, and prohibitive to rehabilitative programming at MCI Norfolk at this time.”
Similarly, with respect to McPhearson:
“Basis for Recommendation:
“1. Informant Information was judged sufficient in detail and reliability to be weighed seriously in the board[’]s decision making. The information regarding the subject’s attitude and motivation seemed adequately supported by the man’s record and his attitude before the board. (He stated he had never received fair treatment at classification.) The reliability of the information was judged as quite reliable in that it came from three sources. When asked, Mr. Meachum provided details of the course of events on the night of Oct. 13th which substantiated in general terms the informant information presented (see attached letter).
“2. The sources themselves were considered reliable, especially in cases of sources C and D. (See attached statement concerning reliability of sources.)”
With respect to Hathaway, the Board stated:
“Basis for Decision:
“1. When Mr, Hathaway was questioned during interview re: the charges expressed on notice of Classification hearing ‘serious fires occurring with MCI Norfolk . . . ,’ he immediately went into long discussion of two specific fires denying his [guilt] — Although he was not privy to informant information, and could not have known specifics that these were the two mentioned in the charges. The more he talked, the more he appeared involved.
“2. The ‘reliable sources’ were deemed acceptable as reliable because they had produced truthful information prior to incidents that were then avoided and serious harm prevented.
“3. Mr. Hathaway, other than avocation has not made sufficiently of available programs at MCI Norfolk that might benefit him.
“Decision as Presented to Mr. Hathaway:
“This committee feels that you should be removed from this environment and associates and the current situation at MCI Norfolk. Because of this, the recommendation will be to MCI Bridgewater. There are programs, such as AA which will be available to you. There is also a new avocational center in which you can become active. It is a Medium Security institution, and this committee has tried to listen when you’ve said ‘Trust me’ — Give me a chance. . . .’
“Mr. Stolzberger requested that his client be allowed to return to population to empty room and sell Avo equipment. Denied.
“A counter suggestion was made that he work with Mr. Jackson, social worker to accomplish these ends. Mr. Hathaway accepted.”
The explanation as to Royce was:
“Basis for Recommendation:
"1. Informant information was presented by Mr. Larry Meachum, Supt of MCI Norfolk, prior to the hearing. Although several sources contributed to the presenting information, the committee felt that the sources had not been proved reliable enough to become a decisive factor, indicating transfer. Both Mr. Meachum’s report & Source reliability report to follow elsewhere in this report.
“2. Although Mr. Royce had an additional disciplinary report (see D reports 2-3). It was felt by the committee to be of serious emotional instability rather than resorting to earlier behavior of absolute violence.
“3. Mr. Royce appears to be making an effort to get himself together with help. His good relationship with Mrs. Lowenstein and Mr. Jackson has been supportive of these efforts. His indicated interest in poetry, avocation, and school would also reaffirm his intent for self improvement.”
As to DeBrosky, the record shows only:
“Basis for Recommendation:
“Summary of Informant Information and Conclusions:
“Informant Information Excised.”
The Commissioner's action was reported to DeBrosky’s attorney as follows:
“As you are aware, the recommendation of the Board was for placement at MCI-Bridgewater. However, after a thorough review of the facts, with considerable concern being given to the intelligence information that connected Mr. DeBrosky with involvement with a weapon, the Commissioner has decided to place Mr. DeBrosky at MCI-Walpole. The intelligence information referred to above was judged to be reliable. Your request that the subject be placed back into the population at MCI-Norfolk is being denied.”
The Commissioner also explained his action with respect to Royce:
“Upon careful examination of all related materials and information, I have reached the following decision:
“Placement: MCI, Walpole.
“Reasons: I disagree with the recommendation of the Board and I am assigning you to MCI, Walpole because I feel that you have demonstrated that you are unwilling and/or unable to accept the responsibility that is commensurate with assignment to MCI, Norfolk, a medium security facility. Your actions of Nov. 1, 1974 whereby you destroyed state property and displayed disrespect to a Correctional Officer have played a part in this decision.”
At the time of the District Court hearing, DeBrosky was hospitalized at Norfolk, and Hathaway had not yet been transferred.
In addition to notice of the classification hearing, each respondent had been furnished with a copy of a disciplinary report specifying the instances of alleged misconduct. Under the applicable regulation, however, disciplinary proceedings were not held because the alleged misconduct had been referred to the local district attorney for investigation and action.
The Court of Appeals did not distinguish between disciplinary and administrative transfers:
“We attach no significance for present purposes to the fact that these proceedings were for ‘classification’ rather than ‘discipline.’ Defendants assert that ‘there are in the instant case as many administrative overtones as disciplinary ones,’ but we have already indicated that in our view the motive of prison officials, as such, is not properly a part of the due process calculus. Gomes v. Travisono, 510 F. 2d 537, 541 (1st Cir. 1974). Whether the transfer is thought of as punishment or as a way of preserving institutional order, the effects on the inmate are the same and the appropriateness of the action depends upon the accuracy of the official allegation of misconduct.” 520 F. 2d, at 376 n. 2.
See also Gomes v. Travisono, 510 F. 2d 537 (CA1 1974), modifying and affirming 490 F. 2d 1209 (1973).
Other Courts of Appeals, including the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, see Montanye v. Haymes, post, p. 236, have held that minimum procedures must accompany only disciplinary transfers. Aikens v. Lash, 514 F. 2d 55 (CA7 1975); Carroll v. Sielaff, 514 F. 2d 415 (CA7 1975); Ault v. Holmes, 506 F. 2d 288 (CA6 1974) ; Stone v. Egeler, 506 F. 2d 287 (CA6 1974). See also Bryant v. Hardy, 488 F. 2d 72 (CA4 1973). Still others have indicated that transfers of inmates do not call for due process hearings. Gray v. Creamer, 465 F. 2d 179,187 (CA3 1972); Hillen v. Director, 455 F. 2d 510 (CA9 1972); cf. Fajeriak v. McGinnis, 493 F. 2d 468 (CA9 1974).
At the time the transfers in this case occurred, Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, c. 127, §§ 20 and 97 (1974) provided as follows:
Ҥ20. Classification of prisoners; approval
“There shall be established by the commissioner, with the approval of the governor and council, a reception center for all male prisoners, except those sentenced to the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Bridgewater, Any male convict who is sentenced to any correctional institution of the commonwealth, except the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Bridgewater, shall be delivered by the sheriff or other officer authorized to execute 'sentence to said center for the purpose of proper classification of the prisoner. Classification of female prisoners shall be made at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Framingham, under the supervision of the deputy commissioner for classification and treatment.
“The deputy commissioner for classification and treatment, under the general supervision of the commissioner, shall direct the professional staff assigned to said reception center, and shall be responsible for grading and classifying all prisoners sentenced to any of the correctional institutions of the commonwealth, and shall in addition have general charge of the reception center.”
"§97. Transfers from and to correctional institutions; approval
“The commissioner may transfer any sentenced prisoner from one correctional institution of the commonwealth to another, and with the approval of the sheriff of the county from any such institution except a prisoner serving a fife sentence to any jail or house of correction, or a sentenced prisoner from any jail or house of correction to any such institution except the state prison, or from any jail or house of correction to any other jail or house of correction. Prisoners so removed shall be subject to the terms of their original sentences and to the provisions of law governing parole from the correctional institutions of the commonwealth.”
Nor do we think the situation is substantially different because a record will be made of the transfer and the reasons which underlay it, thus perhaps affecting the future conditions of confinement, including the possibilities of parole. The granting of parole has itself not yet been deemed a function to which due process requirements are applicable. See Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board, No. 74-6438, cert. granted, 423 U. S. 1031 (1975). If such holding eventuates, it will be time enough to consider respondents’ contentions that there is unfounded information contained in their files.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue before us is whether, in this action for child support, the California state courts may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident, nondomiciliary parent of minor children domiciled within the State. For reasons set forth below, we hold that the exercise of such jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
Appellant Ezra Kulko married appellee Sharon Kulko Horn in 1959, during appellant’s three-day stopover in California en route from a military base in Texas to a tour of duty in Korea. At the time of this marriage, both parties were domiciled in and residents of New York State. Immediately following the marriage, Sharon Kulko returned to New York, as did appellant after his tour of duty. Their first child, Darwin, was born to the Kulkos in New York in 1961, and a year later their second child, lisa, was born, also in New York. The Kulkos and their two children resided together as a family in New York City continuously until March 1972, when the Kulkos separated.
Following the separation, Sharon Kulko moved to San Francisco, Cal. A written separation agreement was drawn up in New York; in September 1972, Sharon Kulko flew to New York City in order to sign this agreement. The agreement provided, inter alia, that the children would remain with their father during the school year but would spend their Christmas, Easter, and summer vacations with their mother. While Sharon Kulko waived any claim for her own support or maintenance, Ezra Kulko agreed to pay his wife $3,000 per year in child support for the periods when the children were in her care, custody, and control. Immediately after execution of the separation agreement, Sharon Kulko flew to Haiti and procured a divorce there; the divorce decree incorporated the terms of the agreement. She then returned to California, where she remarried and took the name Horn.
The children resided with appellant during the school year and with their mother on vacations, as provided by the separation agreement, until December 1973. At this time, just before lisa was to leave New York to spend Christmas vacation with her mother, she told her father that she wanted to remain in California after her vacation. Appellant bought his daughter a one-way plane ticket, and lisa left, taking her clothing with her. Ilsa then commenced living in California with her mother during the school year and spending vacations with her father. In January 1976, appellant’s other child, Darwin, called his mother from New York and advised her that he wanted to live with her in California. Unbeknownst to appellant, appellee Horn sent a plane ticket to her son, which he used to fly to California where he took up residence with his mother and sister.
Less than one month after Darwin’s arrival in California, appellee Horn commenced this action against appellant in the California Superior Court. She sought to establish the Haitian divorce decree as a California judgment; to modify the judgment so as to award her full custody of the children; and to increase appellant’s child-support obligations. Appellant appeared specially and moved to quash service of the summons on the ground that he was not a resident of California and lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” with the State under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945), to warrant the State’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over him.
The trial court summarily denied the motion to quash, and appellant sought review in the California Court of Appeal by petition for a writ of mandate. Appellant did not contest the court’s jurisdiction for purposes of the custody determination, but, with respect to the claim for increased support, he renewed his argument that the California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The appellate court affirmed the denial of appellant’s motion to quash, reasoning that, by consenting to his children’s living in California, appellant had “caused an effect in th[e] state” warranting the exercise of jurisdiction over him. 133 Cal. Rptr. 627, 628 (1976).
The California Supreme Court granted appellant’s petition for review, and in a 4-2 decision sustained the rulings of the lower state courts. 19 Cal. 3d 514, 564 P. 2d 353 (1977). It noted first that the California Code of Civil Procedure demonstrated an intent that the courts of California utilize all bases of in personam jurisdiction “not inconsistent with the Constitution.” Agreeing with the court below, the Supreme Court stated that, where a nonresident defendant has caused an effect in the State by an act or omission outside the State, personal jurisdiction over the defendant in causes arising from that effect may be exercised whenever “reasonable.” Id., at 521, 564 P. 2d, at 356. It went on to hold that such an exercise was “reasonable” in this case because appellant had “purposely availed himself of the benefits and protections of the laws of California” by sending lisa to live with her mother in California. Id., at 521-522, 524, 564 P. 2d, at 356, 358. While noting that appellant had not, “with respect to his other child, Darwin, caused an effect in [California]” — since it was appellee Horn who had arranged for Darwin to fly to California in January 1976 — the court concluded that it was “fair and reasonable for defendant to be subject to personal jurisdiction for the support of both children, where he has committed acts with respect to one child which confers [sic] personal jurisdiction and has consented to the permanent residence of the other child in California.” Id., at 525, 564 P. 2d, at 358-359.
In the view of the two dissenting justices, permitting a minor child to move to California could not be regarded as a purposeful act by which appellant had invoked the benefits and protection of state law. Since appellant had been in the State of California on only two brief occasions many years before on military stopovers, and lacked any other contact with the State, the dissenting opinion argued that appellant could not reasonably be subjected to the in personam jurisdiction of the California state courts. Id., at 526-529, 564 P. 2d, at 359-360.
On Ezra Kulko’s appeal to this Court, probable jurisdiction was postponed. 434 U. S. 983 (1977). We have concluded that jurisdiction by appeal does not lie, but, treating the papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari, we hereby grant the petition and reverse the judgment below.
II
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment operates as a limitation on the jurisdiction of state courts to enter judgments affecting rights or interests of nonresident defendants. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 198-200 (1977). It has long been the rule that a valid judgment imposing a personal obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff may be entered only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732-733 (1878); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 316. The existence of personal jurisdiction, in turn, depends upon the presence of reasonable notice to the defendant that an action has been brought, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313-314 (1950), and a sufficient connection between the defendant and the forum State to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum. Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463-464 (1940). In this case, appellant does not dispute the adequacy of the notice that he received, but contends that his connection with the State of California is too attenuated, under the standards implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, to justify imposing upon him the burden and inconvenience of defense in California.
The parties are in agreement that the constitutional standard for determining whether the State may enter a binding judgment against appellant here is that set forth in this Court’s opinion in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra: that a defendant “have certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” 326 U. S., at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, supra, at 463. While the interests of the forum State and of the plaintiff in proceeding with the cause in the plaintiff’s forum of choice are, of course, to be considered, see McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220, 223 (1957), an essential criterion in all cases is whether the “quality and nature” of the defendant’s activity is such that it is “reasonable” and “fair” to require him to conduct his defense in that State. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 316-317, 319. Accord, Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 207-212; Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U. S. 437, 445 (1952).
Like any standard that requires a determination of “reasonableness,” the “minimum contacts” test of International Shoe is not susceptible of mechanical application; rather, the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite “affiliating circumstances” are present. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 246 (1958). We recognize that this determination is one in which few answers will be written “in black and white. The greys are dominant and even among them the shades are innumerable.” Estin v. Estin, 334 U. S. 541, 545 (1948). But we believe that the California Supreme Court’s application of the minimum-contacts test in this case represents an unwarranted extension of International Shoe and would, if sustained, sanction a result that is neither fair, just, nor reasonable.
A
In reaching its result, the California Supreme Court did not rely on appellant’s glancing presence in the State some 13 years before the events that led to this controversy, nor could it have. Appellant has been in California on only two occasions, once in 1959 for a three-day military stopover on his way to Korea, see supra, at 86-87, and again in 1960 for a 24-hour stopover on his return from Korean service. To hold such temporary visits to a State a basis for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction over unrelated actions arising in the future would make a mockery of the limitations on state jurisdiction imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor did the California court rely on the fact that appellant was actually married in California on one of his two brief visits. We agree that where two New York domiciliaries, for reasons of convenience, marry in the State of California and thereafter spend their entire married life in New York, the fact of their California marriage by itself cannot support a California court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a spouse who remains a New York resident in an action relating to child support.
Finally, in holding that personal jurisdiction existed, the court below carefully disclaimed reliance on the fact that appellant had agreed at the time of separation to allow his children to live with their mother three months a year and that he had sent them to California each year pursuant to this agreement. As was noted below, 19 Cal. 3d, at 523-524, 564 P. 2d, at 357, to find personal jurisdiction in a State on this basis, merely because the mother was residing there, would discourage parents from entering into reasonable visitation agreements. Moreover, it could arbitrarily subject one parent to suit in any State of the Union where the other parent chose to spend time while having custody of their offspring pursuant to a separation agreement. As we have emphasized:
“The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. ... [I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails [him] self of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State . . . Hanson v. Denckla, supra, at 253.
The “purposeful act” that the California Supreme Court believed did warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction over appellant in California was his “actively and fully consent [ing] to lisa living in California for the school year . . . and . . . sen [ding] her to California for that purpose.” 19 Cal. 3d, at 524, 564 P. 2d, at 358. We cannot accept the proposition that appellant’s acquiescence in lisa’s desire to live with her mother conferred jurisdiction over appellant in the California courts in this action. A father who agrees, in the interests of family harmony and his children’s preferences, to allow them to spend more time in California than was required under a separation agreement can hardly be said to have “purposefully availed himself” of the “benefits and protections” of California’s laws. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 216.
Nor can we agree with the assertion of the court below that the exercise of in personam jurisdiction here was warranted by the financial benefit appellant derived from his daughter’s presence in California for nine months of the year. 19 Cal. 3d, at 524-525, 564 P. 2d, at 358. This argument rests on the premise that, while appellant’s liability for support payments remained unchanged, his yearly expenses for supporting the child in New York decreased. But this circumstance, even if true, does not support California’s assertion of jurisdiction here. Any diminution in appellant’s household costs resulted, not from the child’s presence in California, but rather from her absence from appellant’s home. Moreover, an action by appellee Horn to increase support payments could now be brought, and could have been brought when lisa first moved to California, in the State of New York; a New York court would clearly have personal jurisdiction over appellant and, if a judgment were entered by a New York court increasing appellant’s child-support obligations, it could properly be enforced against him in both New York and California. Any ultimate financial advantage to appellant thus results not from the child’s presence in California, but from appellee’s failure earlier to seek an increase in payments under the separation agreement. The argument below to the contrary, in our view, confuses the question of appellant’s liability with that of the proper forum in which to determine that liability.
B
In light of our conclusion that appellant did not purposefully derive benefit from any activities relating to the State of California, it is apparent that the California Supreme Court’s reliance on appellant’s having caused an “effect” in California was misplaced. See supra, at 89. This “effects” test is derived from the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 37 (1971), which provides:
“A state has power to exercise .judicial jurisdiction over an individual who causes effects in the state by an act done elsewhere with respect to any cause of action arising from these effects unless the nature of the effects and of the individual’s relationship to the state make the exercise of such jurisdiction unreasonable.”
While this provision is not binding on this Court, it does not in any event support the decision below. As is apparent from the examples accompanying § 37 in the Restatement, this section was intended to reach wrongful activity outside of the State causing injury within the State, see, e. g., Comment a, p. 157 (shooting bullet from one State' into another), or commercial activity affecting state residents, ibid. Even in such situations, moreover, the Restatement recognizes that there might be circumstances that would render “unreasonable” the assertion of jurisdiction over the nonresident defen dant.
The circumstances in this case clearly render “unreasonable” California’s assertion of personal jurisdiction. There is no claim that appellant has visited physical injury on either property or persons within the State of California. Cf. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352 (1927). The cause of action herein asserted arises, not from the defendant’s commercial transactions in interstate commerce, but rather from his personal, domestic relations. It thus cannot be said that appellant has sought a commercial benefit from solicitation of business from a resident of California that could reasonably render him liable to suit in state court; appellant’s activities cannot fairly be analogized to an insurer’s sending an insurance contract and premium notices into the State to an insured resident of the State. Cf. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S. 220 (1957). Furthermore, the controversy between the parties arises from a separation that occurred in the State of New York; appellee Horn seeks modification of a contract that was negotiated in New York and that she flew to New York to sign. As in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S., at 252, the instant action involves an agreement that was entered into with virtually no connection with the forum State. See also n. 6, supra.
Finally, basic considerations of fairness point decisively in favor of appellant’s State of domicile as the proper forum for adjudication of this case, whatever the merits of appellee’s underlying claim. It is appellant who has remained in the State of the marital domicile, whereas it is appellee who has moved across the continent. Cf. May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 534-535, n. 8 (1953). Appellant has at all times resided in New York State, and, until the separation and appellee’s move to California, his entire family resided there as well. As noted above, appellant did no more than acquiesce in the stated preference of one of his children to live with her mother in California. This single act is surely not one that a reasonable parent would expect to result in the substantial financial burden and personal strain of litigating a child-support suit in a forum 3,000 miles away, and we therefore see no basis on which it can be said that appellant could reasonably have anticipated being “haled before a [California] court," Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 216. To make jurisdiction in a case such as this turn on whether appellant bought his daughter her ticket or instead unsuccessfully sought to prevent her departure would impose an unreasonable burden on family relations, and one wholly unjustified by the “quality and nature” of appellant’s activities in or relating to the State of California. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 319.
Ill
In seeking to justify the burden that would be imposed on appellant were the exercise of in personam jurisdiction in California sustained, appellee argues that California has substantial interests in protecting the welfare of its minor residents and in promoting to the fullest extent possible a healthy and supportive family environment in which the children of the State are to be raised. These interests are unquestionably important. But while the presence of the children and one parent in California arguably might favor application of California law in a lawsuit in New York, the fact that California may be the “ 'center of gravity’ ” for choice-of-law purposes does not mean that California has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Hanson v. Denckla, supra, at 254. And California has not attempted to assert any particularized interest in trying such cases in its courts by, e. g., enacting a special jurisdictional statute. Cf. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., supra, at 221, 224.
California’s legitimate interest in ensuring the support of children resident in California without unduly disrupting the children’s lives, moreover, is already being served by the State’s participation in the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968. This statute provides a mechanism for communication between court systems in different States, in order to facilitate the procurement and enforcement of child-support decrees where the dependent children reside in a State that cannot obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. California's version of the Act essentially permits a California resident claiming support from a nonresident to file a petition in California and have its merits adjudicated in the State of the alleged obligor’s residence, without either party’s having to leave his or her own State. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1650 et seq. (West 1972 and Supp. 1978) . New York State is a signatory to a similar Act. Thus, not only may plaintiff-appellee here vindicate her claimed right to additional child support from her former husband in a New York court, see supra, at 95, but also the Uniform Acts will facilitate both her prosecution of a claim for additional support and collection of any support payments found to be owed by appellant.
It cannot be disputed that California has substantial interests in protecting resident children and in facilitating child-support actions on behalf of those children. But these interests simply do not make California a “fair forum,” Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 215, in which to require appellant, who derives no personal or commercial benefit from his child’s presence in California and who lacks any other relevant contact with the State, either to defend a child-support suit or to suffer liability by default.
IV
We therefore believe that the state courts in the instant case failed to heed our admonition that “the flexible standard of International Shoe” does not “heral[d] the eventual demise of all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction of state courts.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S., at 251. In McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., we commented on the extension of in personam jurisdiction under evolving standards of due process, explaining that this trend was in large part “attributable to the . . . increasing nationalization of commerce . . . [accompanied by] modern transportation and communication [that] have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity.” 355 U. S., at 222-223. But the mere act of sending a child to California to live with her mother is not a commercial act and connotes no intent to obtain or expectancy of receiving a corresponding benefit in the State that would make fair the assertion of that State’s judicial jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we conclude that the appellant’s motion to quash service, on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, was erroneously denied by the California courts. The judgment of the California Supreme Court is, therefore,
Reversed.
While the Jurisdictional Statement, at 5, asserts that "the parties” flew to Haiti, appellant’s affidavit submitted in the Superior Court stated that Sharon Kulko flew to Haiti with a power of attorney signed by appellant. App. 28. The Haitian decree states that Sharon Kulko appeared "in person” and that appellant filed a “Power of Attorney and submission to jurisdiction.” Id., at 14.
Appellee Horn’s complaint also sought an order restraining appellant from removing his children from the State. The trial court immediately granted appellee temporary custody of the children and restrained both her and appellant from removing the children from the State of California. See 19 Cal. 3d 514, 520, 564 P. 2d 353, 355 (1977). The record does not reflect whether appellant is still enjoined from removing his children from the State.
Section 410.10, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. (West 1973), provides:
“A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”
The opinion below does not appear to distinguish between the requirements of the Federal and State Constitutions. See 19 Cal. 3d, at 521-522, 564 P. 2d, at 356.
As was true in both Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235 (1958), and May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528 (1953), this case was improperly brought to this Court as an appeal, since no state statute was “drawn in question ... on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States,” 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). The jurisdictional statute construed by the California Supreme Court provides that the State’s jurisdiction is as broad as the Constitution permits. See n. 3, supra. Appellant did not argue below that this statute was unconstitutional, but instead argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precluded the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over him. The opinion below does not purport to determine the constitutionality of the California jurisdictional statute. Rather, the question decided was whether the Constitution itself would permit the assertion of jurisdiction.
Appellant requested that, in the event that appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2) was found lacking, the papers be acted upon as a petition for certiorari pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2103. We follow the practice of both Hanson and May in deeming the papers to be a petition for a writ of certiorari. As in Hanson and May, moreover, we shall continue to refer to the parties herein as appellant and appellee to minimize confusion. See 357 U. S., at 244; 345 U. S., at 530.
After the California Supreme Court’s decision, appellant sought a continuance of trial-court proceedings pending this Court’s disposition of his appeal. Appellant’s request for a continuance was denied by the trial court, and subsequently that court determined that appellant was in arrears on his child-support payments. App. to Brief for Appellant ii-iii. In light of the change in custody arrangements, the court also ordered that appellant’s child-support obligations be increased substantially. Ibid.
Appellee Horn argues that appellant’s request for a continuance amounted to a general appearance and a waiver of jurisdictional objections, and that accordingly there is no longer a live controversy as to the jurisdictional issue before us. Appellee’s argument concerning the jurisdictional effect of a motion for a continuance, however, does not find support in the California statutes, rules, or cases that she cites. Moreover, the state trial court expressly determined, subsequent to the request for a continuance, that appellant had “made a special appearance only to contest the jurisdiction of the Court.” Id., at i. Under these circumstances, appellant’s challenge to the state court’s in personam jurisdiction is not moot.
Although the separation agreement stated that appellee Horn resided in California and provided that child-support payments would be mailed to her California address, it also specifically contemplated that appellee might move to a different State. The agreement directed appellant to mail the support payments to appellee’s San Francisco address or “any other address which the Wife may designate from time to time in writing.” App. 10.
The court below stated that the presence in California of appellant’s daughter gave appellant the benefit of California’s “police and fire protection, its school system, its hospital services, its recreational facilities, its libraries and museums . . . .” 19 Cal. 3d, at 522, 564 P. 2d, at 356. But, in the circumstances presented here, these services provided by the State were essentially benefits to the child, not the father, and in any event were not benefits that appellant purposefully sought for himself.
Under the separation agreement, appellant is bound to “indemnify and hold [his] Wife harmless from any and all attorney fees, costs and expenses which she may incur by reason of the default of [appellant] in the performance of any of the obligations required to be performed by him pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement.” App. 11. To the extent that appellee Horn seeks arrearages, see n. 5, supra, her litigation expenses, presumably including any additional costs incurred by her as a result of having to prosecute the action in New York, would thus be borne by appellant.
A final judgment entered by a New York court having jurisdiction over the defendant’s person and over the subject matter of the lawsuit would be entitled to full faith and credit in any State. See New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U. S. 610, 614 (1947). See also Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 407 (1975).
It may well be that, as a matter of state law, appellee Horn could still obtain through New York proceedings additional payments from appellant for lisa’s support from January 1974, when a de jacto modification of the custody provisions of the separation agreement took place, until the present. See H. Clark, Domestic Relations § 15.2, p. 500 (1968); cf. In re Santa Clara County v. Hughes, 43 Misc. 2d 559, 251 N. Y. S. 2d 579 (1964).
Section 37 of the Restatement has effectively been incorporated into California law. See Judicial Council Comment (9) to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §410.10 (West 1973).
See also Developments in the Law — State-Court Jurisdiction, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 909, 911 (1960).
In addition to California, 24 other States are signatories to this Act. 9 U. L. A. 473 (Supp. 1978). Under the Act, an “obligee” may file a petition in a court of his or her State (the “initiating court”) to obtain support. 9 U. L. A. §§ 11, 14 (1973). If the court “finds that the [petition] sets forth facts from which it may be determined that the obligor owes a duty of support and that a court of the responding state may obtain jurisdiction of the obligor or his property,” it may send a copy of the petition to the “responding state.” § 14. This has the effect of requesting the responding State “to obtain jurisdiction over the obligor.” § 18 (b). If jurisdiction is obtained, then a hearing is set in a court in the responding State at which the obligor may, if he chooses, contest the claim. The claim may be litigated in that court, with deposition testimony submitted through the initiating court by the initiating spouse or other party. § 20. If the responding state court finds that the obligor owes a duty of support pursuant to the laws of the State where he or she was present during the time when support was sought, § 7, judgment for the petitioner is entered. § 24. If the money is collected from the spouse in the responding State, it is then sent to the court in the initiating State for distribution to the initiating party. § 28.
While not a signatory to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968, New York is a party to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1950, as amended. N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 30 et seq. (McKinney 1977) (Uniform Support of Dependents Law). By 1957 this Act, or its substantial equivalent, had been enacted in all States, organized Territories, and the District of Columbia. 9 U. L. A. 885 (1973). The “two-state” procedure in the 1950 Act for obtaining and enforcing support obligations owed by a spouse in one State to a spouse in another is similar to that provided in the 1968 Act. See n. 13, supra. See generally Note, 48 Cornell L. Q. 541 (1963).
In Landes v. Landes, 1 N. Y. 2d 358, 135 N. E. 2d 562, appeal dismissed, 352 U. S. 948 (1956), the court upheld a support decree entered against a divorced husband living in New York, on a petition filed by his former wife in California pursuant to the Uniform Act. No prior support agreement or decree existed between the parties; the California spouse sought support from the New York husband for the couple’s minor child, who was residing with her mother in California. The New York Court of Appeals concluded that the procedures followed — filing of a petition in California, followed by its certification to New York’s Family Court, the obtaining of jurisdiction over the husband, a hearing in New York on the merits of the petition, and entry of an award — were proper under the laws of both States and were constitutional. The constitutionality of these procedures has also been upheld in other jurisdictions. See, e. g., Watson v. Dreadin, 309 A. 2d 493 (DC 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 959 (1974); State ex rel. Terry v. Terry, 80 N. M. 185, 453 P. 2d 206 (1969); Harmon v. Harmon, 184 Cal. App. 2d 245, 7 Cal. Rptr. 279 (1960), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 366 U. S. 270 (1961).
Thus, it cannot here be concluded, as it was in McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S. 220, 223-224 (1957), with respect to actions on insurance contracts, that resident plaintiffs would be at a “severe disadvantage” if in personam jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants were sometimes unavailable.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this ease we consider whether an airport terminal operated by a public authority is a public forum and whether a regulation prohibiting solicitation in the interior of an airport terminal violates the First Amendment.
The relevant facts in this case are not in dispute. Petitioner International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (ISKCON), is a not-for-profit religious corporation whose members perform a ritual known as sankirtan. The ritual consists of “ ‘going into public places, disseminating religious literature and soliciting funds to support the religion.’ ” 925 F. 2d 576, 577 (CA2 1991). The primary purpose of this ritual is raising funds for the movement. Ibid.
Respondent Walter Lee, now deceased, was the police superintendent of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and was charged with enforcing the regulation at issue. The Port Authority owns and operates three major airports in the greater New York City area: John P. Kennedy International Airport (Kennedy), La Guardia Airport (La Guardia), and Newark International Airport (Newark). The three airports collectively form one of the world’s busiest metropolitan airport complexes. They serve approximately 8% of this country’s domestic airline market and more than 50% of the trans-Atlantic market. By decade’s end they are expected to serve at least 110 million passengers annually. Id., at 578.
The airports are funded by user fees and operated to make a regulated profit. Id., at 581. Most space at the three airports is leased to commercial airlines, which bear primary responsibility for the leasehold. The Port Authority retains control over unleased portions, including La Guardia’s Central Terminal Building, portions of Kennedy’s International Arrivals Building, and Newark’s North Terminal Building (we refer to these areas collectively as the "terminals”). The terminals are generally accessible to the general public and contain various commercial establishments such as restaurants, snack stands, bars, newsstands, and stores of various types. Id., at 578. Virtually all who visit the terminals do so for purposes related to air travel. These visitors principally include passengers, those meeting or seeing off passengers, flight crews, and terminal employees. Ibid.
The Port Authority has adopted a regulation forbidding within the terminals the repetitive solicitation of money or distribution of literature. The regulation states:
“1, The following conduct is prohibited within the interior areas of buildings or structures at an air terminal if conducted by a person.to or with passers-by in a continuous or repetitive manner:
“(a) The sale or distribution of any merchandise, including but not limited to jewelry, food stuffs, candles, flowers, badges and clothing.
“(b) The sale or distribution of flyers, brochures, pamphlets, books or any other printed or written material.
“(c) The solicitation and receipt of funds.” Id., at 578-579.
The regulation governs only the terminals; the Port Authority permits solicitation and distribution on the sidewalks outside the terminal buildings. The regulation effectively prohibits ISKCON from performing sankirtan in the terminals. As a result, ISKCON brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that the regulation worked to deprive its members of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. The District Court analyzed the claim under the “traditional public forum” doctrine. It concluded that the terminals were akin to public streets, 721 F. Supp. 572, 577 (SONY 1989), the quintessential traditional public fora. This conclusion in turn meant that the Port Authority’s terminal regulation could be sustained only if it was narrowly tailored to support a compelling state interest. Id., at 579. In the absence of any argument that the blanket prohibition constituted such narrow tailoring, the District Court granted ISKCON summary judgment. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. 925 F. 2d 576 (1991). Relying on our recent decision in United States v. Kokinda, 497 U. S. 720 (1990), a divided panel concluded that the terminals are not public fora. As a result, the restrictions were required only to satisfy a standard of reasonableness. The Court of Appeals then concluded that, presented with the issue, this Court would find that the ban on solicitation was reasonable, but the ban on distribution was not. ISKCON and one of its members, also a petitioner here, sought certiorari respecting the Court of Appeals’ decision that the terminals are not public fora and upholding the solicitation ban. Respondent cross-petitioned respecting the court’s holding striking down the distribution ban. We granted both petitions, 502 U. S. 1022 (1992), to resolve whether airport terminals are public fora, a question on which the Circuits have split and on which we once before granted certiorari but ultimately failed to reach. Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U. S. 569 (1987).
It is uncontested that the solicitation at issue in this case is a form of speech protected under the First Amendment. Heffron v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640 (1981); Kokinda, supra, at 725 (citing Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620, 629 (1980)); Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 788-789 (1988). But it is also well settled that the government need not permit all forms of speech on property that it owns and controls. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U. S. 114, 129 (1981); Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828 (1976). Where the government is acting as a proprietor, managing its internal operations, rather than acting as lawmaker with the power to regulate or license, its action will not be subjected to the heightened review to which its actions as a lawmaker may be subject. Kokinda, supra, at 725 (plurality opinion) (citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896 (1961)). Thus, we have upheld a ban on political advertisements in city-operated transit vehicles, Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298 (1974), even though the city permitted other types of advertising on those vehicles. Similarly, we have permitted a school district to limit access to an internal mail system used to communicate with teachers employed by the district. Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37 (1983).
These cases reflect, either implicitly or explicitly, a “forum based” approach for assessing restrictions that the government seeks to place on the use of its property. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800 (1985). Under this approach, regulation of speech on government property that has traditionally been available for public expression is subject to the highest scrutiny. Such regulations survive only if they are narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest. Perry, 460 U. S., at 45. The second category of public property is the designated public forum, whether of a limited or unlimited character— property that the State has opened for expressive activity by part or all of the public. Ibid. Regulation of such property is subject to the same limitations as that governing a traditional public forum. Id., at 46. Finally, there is all remaining public property. Limitations on expressive activity conducted on this last category of property must survive only a much more limited review. The challenged regulation need only be reasonable, as long as the regulation is not an effort to suppress the speaker’s activity due to disagreement with the speaker’s view. Ibid.
The parties do not disagree that this is the proper framework. Rather, they disagree whether the airport terminals are public fora or nonpublie fora. They also disagree whether the regulation survives the “reasonableness” review governing nonpublic fora, should that prove the appropriate category. Like the Court of Appeals, we conclude that the terminals áre nonpublie fora and that the regulation reasonably limits solicitation.
The suggestion that the government has a high burden in justifying speech restrictions relating to traditional public fora made its first appearance in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U. S. 496, 515, 516 (1939). Justice Roberts, concluding that individuals have a right to use “streets and parks for communication of views,” reasoned that such a right flowed from the fact that “streets and parks ... have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” We confirmed this observation in Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 481 (1988), where we held that a residential street was a public forum.
Our recent cases provide additional guidance on the characteristics of a public forum. In Cornelius we noted that a traditional public forum is property that has as “a principal purpose . . . the free exchange of ideas.” 473 U. S., at 800. Moreover, consistent with the notion that the government— like other property owners — “has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated,” Greer, 424 U. S., at 836, the government does not create a public forum by inaction. Nor is a public forum created “whenever members of the public are permitted freely to visit a plaee owned or operated by the Government.” Ibid. The decision to create a public forum must instead be made “by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” Cornelius, supra, at 802. Finally, we have recognized that the location of property also has bearing because separation from acknowledged public areas may serve to indicate that the separated property is a special enclave, subject to greater restriction. United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 179-180 (1983).
These precedents foreclose the conclusion that airport terminals are public fora. Reflecting the general growth of the air travel industry, airport terminals have only recently achieved their contemporary size and character. See H. Hubbard, M. MeClintock, & F. Williams, Airports: Their Location, Administration and Legal Basis 8 (1930) (noting that the United States had only 807 airports in 1930). But given the lateness with which the modern air terminal has made its appearance, it hardly qualifies for the description of having “immemorially... time out of mind” been held in the public trust and used for purposes of expressive activity. Hague, supra, at 516. Moreover, even within the rather short history of air transport, it is only “[i]n recent years [that] it has become a common practice for various religious and nonprofit organizations to use commercial airports as a forum for the distribution of literature, the solicitation of funds, the proselytizing of new members, and other similar activities.” 45 Fed. Reg. 35314 (1980). Thus, the tradition of airport activity does not demonstrate that airports have historically been made available for speech activity. Nor can we say that these particular terminals, or airport terminals generally, have been intentionally opened by their operators to such activity; the frequent and continuing litigation evidene-ing the operators’ objections belies any such claim. See n. 2, supra. In short, there can be no argument that society’s time-tested judgment, expressed through acquiescence in a continuing practice, has resolved the issue in petitioners’ favor.
Petitioners attempt to circumvent the history and practice governing airport activity by pointing our attention to the variety of speech activity that they claim historically occurred at various “transportation nodes” such as rail stations, bus stations, wharves, and Ellis Island. Even if we were inclined to accept petitioners’ historical account describing speech activity at these locations, an account respondent contests, we think that such evidence is of little import for two reasons. First, much of the evidence is irrelevant to public fora analysis, because sites such as bus and rail terminals traditionally have had private ownership. See United Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co., 455 U. S. 678, 687 (1982); H. Grant & C. Bohi, The Country Railroad Station in America 11-15 (1978); U. S. Dept, of Transportation, The Intercity Bus Terminal Study 31 (Dec. 1984). The development of privately owned parks that ban speech activity would not change the public fora status of publicly held parks. But the reverse is also true. The practices of privately held transportation centers do not bear on the government’s regulatory authority over a publicly owned airport.
Second, the relevant unit for our inquiry is an airport, not “transportation nodes” generally. When new methods of transportation develop, new methods for accommodating that transportation are also likely to be needed. And with each new step, it therefore will be a new inquiry whether the transportation necessities are compatible with various kinds of expressive activity. To make a category of “transportation nodes,” therefore, would unjustifiably elide what may prove to be critical differences of which we should rightfully take account. The “security magnet,” for example, is an airport commonplace that lacks a counterpart in bus terminals and train stations. And public access to air terminals is also not infrequently restricted — -just last year the Federal Aviation Administration required airports for a 4-month period to limit access to areas normally publicly accessible. See 14 CFR 107.11(f) (1991) and U. S. Dept, of Transportation News Release, Office of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Jan. 18, 1991. To blithely equate airports with other transportation centers, therefore, would be a mistake.
The differences among such facilities are unsurprising since, as the Court of Appeals noted, airports are commercial establishments funded by users fees and designed to make a regulated profit, 925 F. 2d, at 581, and where nearly all who visit do so for some travel related purpose, id., at 578. As commercial enterprises, airports must provide services attractive to the marketplace. In light of this, it cannot fairly be said that an airport terminal has as a principal purpose promoting “the free exchange of ideas.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800 (1985). To the contrary, the record demonstrates that Port Authority management considers the purpose of the terminals to be the facilitation of passenger air travel, not the promotion of expression. Sloane Affidavit, ¶ 11, App. 464; Defendant’s Civil Rule 3(g) Statement, ¶ 39, App. 453. Even if we look beyond the intent of the Port Authority to the manner in which the terminals have been operated, the terminals have never been dedicated (except under the threat of court order) to expression in the form sought to be exercised here: i. e., the solicitation of contributions and the distribution of literature.
The terminals here are far from atypical. Airport builders and managers focus their efforts on providing terminals that will contribute to efficient air travel. See, e. g., R. Hor-onjeff & F. McKelvey, Planning and Design of Airports 326 (3d ed. 1983) (“The terminal is used to process passengers and baggage for the interface with aircraft and the ground transportation modes”). The Federal Government is in accord; the Secretary of Transportation has been directed to publish a plan for airport development necessary “to anticipate and meet the needs of civil aeronautics, to meet requirements in support of the national defense... and to meet identified needs of the Postal Service.” 49 U. S. C. App. § 2203(a)(1) (emphasis added); see also 45 Fed. Reg. 35817 (1980) (“The purpose for which the [Dulles and National airport] terminals] [were] built and maintained is to process and serve air travelers efficiently”). Although many airports have expanded their function beyond merely contributing to efficient air travel, few have included among their purposes the designation of a forum for solicitation and distribution activities. See supra, at 680-681. Thus, we think that neither by tradition nor purpose can the terminals be described as satisfying the standards we have previously set out for identifying a public forum.
The restrictions here challenged, therefore, need only satisfy a requirement of reasonableness. We reiterate what we stated in Kokinda: The restriction “‘need only be reasonable; it need not be the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation.’ ” 497 U. S., at 730 (plurality opinion) (quoting Cornelius, supra, at 808). We have no doubt that under this standard the prohibition on solicitation passes muster.
We have on many prior occasions noted the disruptive effect that solicitation may have on business. “Solicitation requires action by those who would respond: The individual solicited must decide whether or not to contribute (which itself might involve reading the solicitor’s literature or hearing his pitch), and then, having decided to do so, reach for a wallet, search it for money, write a check, or produce a credit card.” Kokinda, supra, at 734; see Heffron, 452 U. S., at 663 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Passengers who wish to avoid the solicitor may have to alter their paths, slowing both themselves and those around them. The result is that the normal flow of traffic is impeded. Id., at 653. This is especially so in an airport, where “[a]ir travelers, who are often weighted down by cumbersome baggage . . . may be hurrying to catch a plane or to arrange ground transportation.” 925 F. 2d, at 582. Delays may be particularly costly in this setting, as a flight missed by only a few minutes can result in hours worth of subsequent inconvenience..
In addition, face-to-face solicitation presents risks of duress that are an appropriate target of regulation. The skillful, and unprincipled, solicitor can target the most vulnerable, including those accompanying children or those suffering physical impairment and who cannot easily avoid the solicitation. See, e. g., International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, 506 F. Supp. 147, 159-163 (NDNY 1980), rev’d on other grounds, 650 F. 2d 430 (CA21981). The unsavory solicitor can also commit fraud through concealment of his affiliation or through deliberate efforts to shortchange those who agree to purchase. 506 F. Supp., 159-163. See 45 Fed. Reg. 35314-35315 (1980). Compounding this problem is the fact that, in an airport, the targets of such activity frequently are on tight schedules. This in turn makes such visitors unlikely to stop and formally complain to airport authorities. As a result, the airport faces considerable difficulty in achieving its legitimate interest in monitoring solicitation activity to assure that travelers are not interfered with unduly.
The Port Authority has concluded that its interest in monitoring the activities can best be accomplished by limiting solicitation and distribution to the sidewalk areas outside the terminals. Sloane Supp. Affidavit, ¶ 11, App. 514. This sidewalk area is frequented by an overwhelming percentage of airport users, see id., at ¶ 14, App. 515-516 (noting that no more than 3% of air travelers passing through the terminals are doing so on intraterminal flights, i. e., transferring planes). Thus the resulting access of those who would solicit the general public is quite complete. In turn we think it would be odd to conclude that the Port Authority’s terminal regulation is unreasonable despite the Port Authority having otherwise assured access to an area universally traveled.
The inconveniences to passengers and the burdens on Port Authority officials flowing from solicitation activity may seem small, but viewed against the fact that “pedestrian congestion is one of the greatest problems facing the three terminals,” 925 F. 2d, at 582, the Port Authority could reasonably worry that even such incremental effects would prove quite disruptive. Moreover, “[t]he justification for the Rule should not be measured by the disorder that would result from granting an exemption solely to ISKCON.” Heffron, supra, at 652. For if ISKCON is given access, so too must other groups. “Obviously, there would be a much larger threat to the State’s interest in crowd control if all other religious, nonreligious, and noncommercial organizations could likewise move freely.” 452 U. S., at 653. As a result, we conclude that the solicitation ban is reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals sustaining the ban on solicitation in Port Authority terminals is
Affirmed.
The suit was filed in 1975. ISKCON originally sought access to both the airline controlled areas and tó the terminals and as a result sued both respondent and various private airlines. The suit worked a meandering course, see 721 F. Supp. 572, 573-574 (SDNY 1989), with the private airlines eventually being dismissed and leaving, as the sole remaining issue, ISKCON’s claim against respondent seeking a declaration and injunction against the regulation. The regulation at issue was not formally promulgated until 1988 although it represents a codification of presuit policy. App. to Pet. for Cert. 52. As noted in the text, supra this page, respondent concedes that sankirtan may be performed on the sidewalks outside the terminals.
Compare decision below with Jamison v. St. Louis, 828 F. 2d 1280 (CA8 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 987 (1988); Chicago Area Military Project v. Chicago, 508 F. 2d 921 (CA7), cert. denied, 421 U. S. 992 (1975); Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F. 2d 619 (CA5 1981), cert. dism’d, 458 U. S. 1124 (1982); U.S. Southwest Africa/Namibia Trade & Cultural Council v. United States, 228 U. S. App. D. C. 191, 708 F. 2d 760 (1983); Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles, 785 F. 2d 791 (CA9 1986), aff’d on other grounds, 482 U. S. 569 (1987).
We deal here only with petitioners’ claim regarding the permissibility of solicitation. Respondent’s cross-petition concerning the leafletting ban is disposed of in the companion case, Lee v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., post, p. 830.
Respondent also argues that the regulations survive under the strict scrutiny applicable to public fora. We find it unnecessary to reach that question.
The congestion problem is not unique to these airports. See 45 Fed. Reg. 35314-35315 (1980) (describing congestion at Washington's Dulles and National Airports) and 49 U. S. C. App. §2201(a)(ll) (congressional declaration that as part of the national airport system plan airport projects designed to increase passenger capacity “should be undertaken to the maximum feasible extent”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under § 33(b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured longshoreman who accepts “compensation under an award in a compensation order” has six months in which to file a negligence action against a third party, after which time the longshoreman’s cause of action is irrevocably assigned to his employer. This case presents the question whether a longshoreman’s acceptance of voluntary compensation payments gives rise to an assignment under § 33(b).
I
On May 19, 1975, respondent Joseph Duris fell from a ladder and was injured while working as a longshoreman aboard the M/V Regent Botan at the Port of Toledo, Ohio. At the time of the accident, the vessel was chartered by Erato Shipping, Inc. Duris’ employer, Toledo Overseas Terminal, Inc., did not contest his right to compensation benefits under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). On June 2, 1975, the employer filed Form LS-206, entitled “Payment of Compensation Without Award,” with the Department of Labor. The document indicated the employer’s agreement to commence payments to Duris in the amount of $149.14 every two weeks. Payments to Duris continued for nearly two years. On April 26, 1977, the company terminated the payment of benefits by filing Form LS-208, labeled “Compensation Payment Stopped or Suspended.”
On February 19, 1980, Duris commenced this action in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to recover for injuries suffered as a result of the accident aboard the M/V Regent Botan. An amended complaint named petitioner Pallas Shipping Agency, Ltd., as a defendant. Petitioner is a successor of Erato Shipping, Inc., the company which chartered the M/V Regent Botan. Duris alleged that the bareboat charterer had been negligent in maintaining the ladder from which he fell. The District Court dismissed respondent’s claim for failure to establish in personam jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Duris v. Erato Shipping, Inc., 684 F. 2d 352 (CA6 1982). After concluding that personal jurisdiction could properly be asserted over petitioner based on the acts of its predecessor corporation, the court considered the question whether the lapse of six months after Duris’ acceptance of voluntary compensation payments triggered an assignment of his claim under § 33(b). The court held that, in the absence of a formal compensation order or award entered by the Secretary of Labor, an employee’s acceptance of compensation payments cannot lead to an assignment of his right of action against third parties. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals declined to follow the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ameta & Co., 564 F. 2d 1097 (1977). We granted certiorari to resolve this intercircuit conflict, 459 U. S. 1014 (1982), and we now affirm.
HH f-H
The Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), provides a comprehensive scheme governing the rights of an injured longshoreman. If, as is generally true in cases in which a longshoreman files a claim under the Act, his employer does not contest liability, the employer must pay compensation to the disabled longshoreman within two weeks of learning of his injury, 33 U. S. C. § 914; 20 CFR §§ 702.231-702.232 (1982), and must file an appropriate form, Form LS-206, with the Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Labor. 33 U. S. C. § 914; 20 CFR § 702.234 (1982).
When an employer controverts a compensation claim or the injured longshoreman contests actions taken by the employer with respect to his claim, the dispute may be resolved in administrative proceedings. 33 U. S. C. §919 (1976 ed. and Supp. V). If the dispute cannot be resolved informally under procedures developed by the Department of Labor, 20 CFR §§ 702.301-702.319 (1982), the contested claim will proceed to a formal hearing, which culminates in the entry of an order by the Deputy Commissioner “rejecting] the claim or mak[ing] an award in respect of the claim.” 33 U. S. C. §§ 919(c), 919(e). An order making an award, referred to as “a compensation order,” 33 U. S. C. § 919(e), is reviewable by the Benefits Review Board, 33 U. S. C. § 921(b) (1976 ed. and Supp. V), and enforceable in federal court. 33 U. S. C. § 921(d). An employer’s failure to make timely payments under a compensation order results in a substantial penalty. 33 U. S. C. § 914(f).
Although workers’ compensation generally constitutes a longshoreman’s exclusive recovery from his employer, a longshoreman who accepts compensation does not thereby relinquish any claim against the shipowner, charterer, or other third party. 33 U. S. C. § 933(a). Under § 33(b) of the Act, however, a longshoreman who accepts “compensation under an award in a compensation order” must sue the third party within six months, or not at all. If the employee fails to bring suit within this period, his cause of action is irrevocably assigned to his employer. See Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co., 451 U. S. 596 (1981). Section 33(b) provides in full:
“Acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner or [Benefits Review] Board shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person unless such person shall commence an action against such third person within six months after such award.” 44 Stat. 1440, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 933(b).
Petitioner contends that the voluntary payment of compensation benefits to Duris, along with the filing of Forms LS-206 and LS-208 with the Department of Labor, constituted an “award in a compensation order” which resulted in an assignment of Duris’ claim to his employer when he failed to bring suit within the next six months.
We disagree. Section 33(b) triggers an assignment of an injured longshoreman’s cause of action against a third party only after he has accepted compensation “under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner or Board. ” (Emphasis added.) The term “compensation order” in the LHWCA refers specifically to an administrative award of compensation following proceedings with respect to the claim. 33 U. S. C. § 919(e). In this case, no administrative proceedings ever took place, and no award was ever ordered by the Deputy Commissioner.
Petitioner correctly points out that Duris’ employer filed Forms LS-206 and LS-208 as required by 33 U. S. C. § 914(c) to “notify the deputy commissioner. . . that payment of compensation has begun or has been suspended.” But such filings are distinguishable from compensation orders in form, function, and legal effect: they are not issued by the Deputy Commissioner; they are neither administratively reviewable nor judicially enforceable; and the failure to make timely payments pursuant to the agreement embodied in Form LS-206 results in a less substantial penalty than a failure to comply with the terms of a compensation order. 33 U. S. C. §§ 914(e), (f). Nothing in the Act suggests that the filing of these forms is equivalent to “an award in a compensation order.”
The history of the LHWCA confirms that “a compensation order” was not intended to include a document testifying to an employer’s voluntary payment of compensation under the Act. This statutory language was first incorporated into § 33(b) when the LHWCA was amended in 1938. As we described in Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 445 U. S. 74, 79 (1980):
“[T]he Act [as originally enacted in 1927] required a longshoreman to choose between the receipt of a compensation award from his employer and a damages suit against the third party. Act of Mar. 4, 1927, §33, 44 Stat. 1440. If the longshoreman elected to receive compensation, his right of action was automatically assigned to his employer. In 1938, however, Congress provided that in cases in which compensation was not made pursuant to an award by a deputy commissioner . . . , the longshoreman would not be required to choose between the compensation award and an action for damages. Under the 1938 amendments, no election was required unless compensation was paid pursuant to such an award. See Act of June 25, 1938, ch. 685, §§ 12, 13, 52 Stat. 1168.”
The requirement of a formal award was designed to protect the longshoreman from the unexpected loss of . his rights against a negligent third party and to permit him to make a considered choice among available remedies. As the House Committee explained:
“Acceptance of compensation without knowledge of the effect upon such rights may work grave injustice. The assignment of this right of action against the third party might properly be contingent upon the acceptance of compensation under an award in a compensation order issued by the deputy commissioner, thus giving opportunity to the injured person ... to consider the acceptance of compensation from the employer with the resultant loss of right to bring suit in damages against the third party. ...” H. R. Rep. No. 1945, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 9 (1938).
Thus, as this Court recognized in American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446, 454-456 (1947), Congress clearly did not contemplate that the mere acceptance of compensation benefits, in the absence of an award by the Deputy Commissioner, would trigger an immediate assignment of the longshoreman’s claim against third persons, for such voluntary payments would not adequately apprise the longshoreman of the election of remedies.
In 1959 Congress eliminated the harsh election-of-remedies requirement. As amended, § 33(b) allows a longshoreman to bring a suit against a third party within six months after accepting payments under “an award in a compensation order.” There is no indication, however, that Congress intended to alter this statutory language governing the prerequisites for an assignment of the longshoreman’s right of action. To the contrary, Congress indicated that its aim in amending § 33 was “to continue the current judicial construction” of the retained portions of the provision. 105 Cong. Rec. 9226 (1959). As noted above, this Court had previously concluded in American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, supra, that an assignment occurred under § 33(b) only after a longshoreman accepted an award by the Deputy Commissioner.
Moreover, the Act continues to equate a “compensation order” with the formal document filed by the Deputy Commissioner at the conclusion of administrative proceedings, as it has since the LHWCA was enacted. See §§ 19, 21-22, 44 Stat. 1435-1437. Finally, limiting § 33(b) to formal compensation orders continues to serve the underlying congressional purposes even though the statute no longer requires an immediate election of remedies. Service of the compensation order puts the longshoreman on notice that his acceptance of future compensation payments will result in the irrevocable assignment of his claims, albeit not immediately but six months later. Of equal importance, the requirement of a formal compensation order enhances an injured longshoreman’s opportunity to make a well-considered decision whether to bring an action against a third party by allowing him to delay his decision until the amount of compensation to which he is entitled under the Act is clearly established in a judicially enforceable order.
Petitioner contends that the requirement of a formal compensation order prior to the assignment of an injured longshoreman’s claims will frustrate the Act’s aims of ensuring prompt payment to injured workers and of relieving claimants and their employers of the undue expense and administrative burden of litigating compensation claims. It is said that employers who desire to seek indemnification from the negligent third party will be encouraged to contest their liability in order to obtain a compensation order instead of making voluntary payments. We do not find this contention persuasive. Employers are not required to contest their liability in order to obtain a formal compensation award. Department of Labor regulations permit an employer who makes voluntary payments to obtain a compensation order upon request if there is no disagreement among the parties. 20 CFR § 702.315(a) (1982). Moreover, even without a statutory assignment of the longshoreman’s claims, an employer can seek indemnification from negligent third parties for payments it has made to the longshoreman. See Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co., 394 U. S. 404 (1969); Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. Barracuda Tanker Corp., 696 F. 2d 703 (CA9 1983). For these reasons, the employer who seeks to bring an action against a shipowner, charterer, or other third person has little to gain from contesting his liability to the longshoreman under the LHWCA.
We therefore conclude that respondent’s acceptance of voluntary compensation payments did not constitute “[acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order” so as to give rise to the assignment of respondent’s claims against third persons. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Even if § 19(c) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 919(c), requires the Deputy Commissioner to issue an order with respect to any uncontested compensation claim, as petitioner argues, cf. Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U. S. 525, 528, n. 9 (1956), it is not disputed that in this case no compensation order was filed by the Deputy Commissioner prior to Duris’ commencement of the instant lawsuit.
Section 19(e) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 919(e), provides:
“The order rejecting the claim or making the award (referred to in this chapter as a compensation order) shall be filed in the office of the deputy commissioner, and a copy thereof shall be sent by registered mail or by certified mail to the claimant and to the employer at the last known address of each.”
Section 14(f) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 914(f), provides that if any compensation payable under the terms of an award is not paid -within 10 days after it becomes due, the employer shall be required to pay an additional amount equal to 20% of the unpaid compensation unless a stay of payment is issued by the Benefits Review Board or by a court pending review of the compensation order.
Section 14(e), 33 U. S. C. § 914(e), provides that if any compensation payable in the absence of an award is not paid within 14 days, the employer shall be required to pay an additional amount equal to 10% of the unpaid compensation unless the employer files notice controverting the right to compensation or such nonpayment is excused by the Deputy Commissioner.
As originally enacted, § 33 provided:
“(a) If on account of a disability or death for which compensation is payable under this Act the person entitled to such compensation determines that some person other than the employer is liable in damages, he may elect, by giving notice to the deputy commissioner in such manner as the commission may provide, to receive such compensation or to recover damages against such third person.
“(b) Acceptance of such compensation shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person, whether or not the person entitled to compensation has notified the deputy commissioner of his election.” 44 Stat. 1440.
As amended in 1938, § 33 provided in relevant part:
“(b) Acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person.” 52 Stat. 1168.
As we explained in Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 445 U. S. 74, 80 (1980):
“In 1959, Congress amended the Act to delete the election-of-remedies requirement altogether. Act of Aug. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 391. Existing law was felt to ‘wor[k] a hardship on an employee by in effect forcing him to take compensation under the act because of the risks involved in pursuing a lawsuit against a third party.’ S. Rep. No. 428, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1959). The result was that an injured employee ‘usually elects to take compensation for the simple reason that his expenses must be met immediately, not months or years after when he has won his lawsuit.’ Ibid.; see H. R. Rep. No. 229, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959).”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 410 (1986), we held that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from inflicting the penalty of death upon a prisoner who is insane.” In this case, we must decide whether respondent Martinez-VillareaPs Ford claim is subject to the restrictions on “second or successive” applications for federal habeas relief found in the newly revised 28 U. S. C. § 2244 (1994 ed., Supp. II). We conclude that it is not.
Respondent was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence on direct appeal in the Arizona state courts. Arizona v. Martinez-Villareal, 145 Ariz. 441, 702 P. 2d 670, cert. denied, 474 U. S. 975 (1985). He then filed a series of petitions for habeas relief in state court, all of which were denied. He also filed three petitions for habeas relief in federal court, all of which were dismissed on the ground that they contained claims on which the state remedies had not yet been exhausted.
In March 1993, respondent filed a fourth habeas petition in federal court. In addition to raising other claims, respondent asserted that he was incompetent to be executed. Counsel for the State urged the District Court to dismiss respondent’s Ford claim as premature. The court did so but granted the writ on other grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s granting of the writ but explained that its instruction to enter judgment denying the petition was not intended to affect any later litigation of the Ford claim. Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis, 80 F. 3d 1301, 1309, n. 1 (1996).
On remand to the District Court, respondent, fearing that the newly enacted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) might foreclose review of his Ford claim, moved the court to reopen his earlier petition. In March 1997, the District Court denied the motion and reassured respondent that it had “ ‘no intention of treating the [Ford] claim as a successive petition.’” 118 F. 3d 628, 630 (CA9 1997). Shortly thereafter, the State obtained a warrant for respondent’s execution. Proceedings were then held in the Arizona Superior Court on respondent’s mental condition. That court concluded that respondent was fit to be executed. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected his appeal of that decision.
Respondent then moved in the Federal District Court to reopen his Ford claim. He challenged both the conclusions reached and the procedures employed by the Arizona state courts. Petitioners responded that under AEDPA, the court lacked jurisdiction. The District Court agreed with petitioners, ruling on May 16,1997, that it did not have jurisdiction over the claim. Respondent then moved in the Court of Appeals for permission to file a successive habeas corpus application. § 2244(b)(3).
The Court of Appeals stayed respondent’s execution so that it could consider his request. It later held that § 2244(b) did not apply to a petition that raises only a competency to be executed claim and that respondent did not, therefore, need authorization to file the petition in the District Court. It accordingly transferred the petition that had been presented to a member of that court back to the District Court. 118 F. 3d, at 634-635.
We granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 912 (1997), to resolve an apparent conflict between the Ninth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit on this important question of federal law. See, e. g., In re Medina, 109 F. 3d 1556 (CA11 1996).
Before reaching the question presented, however, we must first decide whether we have jurisdiction over this case. In AEDPA, Congress established a “gatekeeping” mechanism for the consideration of “second or successive habeas corpus applications” in the federal courts. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U. S. 651, 657 (1996); § 2244(b). An individual seeking to file a “second or successive” application must move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order directing the district court to consider his application. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The court of appeals then has 30 days to decide whether to grant the authorization to file. § 2244(b)(3)(D). A court of appeals’ decision whether to grant authorization “to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” § 2244(b)(3)(E).
If the Court of Appeals in this case had granted respondent leave to file a second or successive application, then we would be without jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ petition and would have to dismiss the writ. This is not, however, what the Court of Appeals did. The Court of Appeals held that the § 2244(b) restrictions simply do not apply to respondent’s Ford claim, and that there was accordingly no need for him to apply for authorization to file a second or successive petition. We conclude today that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result in this case, and that we therefore have jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ petition.
Section 2244(b) provides:
“(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive ha-beas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.
“(2) A claim presented in a second or successive ha-beas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless—
“(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
“(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
“(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact-finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
If respondent’s current request for relief is a “second or successive” application, then it plainly should have been dismissed. The Ford claim had previously been presented in the 1993 petition, and would therefore be subject to dismissal under subsection (b)(1). Even if we were to consider the Ford claim to be newly presented in the 1997 petition, it does not fit within either of subsection (b)(2)’s exceptions, and dismissal would still be required.
Petitioners contend that because respondent has already-had one “folly-litigated habeas petition, the plain meaning of § 2244(b) as amended requires his new petition to be treated as successive.” Brief for Petitioners 12. Under that reading of the statute, respondent is entitled to only one merits judgment on his federal habeas claims. Because respondent has already presented a petition to the District Court, and the District Court and the Court of Appeals have acted on that petition, § 2244(b) must apply to any subsequent request for federal habeas relief.
But the only claim on which respondent now seeks relief is the Ford claim that he presented to the District Court, along with a series of other claims, in 1993. The District Court, acting for the first time on the merits of any of respondent’s claims for federal habeas relief, dismissed the Ford claim as premature, but resolved all of respondent’s other claims, granting relief on one. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the District Court’s grant of relief. At that point it became clear that respondent would have no federal habeas relief for his conviction or his death sentence, and the Arizona Supreme Court issued a warrant for his execution. His claim then unquestionably ripe, respondent moved in the state courts for a determination of his competency to be executed. Those courts concluded that he was competent, and respondent moved in the Federal District Court for review of the state court’s determination.
This may have been the second time that respondent had asked the federal courts to provide relief on his Ford claim, but this does not mean that there were two separate applications, the second of which was necessarily subject to § 2244(b). There was only one application for habeas relief, and the District Court ruled (or should have ruled) on each claim at the time it became ripe. Respondent was entitled to an adjudication of all of the claims presented in his earlier, undoubtedly reviewable, application for federal habeas relief. The Court of Appeals was therefore correct in holding that respondent was not required to get authorization to file a “second or successive” application before his Ford claim could be heard.
If petitioners’ interpretation of “second or successive” were correct, the implications for habeas practice would be far reaching and seemingly perverse. In Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275 (1971), we said:
“It has been settled since Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 (1886), that a state prisoner must normally exhaust available state judicial remedies before a federal court will entertain his petition for habeas corpus. . . . The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine, now codified in the federal habeas statute, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2254(b) and (e), reflects a policy of federal-state comity.... It follows, of course, that once the federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied.”
Later, in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 522 (1982), we went further and held that “a district court must dismiss ha-beas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims.” But none of our eases expounding this doctrine have ever suggested that a prisoner whose habeas petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, and who then did exhaust those remedies and returned to federal court, was by such action filing a successive petition. A court where such a petition was filed could adjudicate these claims trader the same standard as would govern those made in any other first petition.
We believe that respondent’s Ford claim here — previously dismissed as premature — should be treated in the same manner as the claim of a petitioner who returns to a federal ha-beas court after exhausting state remedies. True, the eases are not identical; respondent’s Ford claim was dismissed as premature, not because he had not exhausted state remedies, but because his execution was not imminent and therefore his competency to be executed could not be determined at that time. But in both situations, the habeas petitioner does not receive an adjudication of his claim. To hold otherwise would mean that a dismissal of a first habeas petition for technical procedural reasons would bar the prisoner from ever obtaining federal habeas review. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Barnes v. Gilmore, 968 F. Supp. 384, 385 (ND Ill. 1997) (“If Barnes continues in his nonpayment of the required $5 filing fee . . . this Court will be constrained to dismiss his petition”); Marsh v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1995 WL 23942 (ND Cal., Jan. 9, 1995) (“Because petitioner has since not paid the filing fee nor submitted a signed affidavit of poverty, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice”); Taylor v. Mendoza, 1994 WL 698493 (ND Ill., Dec. 12,1994).
Petitioners place great reliance on our decision in Felker v. Turpin, 518 U. S. 651 (1996), but we think that reliance is misplaced. In Felker we stated that the “new restrictions on successive petitions constitute a modified res judicata rule, a restraint on what used to be called in habeas corpus practice ‘abuse of the writ.’ ” Id., at 664. It is certain that respondent’s Ford claim would not be barred under any form of res judicata. Respondent brought his claim in a timely fashion, and it has not been ripe for resolution until now.
Thus, respondent’s Ford claim was not a “second or successive” petition under § 2244(b) and we have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals on petitioners’ petition for certiorari. But for the same reasons that we find we have jurisdiction, we hold that the Court of Appeals was correct in deciding that respondent was entitled to a hearing on the merits of his Ford claim in the District Court. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
This ease does not present the situation where a prisoner raises a Ford claim for the first time in a petition filed after the federal courts have already rejected the prisoner’s initial habeas application. Therefore, we have no occasion to decide whether such a filing would be a “second or successive habeas corpus application” within the meaning of AEDPA.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On June 11, 1956, we unanimously vacated sua sponte our order of December 5, 1955 (350 U. S. 919), denying the timely petition for rehearing in this case (351 U. S. 980), so that this case might be disposed of consistently with the companion cases of United States v. Allen-Bradley Co., 352 U. S. 306, and National Lead Co. v. Commissioner, 352 U. S. 313, in which we had granted certio-rari the same day, viz. June 11, 1956. 351 U. S. 981. If there is to be uniformity in the application of the principles announced in those two companion cases, the judgment below in the instant case cannot stand. Accordingly we now grant the petition for rehearing, vacate the order denying certiorari, grant the petition for certiorari, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Claims on the authority of United States v. Allen-Bradley Co., supra, and National Lead Co. v. Commissioner, supra.
We have consistently ruled that the interest in finality of litigation must yield where the interests of justice would make unfair the strict application of our rules. This policy finds expression in the manner in which we have exercised our power over our own judgments, both in civil and criminal cases. Clark v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 337 U. S. 953; Goldbaum v. United States, 347 U. S. 1007; Banks v. United States, 347 U. S. 1007; McFee v. United States, 347 U. S. 1007; Remmer v. United States, 348 U. S. 904; Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U. S. 413; Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 350 U. S. 811; Cahill v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 351 U. S. 183; Achilli v. United States, 352 U. S. 1023.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part as follows:
“(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant is or may be bound by a judgment in the action; or (3) when the applicant is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property which is in the custody or subject to the control or disposition of the court or an officer thereof.”
Appellant claims intervention of right in the Sherman Act proceedings involving the reorganization of certain producers and distributors of motion picture films whose activities had been found to violate the Act. See United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131. If appellant may intervene as of right, the order' of the court denying intervention is appealable. See Railroad Trainmen v. B. & O. R. Co., 331 U. S. 519, 524: 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. (Supp. II) § 29. It was to resplve that question that we postponed the question of our jurisdiction of the appeal to the hearing on the merits.
The present controversy stems from the reorganization of Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., pursuant to a decree of the court in the Sherman Act proceedings. Under this decree provision is made for the divorcement of Warner’s theatre business from its production and distribution business. The various steps in the reorganization are not material here. It is sufficient to note that according to the plán the stockholders of Warner will vote a dissolution of Warner. Two new companies Will be formed, one to receive the theatre assets, the other, to receive the production and distribution assets. Each of the new companies will distribute its capital stock pro rata to Warner’s stockholders.
Warner is a guarantor of a lease of theatre properties made by appellant to a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Warner. The lease, executed in 1928 and modified in 1948, is for a term of 98 years. The plan of reorganization submitted to the stockholders provides, as we read it and as construed by counsel for appellees on oral argument, that liabilities of the class in which the guaranty falls will be assumed by the new theatre company. Appellant seeks intervention to protect its guaranty.
There is intervention as of right under Rule 24 (a) (2) “when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant is or may be bound by a judgment in the action.” Appellant, however, is not a privy of Warner; its rights not only do not derive from Warner, they are indeed adverse to Warner. The decree in this case, like that in Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311, therefore is not res judicata of the rights sought to be protected through intervention.
Nor is appellant entitled to intervene as of right by-reason of Rule 24 (a) (3). It is true that this is a case of “a distribution or other disposition of property which is in the custody or subject to the control or disposition of the court . . .” within the meaning of Rule 24 (a) (3). For it is the authority of the court under the Sherman Act that sanctions and directs the reorganization. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., supra, pp. 170 et seq. Appellant argues that it is “adversely affected” by the disposition of the property. It points out that under the plan its guarantor is dissolved and his property divided among two new companies, only one of which assumes the guarantor’s liabilities under the lease. It argues that it is entitled to a judicially ascertained equivalent for the Warner guaranty. And it claims that in this case that equivalent would be a guaranty by each of the new companies.
We do not think, however, that on this record appellant has shown that it will be “adversely affected” by the reorganization within the meaning of Rule 24 (a) (3). It will have the guaranty of the new theatre company. No showing is made or attempted that that company lacks the financial strength to assume the responsibilities of the guaranty. No showing is made or attempted that the contingent liability under the. guaranty is so imminent and onerous as to make the guaranty of the new company substantially less valuable than the guaranty of Warner’s. For all we know, a guaranty of a company in the "theatre business, freed from the hazards of the production and distribution business, may be even more valuable than the guaranty of Warner’s. We do not pass here on the fairness of the plan of reorganization. Cf. Continental Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 156. We hold' only that appellant has not maintained the burden of showing that under Rule 24 (a) (3) it may intervene as of right.
Permissive intervention is governed by Rule 24 (b). But we have said enough to show that the claim of injury to appellant is too speculative and too contingent bn unknown factors to conclude that there was an abuse of discretion in denying leave to intervene. The court had ample reason to prevent the administration of the decree from being burdened with a collateral issue that on this record can properly be adjudicated elsewhere. The appeal is therefore
Dismissed.
Me. Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Clark, and Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fifth Amendment requires that the United States pay “just compensation” — normally measured by fair market value — whenever it takes private property for public use. This case involves the condemnation of property owned by a municipality. The question is whether a public condemnee is entitled to compensation measured by the cost of acquiring a substitute facility if it has a duty to replace the condemned facility. We hold that this measure of compensation is not required when the market value of the condemned property is ascertainable.
I
In 1978, as part of a flood control project, the United States condemned approximately 50 acres of land owned by the city of Duncanville, Texas. The site had been used since 1969 as a sanitary landfill. In order to replace the condemned landfill, the city acquired a 113.7-acre site and developed it into a larger and better facility. In the condemnation proceedings, the city claimed that it was entitled to recover all of the costs incurred in acquiring the substitute site and developing it as a landfill, an amount in excess of $1,276,000. The United States, however, contended that just compensation should be determined by the fair market value of the condemned facility and deposited $199,950 in the registry of the court as its estimation of the amount due.
Before trial the Government filed a motion in limine to exclude any evidence of the cost of the substitute facility, arguing that it was not relevant to the calculation of fair market value. Record, Doc. No. 62. The District Court denied the motion, noting that this Court had left open the question of the proper measure of compensation for the condemnation of public property. See United States v. 564-54 Acres of Land, 441 U. S. 506, 509, n. 3 (1979) (Lutheran Synod). The court concluded that “a complete factual record should be developed from which an independent determination of the appropriate measure of compensation can be made.” Record, Doc. No. 111.
At trial, both parties submitted evidence on the fair market value of the condemned property and on the cost of the substitute landfill facility. Responding to special interrogatories, the jury found that the fair market value of the condemned property was $225,000, and that the reasonable cost of a substitute facility was $723,624.01. Record, Doc. Nos. 199, 200. The District Court entered judgment for the lower amount plus interest on the difference between that amount and the sum already paid. 529 F. Supp. 220 (ND Tex. 1981). The District Court explained that the city had not met its “burden of establishing what would be a reasonable cost of a substitute facility.” In addition, the court was of the view that “substitute facilities compensation should not be awarded in every case where a public condemnee can establish a duty to replace the condemned property, at least where a fair market value can be established.” Id., at 222. The court found no basis for departing from the market value standard in this case, and reasoned that the application of the substitute-facilities measure of compensation would necessarily provide the city with a “windfall.”
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 706 F. 2d 1356 (CA5 1983). It reasoned that the city’s loss attributable to the condemnation was “the amount of money reasonably spent... to create a functionally equivalent facility.” Id., at 1360. If the city was required, either as a matter of law or as a matter of practical necessity, to replace the old landfill facility, the Court of Appeals believed that it would receive no windfall. The court, however, held that the amount of compensation should be adjusted to account for any qualitative differences in the substitute site. Finding that the trial judge’s instructions had not adequately informed the jury of its duty to discount the costs of the substitute facility in order to account for its increased capacity and superior quality, see n. 4, supra, the Court of Appeals remanded for a new trial. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari, 465 U. S. 1098 (1984), and we now reverse with instructions to direct the District Court to enter judgment based on the jury’s finding of fair market value.
II
The Court has repeatedly held that just compensation normally is to be measured by “the market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid in money.” Olson v. United States, 292 U. S. 246, 255 (1934). “Considerations that may not reasonably be held to affect market value are excluded.” Id., at 256. Deviation from this measure of just compensation has been required only “when market value has been too difficult to find, or when its application would result in manifest injustice to owner or public.” United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U. S. 121, 123 (1950); Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U. S. 1, 10, n. 14 (1984).
This case is not one in which an exception to the normal measure of just compensation is required because fair market value is not ascertainable. Such cases, for the most part, involve properties that are seldom, if ever, sold in the open market. Under those circumstances, “we cannot predict whether the prices previously paid, assuming there have been prior sales, would be repeated in a sale of the condemned property.” Lutheran Synod, 441 U. S., at 513. In this case, however, the testimony at trial established a fairly robust market for sanitary landfill properties, see n. 5, supra, and the jury’s determination of the fair market value of the condemned landfill facility is adequately supported by expert testimony concerning the sale prices of comparable property. Cf. 441 U. S., at 513-514.
The city contends that in this case an award of compensation measured by market value is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic principles of indemnity embodied in the Just Compensation Clause. If the city were a private party rather than a public entity, however, the possibility that the cost of a substitute facility exceeds the market value of the condemned parcel would not justify a departure from the market value measure. Lutheran Synod, 441 U. S., at 514-517. The question — which we expressly reserved in the Lutheran Synod case — is whether a substitute-facilities measure of compensation is mandated by the Constitution when the condemnee is a local governmental entity that has a duty to replace the condemned facility.
III
The text of the Fifth Amendment certainly does not mandate a more favorable rule of compensation for public condemnees than for private parties. To the contrary, the language of the Amendment only refers to compensation for “private property,” and one might argue that the Framers intended to provide greater protection for the interests of private parties than for public condemnees. That argument would be supported by the observation that many public condemnees have the power of eminent domain, and thus, unlike private parties, need not rely on the availability of property on the market in acquiring substitute facilities.
When the United States condemns a local public facility, the loss to the public entity, to the persons served by it, and to the local taxpayers may be no less acute than the loss in a taking of private property. Therefore, it is most reasonable to construe the reference to “private property” in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as encompassing the property of state and local governments when it is condemned by the United States. Under this construction, the same principles of just compensation presumptively apply to both private and public condemnees.
IV
The Court of Appeals correctly identified a dictum in Brown v. United States, 263 U. S. 78 (1923), as the source of what has become known as the “substitute-facilities doctrine.” When that passage is read in the context of the Court’s decision in that case, it lends no support to the suggestion that a distinction should be drawn between public and private condemnees. Nor does it shed any light on the proper measure of compensation in this case.
The facts of the Brown case were, in the Court’s word, “peculiar.” The construction of a reservoir on the Snake River flooded approximately three-quarters of the town of American Falls, Idaho, an area of some 640 acres. To compensate both the public and private owners of the flooded acreage, the Government undertook to relocate most of the town to the other side of the river. The owners of a large tract to be included within the limits of the reconstructed town challenged the Government’s power to condemn their property, contending that the transfer of their property to other private persons was not a “public use” as required by the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, 239-244 (1984).
In rejecting that contention, the Court held that the Government’s method of compensating the owners of the flooded property was legitimate. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Taft observed:
“The usual and ordinary method of condemnation of the lots in the old town, and of the streets and alleys as town property, would be ill adapted to the exigency. . . . A town is a business center. It is a unit. If three-quarters of it is to be destroyed by appropriating it to an exclusive use like a reservoir, all property owners, both those ousted and those in the remaining quarter, as well as the State, whose subordinate agency of government is the municipality, are injured. A method of compensation by substitution would seem to be the best means of making the parties whole. The power of condemnation is necessary to such a substitution.” 263 U. S., at 82-83 (emphasis added).
Taken in context, the apparent endorsement of compensation by substitution is made in support of the Government’s power to condemn the property in Brown and does not state the proper measure of compensation in another case. Lutheran Synod, 441 U. S., at 509, n. 3.
Brown merely indicates that it would have been constitutionally permissible for the Federal Government to provide the city with a substitute landfill site instead of compensating it in cash. Nothing in Brown implies that the Federal Government has a duty to provide the city with anything more than the fair market value of the condemned property.
V
In this case, as in most, the market measure of compensation achieves a fair “balance between the public’s need and the claimant’s loss.” United States v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Navigation Co., 338 U. S. 396, 402 (1949). This view is consistent with our holding in Lutheran Synod that fair market value constitutes “just compensation” for those private citizens who must replace their condemned property with more expensive substitutes and with our prior holdings that the Fifth Amendment does not require any award for consequential damages arising from a condemnation.
The city argues that its responsibility for municipal garbage disposal justifies a departure from the market value measure in this case. This responsibility compelled the city to arrange for a suitable replacement facility or substitute garbage disposal services. This obligation to replace a condemned facility, however, is no more compelling than the obligations assumed by private citizens. Even though most private condemnees are not legally obligated to replace property taken by the Government, economic circumstances often force them to do so. When a home is condemned, for example, its owner must find another place to live. The city’s legal obligation to maintain public services that are interrupted by a federal condemnation does not justify a distinction between public and private condemnees for the purpose of measuring “just compensation.”
Of course, the decision in Lutheran Synod was based, in part, on a fear that a private condemnee might receive a “windfall” if its compensation were measured by the cost of a substitute facility and “substitute facilities were never acquired, or if acquired, were later sold or converted to another use.” 441 U. S., at 516. The Court of Appeals suggested that the city’s obligation to replace the facility avoids this risk, 706 F. 2d, at 1360, but we do not agree. If the replacement facility is more costly than the condemned facility, it presumably is more valuable, and any increase in the quality of the facility may be as readily characterized as a “windfall” as the award of cash proceeds for a substitute facility that is never built.
The Court of Appeals, however, believed that the risk of any windfall could be reduced by discounting the cost of the substitute facility to account for its superior quality. Id., at 1362-1363. This approach would add uncertainty and complexity to the valuation proceeding without any necessary improvement in the process. In order to implement the Court of Appeals’ approach, the factfinder would have to make at least two determinations: (i) the reasonable (rather than the actual) replacement cost, which would require an inquiry into the fair market value of the second facility; and (ii) the extent to which the new facility is superior to the old, which would require an analysis of the qualitative differences between the new and the old. It would also be necessary to determine the fair market value of the old property in order to provide a basis for comparison. There is a practical risk that the entire added value will not be calculated correctly; moreover, if it is correctly estimated, the entire process may amount to nothing more than a roundabout method of arriving at the market value of the condemned facility.
Finally, the substitute-facilities doctrine, as applied in this case, diverges from the principle that just compensation must be measured by an objective standard that disregards subjective values which are only of significance to an individual owner. As the Court wrote in Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U. S. 1, 5 (1949):
“The value of property springs from subjective needs and attitudes; its value to the owner may therefore differ widely from its value to the taker. Most things, however, have a general demand which gives them a value transferable from one owner to another. As opposed to such personal and variant standards as value to the particular owner whose property has been taken, this transferable value has an external validity which makes it a fair measure of public obligation to compensate the loss incurred by an owner as a result of the taking of his property for public use. In view, however, of the liability of all property to condemnation for the common good, loss to the owner of nontransferable values deriving from his unique need for property or idiosyncratic attachment to it, like loss due to an exercise of the police power, is properly treated as part of the burden of common citizenship.”
The subjective elements in the formula for determining the cost of reasonable substitute facilities would enhance the risk of error and prejudice. Since the condemnation contest is between the local community and a National Government that may be thought to have unlimited resources, the open-ended character of the substitute-facilities standard increases the likelihood that the city would actually derive the windfall that concerned both the District Court and the Court of Appeals. “Particularly is this true where these issues are to be left for jury determination, for juries should not be given sophistical and abstruse formulas as the basis for their findings nor be left to apply even sensible formulas to factors that are too elusive.” Id., at 20.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, 374 (1943) (“what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller”).
“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5.
The United States initiated the condemnation proceedings by filing a declaration of taking under 40 U. S. C. § 258a. Under that procedure the Government deposits the estimated value of the land in the registry of the court. “Title and right to possession thereupon vest immediately in the United States. In subsequent judicial proceedings, the exact value of the land (on the date the declaration of taking was filed) is determined, and the owner is awarded the difference (if any) between the adjudicated value of the land and the amount already received by the owner, plus interest on that difference.” Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U. S. 1, 5 (1984).
The new landfill site is larger in acreage than the old facility and because of superior soil and water table conditions it can be excavated to a greatpf’ depth. As a result, the capacity of the new facility is 2,100,000 cubic yards while the remaining capacity of the old facility was 650,000 cubic yards. The new facility is expected to remain in service for 41.6 years, or 28.8 years longer than the condemned facility would have remained in service. Tr. 395-397, 399, 402.
Experts for both the United States and the city agreed that a market for landfill properties existed in the area. A Government witness, for example, testified that there are “private owners of solid waste companies in the market for land for their own solid waste disposal sites. You’ve got the major corporations in the marketplace securing sites for landfill operations and then you’ve got all of your City Governments, they’re seeking locations to deposit solid waste. And all of these people at one time or another are in the marketplace looking for a site for solid waste disposal.” Id., at 297.
Based on their evaluation of the recent sale prices of comparable parcels, the experts for the city estimated the value of the condemned facility as between $367,500 and $370,000; experts for the United States estimated its value as between $160,410 and $190,000. Id., at 173, 182, 276, 353.
The city’s Director of Public Works admitted on cross-examination that the city had condemnation powers, but did not use them in acquiring the land for the new facility. Nor did the city bargain over the seller’s asking price or have the land appraised prior to the acquisition: “This was the price that he had asked for, what we ended up paying for it.” Id., at 93-94. The Government’s expert witnesses testified that the city paid considerably more than fair market value for the new land. Id., at 282, 321. 357.
The District Court awarded interest at the statutory rate of six percent, 40 U. S. C. § 258a, because the city had not offered any evidence indicating that a higher rate of interest prevailed. 529 F. Supp. 220, 223-224 (ND Tex. 1981).
Id., at 221.
Relying on Justice White’s concurring opinion in United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 U. S. 506, 518 (1979) (Lutheran Synod), the District Court wrote:
“When the doctrine of cost of substitute facilities is applied, a windfall necessarily accrues to the condemnee who is awarded an amount sufficient to replace ancient or depleted facilities with brand new facilities. [441 U. S., at 517] (Justice White concurring). See also [United States v.] 564.54 Acres, 576 F. 2d 983, 996-1000 (3d Cir. 1978) (Judge Stern concurring). By definition, a market value represents approximately what it would cost to purchase the same or similar property in the marketplace.” 529 F. Supp., at 222 (emphasis in original).
“In light of [the remand for a new trial],” the Court of Appeals instructed the District Court to allow the city a second opportunity to present evidence on whether the rate of interest on the condemnation award should exceed the statutory rate of six percent. 706 F. 2d, at 1364. In view of our disposition of the case, the Court of Appeals’ rationale for a new hearing on that issue is no longer valid.
We denied the petition for certiorari filed by the city challenging the order of a new trial and seeking the entry of judgment on the jury’s finding of the cost of the substitute facility. City of Duncanville v. United States, 465 U. S. 1022 (1984).
“This might be the case, for example, with respect to public facilities such as roads or sewers.” Lutheran Synod, 441 U. S., at 513.
“This Court has not passed on the propriety of substitute-facilities compensation for public condemnees. ... In light of our disposition of this case, we express no opinion on the appropriate measure of compensation for publicly owned property.” Id., at 509, n. 3.
Congress, of course, has the power to authorize compensation greater than the constitutional minimum. See United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373, 382 (1945); see, e. g., Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1894, 42 U. S. C. §4601 et seq. (requiring the payment of relocation assistance to specified persons and businesses displaced as a result of federal and federally assisted programs).
See United States v. Carmack, 329 U. S. 230, 242 (1946):
“[WJhen the Federal Government. . . takes for a federal public use the independently held and controlled property of a state or of a local subdivision, the Federal Government recognizes its obligation to pay just compensation for it and it is conceded in this case that the Federal Government must pay just compensation for the land condemned.”
See also Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of University and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 291 (1983).
See, e. g., United States v. Certain Property in Borough of Manhattan, 403 F. 2d 800, 803 (CA2 1968); United States v. Board of Education of Mineral County, 253 F. 2d 760, 763 (CA4 1958).
“An important town stood in the way of a necessary improvement by the United States. Three-quarters of its streets, alleys and parks and of its buildings, public and private, would have to be abandoned. . . . American Falls is a large settlement for that sparsely settled country and it was many miles from a town of any size in any direction. It was a natural and proper part of the construction of the dam and reservoir to make provision for a substitute town as near as possible to the old one.” 263 U. S., at 81.
See United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S., at 382; see generally J. Gelin & D. Miller, Federal Law of Eminent Domain § 2.4(B) (1982).
The Court of Appeals left open the question whether the city was, in fact, under an obligation to replace its landfill facility, 706 F. 2d, at 1360, n. 6, but for purposes of our decision we assume that it was obligated to do so.
In holding that the substitute-facilities measure of compensation was appropriate in this case, the Court of Appeals did not rely solely on the city’s legal obligations to arrange for garbage disposal within the municipality, but also on “any practical, economic or logistical advantages of the city’s operation and control of its own sanitary landfill.” Ibid.
“Obviously, replacing the old with a new facility will cost more than the value of the old, but the new facility itself will be more valuable and last longer.” Lutheran Synod, 441 U. S., at 518 (White, J., concurring).
Indeed, one might infer from the record that this would be the result here. See nn. 4 and 6, supra. The District Court, in fact, found that an award of fair market value would place the city “in as good a position pecuniarily as if its property had not been taken.” 529 F. Supp., at 223.
Cf. R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 402 (2d ed. 1977) (“The vogue of cost-benefit analysis has created inflated notions of the effectiveness of analytical techniques in resolving questions of cost and demand”).
Of course, we express no view on the admissibility of testimony on reproduction cost when it is offered on the issue of fair market value. Cf. United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U. S. 121, 126 (1950). The admissibility of such evidence must be evaluated under the generally applicable rules of evidence. E. g., Fed. Rules Evid. 401-403, 701-705.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue before us is the constitutionality of § 223(b) of the Communications Act of 1934. 47 U. S. C. § 223(b) (1982 ed., Supp. V). The statute, as amended in 1988, imposes an outright ban on indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages. The District Court upheld the prohibition against obscene interstate telephone communications for commercial purposes, but enjoined the enforcement of the statute insofar as it applied to indecent messages. We affirm the District Court in both respects.
HH
In 1983, Sable Communications, Inc., a Los Angeles-based affiliate of Carlin Communications, Inc., began offering sexually oriented prerecorded telephone messages (popularly known as “dial-a-porn”) through the Pacific Bell telephone network. In order to provide the messages, Sable arranged with Pacific Bell to use special telephone lines, designed to handle large volumes of calls simultaneously. Those who called the adult message number were charged a special fee. The fee was collected by Pacific Bell and divided between the phone company and the message provider. Callers outside the Los Angeles metropolitan area could reach the number by means of a long-distance toll call to the Los Angeles area code.
In 1988, Sable brought suit in District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the recently amended § 223(b). The 1988 amendments to the statute imposed a blanket prohibition on indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages. Sable brought this action to enjoin the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Justice Department from initiating any criminal investigation or prosecution, civil action or administrative proceeding under the statute. Sable also sought a declaratory judgment, challenging the indecency and the obscenity provisions of the amended § 223(b) as unconstitutional, chiefly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The District Court found that a concrete controversy existed and that Sable met the irreparable injury requirement for issuance of a preliminary injunction under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 373 (1976). 692 F. Supp. 1208, 1209 (CD Cal. 1988). The District Court denied Sable’s request for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute’s ban on obscene telephone messages, rejecting the argument that the statute was unconstitutional because it created a national standard of obscenity. The District Court, however, struck down the “indecent speech” provision of § 223(b), holding that in this respect the statute was overbroad and unconstitutional and that this result was consistent with FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). “While the government unquestionably has a legitimate interest in, e. g., protecting children from exposure to indecent dial-a-porn messages, § 223(b) is not narrowly drawn to achieve any such purpose. Its flat-out ban of indecent speech is contrary to the First Amendment.” 692 F. Supp., at 1209. Therefore, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of § 223(b) with respect to any communication alleged to be “indecent.”
We noted probable jurisdiction on Sable’s appeal of the obscenity ruling (No. 88-515); we also noted probable jurisdiction on the federal parties’ cross-appeal of the preliminary injunction holding the statute unconstitutional with respect to its ban on indecent speech (No. 88-525). 488 U. S. 1003 (1989).
II
While dial-a-porn services are a creature of this decade, the medium, in its brief history, has been the subject of much litigation and the object of a series of attempts at regulation. The first litigation involving dial-a-porn was brought under 82 Stat. 112, 47 U. S. C. § 223, which proscribed knowingly “permitting a telephone under [one’s] control” to be used to make “any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent.” However, the FCC concluded in an administrative action that the existing law did not cover dial-a-porn. In re Application for Review of Complaint Filed by Peter F. Cohalan, FCC File No. E-83-14 (memorandum opinions and orders adopted May 13, 1983).
In reaction to that FCC determination, Congress made its first effort explicitly to address “dial-a-porn” when it added a subsection 223(b) to the 1934 Communications Act. The provision, which was the predecessor to the amendment at issue in this case, pertained directly to sexually oriented commercial telephone messages and sought to restrict the access of minors to dial-a-porn. The relevant provision of the Act, Federal Communications Commission Authorization Act of 1983, Pub. L. 98-214, §8(b), 97 Stat. 1470, made it a crime to use telephone facilities to make “obscene or indecent” interstate telephone communications “for commercial purposes to any person under eighteen years of age or to any other person without that person’s consent.” 47 U. S. C. §223(b)(1) (A) (1982 ed., Supp. V). The statute criminalized commercial transmission of sexually oriented communications to minors and required the FCC to promulgate regulations laying out the means by which dial-a-porn sponsors could screen out underaged callers. § 223(b)(2). The enactment provided that it would be a defense to prosecution that the defendant restricted access to adults only, in accordance with procedures established by the FCC. The statute did not criminalize sexually oriented messages to adults, whether the messages were obscene or indecent.
The FCC initially promulgated regulations that would have established a defense to message providers operating only between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. eastern time (time channeling) and to providers requiring payment by credit card (screening) before transmission of the dial-a-porn message. Restrictions on Obscene or Indecent Telephone Message Services, 47 CFR §64.201 (1988). In Carlin Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 749 F. 2d 113 (1984) (Carlin I), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set aside the time channeling regulations and remanded to the FCC to examine other alternatives, concluding that the operating hours requirement was “both overinclusive and underinclusive” because it denied “access to adults between certain hours, but not to youths who can easily pick up a private or public telephone and call dial-a-porn during the remaining hours.” Id., at 121. The Court of Appeals did not reach the constitutionality of the underlying legislation.
In 1985, the FCC promulgated new regulations which continued to permit credit card payment as a defense to prosecution. Instead of time restrictions, however, the Commission added a defense based on use of access codes (user identification codes). Thus, it would be a defense to prosecution under § 223(b) if the defendant, before transmission of the message, restricted customer access by requiring either payment by credit card or authorization by access or identification code. 50 Fed. Reg. 42699, 42705 (1985). The regulations required each dial-a-porn vendor to develop an identification code data base and implementation scheme. Callers would be required to provide an access number for identification (or a credit card) before receiving the message. The access code would be received through the mail after the message provider reviewed the application and concluded through a written age ascertainment procedure that the applicant was at least 18 years of age. The FCC rejected a proposal for “exchange blocking” which would block or screen telephone numbers at the customer’s premises or at the telephone company offices. In Carlin Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 787 F. 2d 846 (CA2 1986) (Carlin II), the Court of Appeals set aside the new regulations because of the FCC’s failure adequately to consider customer premises blocking. Again, the constitutionality of the underlying legislation was not addressed.
The FCC then promulgated a third set of regulations, which again rejected customer premises blocking but added to the prior defenses of credit card payment and access code use a third defense: message scrambling. 52 Fed. Reg. 17760 (1987). Under this system, providers would scramble the message, which would then be unintelligible without the use of a descrambler, the sale of which would be limited to adults. On January 15, 1988, in Carlin Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 837 F. 2d 546 (Carlin III), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 924 (1988), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the new regulations, which made access codes, along with credit card payments and scrambled messages, defenses to prosecution under § 223(b) for dial-a-porn providers, were supported by the evidence, had been properly arrived at, and were a “feasible and effective way to serve” the “compelling state interest” in protecting minors, 837 F. 2d, at 555; but the Court directed the FCC to reopen proceedings if a less restrictive technology became available. The Court of Appeals, however, this time reaching the constitutionality of the statute, invalidated § 223(b) insofar as it sought to apply to nonobscene speech. Id., at 560, 561.
Thereafter, in April 1988, Congress amended § 223(b) of the Communications Act to prohibit indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone communications directed to any person regardless of age. The amended statute, which took effect on July 1, 1988, also eliminated the requirement that the FCC promulgate regulations for restricting access to minors since a total ban was imposed on dial-a-porn, making it illegal for adults, as well as children, to have access to the sexually explicit messages, Pub. L. 100-297, 102 Stat. 424. It was this version of the statute that was in effect when Sable commenced this action.
r — <
In the ruling at issue in No. 88-515, the District Court upheld § 223(b)’s prohibition of obscene telephone messages as constitutional. We agree with that judgment. In contrast to the prohibition on indecent communications, there is no constitutional barrier to the ban on obscene dial-a-porn recordings. We have repeatedly held that the protection of the First Amendment does not extend to obscene speech. See, e. g., Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 69 (1973). The cases before us today do not require us to decide what is obscene or what is indecent but rather to determine whether Congress is empowered to prohibit transmission of obscene telephonic communications.
In its facial challenge to the statute, Sable argues that the legislation creates an impermissible national standard of obscenity, and that it places message senders in a “double bind” by compelling them to tailor all their messages to the least tolerant community.
We do not read § 223(b) as contravening the “contemporary community standards” requirement of Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973). Section 223(b) no more establishes a “national standard” of obscenity than do federal statutes prohibiting the mailing of obscene materials, 18 U. S. C. § 1461, see Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974), or the broadcasting of obscene messages, 18 U. S. C. §1464. In United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S. 351 (1971), we said that Congress could prohibit the use of the mails for commercial distribution of materials properly classifiable as obscene, even though those materials weré being distributed to willing adults who stated that they were adults. Similarly, we hold today that there is no constitutional stricture against Congress’ prohibiting the interstate transmission of obscene commercial telephone recordings.
We stated in United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123 (1973), that the Miller standards, including the “contemporary community standards” formulation, apply to federal legislation. As we have said before, the fact that “distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be subjected to varying community standards in the various federal judicial districts into which they transmit the materials does not render a federal statute unconstitutional because of the failure of application of uniform national standards of obscenity.” Hamling v. United States, supra, at 106.
Furthermore, Sable is free to tailor its messages, on a selective basis, if it so chooses, to the communities it chooses to serve. While Sable may be forced to incur some costs in developing and implementing a system for screening the locale of incoming calls, there is no constitutional impediment to enacting a law which may impose such costs on a medium electing to provide these messages. Whether Sable chooses to hire operators to determine the source of the calls or engages with the telephone company to arrange for the screening and blocking of out-of-area calls or finds another means for providing messages compatible with community standards is a decision for the message provider to make. There is no constitutional barrier under Miller to prohibiting communications that are obscene in some communities under local standards even though they are not obscene in others. If Sable’s audience is comprised of different communities with different local standards, Sable ultimately bears the burden of complying with the prohibition on obscene messages.
IV
In No. 88-525, the District Court concluded that while the Government has a legitimate interest in protecting children from exposure to indecent dial-a-porn messages, § 223(b) was not sufficiently narrowly drawn to serve that purpose and thus violated the First Amendment. We agree.
Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment; and the federal parties do not submit that the sale of such materials to adults could be criminalized solely because they are indecent. The Government may, however, regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest. We have recognized that there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. This interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 639-640 (1968); New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 756-757 (1982). The Government may serve this legitimate interest, but to withstand constitutional scrutiny, “it must do so by narrowly drawn regulations designed to serve those interests without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms. Hynes v. Mayor ofOradell, 425 U. S., at 620; First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 786 (1978).” Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620, 637 (1980). It is not enough to show that the Government’s ends are compelling; the means must be carefully tailored to achieve those ends.
In Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380 (1957), a unanimous Court reversed a conviction under a statute which made it an offense to make available to the general public materials found to have a potentially harmful influence on minors. The Court found the law to be insufficiently tailored since it denied adults their free speech rights by allowing them to read only what was acceptable for children. As Justice Frankfurter said in that case, “[s]urely this is to bum the house to roast the pig.” Id., at 383. In our judgment, this case, like Butler, presents us with “legislation not reasonably restricted to the evil with which it is said to deal.” Ibid.
In attempting to justify the complete ban and criminalization of the indecent commercial telephone communications with adults as well as minors, the federal parties rely on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978), a case in which the Court considered whether the FCC has the power to regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene. In an emphatically narrow holding, the Pacifica Court concluded that special treatment of indecent broadcasting was justified.
Pacifica is readily distinguishable from these cases, most obviously because it did not involve a total ban on broadcasting indecent material. The FCC rule was not “ ‘intended to place an absolute prohibition on the broadcast of this type of language, but rather sought to channel it to times of day when children most likely would not be exposed to it.’” Pacifica, supra, at 733, quoting Pacifica Foundation, 59 F. C. C. 2d 892 (1976). The issue of a total ban was not before the Court. 438 U. S., at 750, n. 28.
The Pacifica opinion also relied on the “unique” attributes of broadcasting, noting that broadcasting is “uniquely pervasive,” can intrude on the privacy of the home without prior warning as to program content, and is “uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read.” Id., at 748-749. The private, commercial telephone communications at issue here are substantially different from the public radio broadcast at issue in Pacifica. In contrast to public displays, unsolicited mailings and other means of expression which the recipient has no meaningful opportunity to avoid, the dial-it medium requires the listener to take affirmative steps to receive the communication. There is no “captive audience” problem here; callers will generally not be unwilling listeners. The context of dial-in services, where a caller seeks and is willing to pay for the communication, is manifestly different from a situation in which a listener does not want the received message. Placing a telephone call is not the same as turning on a radio and being taken by surprise by an indecent message. Unlike an unexpected outburst on a radio broadcast, the message received by one who places a call to a dial-a-porn service is not so invasive or surprising that it prevents an unwilling listener from avoiding exposure to it.
The Court in Pacifica was careful “to emphasize the narrowness of [its] holding.” Id., at 750. As we did in Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60 (1983), we distinguish Pacifica from the cases before us and reiterate that “the government may not ‘reduce the adult population ... to . . . only what is fit for children.’” 463 U. S., at 73, quoting Butler v. Michigan, supra, at 383.
The federal parties nevertheless argue that the total ban on indecent commercial telephone communications is justified because nothing less could prevent children from gaining access to such messages. We find the argument quite unpersuasive. The FCC, after lengthy proceedings, determined that its credit card, access code, and scrambling rules were a satisfactory solution to the problem of keeping indecent dial-a-porn messages out of the reach of minors. The Court of Appeals, after careful consideration, agreed that these rules represented a “feasible and effective” way to serve the Government’s compelling interest in protecting children. 837 F. 2d, at 555.
The federal parties now insist that the rules would not be effective enough — that enterprising youngsters could and would evade the rules and gain access to communications from which they should be shielded. There is no evidence in the record before us to that effect, nor could there be since the FCC’s implementation of § 223(b) prior to its 1988 amendment has never been tested over time. In this respect, the federal parties assert that in amending § 223(b) in 1988, Congress expressed its view that there was not a sufficiently effective way to protect minors short of the total ban that it enacted. The federal parties claim that we must give deference to that judgment.
To the extent that the federal parties suggest that we should defer to Congress’ conclusion about an issue of constitutional law, our answer is that while we do not ignore it, it is our task in the end to decide whether Congress has violated the Constitution. This is particularly true where the Legislature has concluded that its product does not violate the First Amendment. “Deference to a legislative finding cannot limit judicial inquiry when First Amendment rights are at stake.” Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829, 843 (1978). The federal parties, however, also urge us to defer to the factual findings by Congress relevant to resolving the constitutional issue; they rely on Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305, 331, n. 12 (1985), and Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 72-73 (1981). Beyond the fact that whatever deference is due legislative findings would not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law, our answer is that the congressional record contains no legislative findings that would justify us in concluding that there is no constitutionally acceptable less restrictive means, short of a total ban, to achieve the Government’s interest in protecting minors.
There is no doubt Congress enacted a total ban on both obscene and indecent telephone communications. But aside from conclusory statements during the debates by proponents of the bill, as well as similar assertions in hearings on a substantially identical bill the year before, H. R. 1786, that under the FCC regulations minors could still have access to dial-a-porn messages, the congressional record presented to us contains no evidence as to how effective or ineffective the FCC’s most recent regulations were or might prove to be. It may well be that there is no fail-safe method of guaranteeing that never will a minor be able to access the dial-a-porn system. The bill that was enacted, however, was introduced on the floor; nor was there a committee report on the bill from which the language of the enacted bill was taken. No Congressman or Senator purported to present a considered judgment with respect to how often or to what extent minors could or would circumvent the rules and have access to dial-a-porn messages. On the other hand, in the hearings on H. R. 1786, the Committee heard testimony from the FCC and other witnesses that the FCC rules would be effective and should be tried out in practice. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Chairman of the Subcommittee suggested consultation looking toward “drafting a piece of legislation that will pass constitutional muster, while at the same time providing for the practical relief which families and groups are looking for.” Hearings, at 235. The bill never emerged from Committee.
For all we know from this record, the FCC’s technological approach to restricting dial-a-porn messages to adults who seek them would be extremely effective, and only a few of the most enterprising and disobedient young people would manage to secure access to such messages. If this is the case, it seems to us that § 223(b) is not a narrowly tailored effort to serve the compelling interest of preventing minors from being exposed to indecent telephone messages. Under our precedents, § 223(b), in its present form, has the invalid effect of limiting the content of adult telephone conversations to that which is suitable for children to hear. It is another case of “burn[ing] the house to roast the pig.” Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S., at 383.
Because the statute’s denial of adult access to telephone messages which are indecent but not obscene far exceeds that which is necessary to limit the access of minors to such messages, we hold that the ban does not survive constitutional scrutiny.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court in Nos. 88-515 and 88-525.
It is so ordered.
A typical prerecorded message lasts anywhere from 30 seconds to two minutes and may be called by up to 50,000 people hourly through a single telephone number. Comment, Telephones, Sex, and the First Amendment, 33 UCLA L. Rev. 1221, 1223 (1986).
Sable appealed the District Court ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, concurrently filing an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. The District Court entered an order temporarily enjoining the FCC from enforcing the statute during the pendency of the appeal. After the federal parties filed their notice of appeal to this Court from the District Court’s grant of the preliminary injunction as to “indecent” communication, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered an order directing Sable either to file a motion for voluntary dismissal or to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Sable filed an ex parte application to this Court for an injunction pending appeal, as well as a return on the Court of Appeals’ order to show cause. The Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the appeal since the filing of a direct appeal by the FCC had the effect of transferring Sable’s appeal to this Court.
Dial-a-porn is big business. The dial-a-porn service in New York City alone received six to seven million calls a month for the 6-month period ending in April 1985. Carlin Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 787 F. 2d 846, 848 (CA2 1986).
“‘(b)(1) Whoever knowingly—
“(A) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication, by means of telephone, makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene or indecent communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call; or
“(B) permits any telephone facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A),
“shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
After Sable and the federal parties filed their jurisdictional statements with this Court, but before we noted probable jurisdiction, § 223(b) was again revised by Congress in § 7524 of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, § 7524, 102 Stat. 4502, which was enacted as Title VII, Subtitle N, of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690 (codified at 47 U. S. C. § 223(b) (1988 ed.)). This most recent legislation, signed into law on November 18, 1988, places the prohibition against obscene commercial telephone messages in a subsection separate from that containing the prohibition against indecent messages. In addition, under the new law, the prohibition against obscene or indecent telephone messages is enforceable only through criminal penalties and no longer through administrative proceedings by the FCC.
Section 223(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by § 7524 of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, states in pertinent part:
“(b)(1) Whoever knowingly—
“(A) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication, by means of telephone, makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call; or
“(B) permits any telephone facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by clause (i),
“shall be fined in accordance with title 18 of the United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
“(2) Whoever knowingly—
“(A) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication, by means of telephone, makes (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call; or
“(B) permits any telephone facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by clause (i),
“shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.” 102 Stat. 4502.
Since the substantive prohibitions under this amendment remain the same, this case is not moot.
In its jurisdictional statement, Sable also argued that the prohibition on obscene calls is not severable from the ban on indecent messages. This last claim was not renewed in Sable’s brief on the merits, presumably as a result of the subsequent modification of the statute in which Congress specifically placed the ban on obscene commercial telephone messages in a subsection separate from the prohibition against indecent messages. Thus, the severability question is no longer before us.
See e. g., 134 Cong. Rec. 7331 (1988) (statement of Rep. Bliley); id., at 7336 (statement of Rep. Coats); id., at 7330 (statement of Rep. Hall; id., at 7599 (statement of Sen. Hatch).
Telephone Decency Act of 1987: Hearing on H. R. 1786 before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 2, 15 (1987) (Rep. Bliley) (Hearings); id,., at 18 (Rep. Coats); id., at 20 (Rep. Tauke).
These hearings were held while Carlin III was pending before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
See, e. g., Hearings, at 129, 130, 132-133, 195-196, 198-200, 230-231.
In the Hearings on H. R. 1786, id., at 231-232, the following colloquy occurred between Congressman Nielson and Mr. Ward, a United States Attorney interested in § 223(b) prosecutions:
“Mr. NIELSON. Let me ask the question I asked the previous panel. Do any of the current alternatives by the FCC — that is the access codes, the credit cards, or the scrambling — do any of those provide a foolproof way of limiting dial-a-porn access to adults only? Either of you.
“Mr. WARD. I think that — it’s not foolproof, but I think the access code requirement and the screening option, both provide the means of dramatically reducing the number of calls from minors in the United States, almost eliminating them. So I think that it would be a very effective way to do it.
“Mr. NIELSON. But not foolproof?
“Mr. WARD. Not absolutely foolproof.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether a “failure to report” for penal confinement is a “ ‘violent felony’ ” within the terms of the Armed Career Criminal Act. 18 U. S. C. § 924(e). We hold that it is not.
I
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) imposes a 15-year mandatory prison term on an individual convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm if that individual has “three previous convictions ... for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another.” § 924(e)(1). ACCA defines a “violent felony” as a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” that also either
“(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
“(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B).
Clause (ii), ACCA’s so-called residual clause, is at issue here.
II
The petitioner, Deondery Chambers, pleaded guilty to a charge of being a felon unlawfully in possession of a firearm. § 922(g). At sentencing the Government asked the District Court to apply ACCA’s 15-year mandatory prison term because, in its view, three of Chambers’ prior convictions qualified as an ACCA “serious drug offense” or “violent felony.” Chambers conceded that two of his prior convictions, namely, a 1998 conviction for robbery and aggravated battery and a 1999 drug crime conviction, fell within ACCA’s definitions. But he disputed the Government’s claim as to a third conviction. That third conviction arose out of Chambers’ sentence for his 1998 robbery and battery offense. The sentence required Chambers to report to a local prison for 11 weekends of incarceration. He failed to report for weekend confinement on four occasions, and was later convicted of the crime of “fail[ing] to report to a penal institution.” Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §5/31-6(a) (West Supp. 2008).
The District Court treated the “failure to report” as a form of what the relevant Illinois statute calls “escape from [a] penal institution,” ibid., and held that the crime qualified as a “violent felony” under ACCA. The Court of Appeals agreed. 473 F. 3d 724 (CA7 2007). In light of disagreement among the Circuits as to whether failure to report for imprisonment falls within the scope of ACCA’s definition of “violent felony,” we granted certiorari. Compare United States v. Winn, 364 F. 3d 7, 12 (CA1 2004) (failure to report is a “violent felony”), with United States v. Piccolo, 441 F. 3d 1084, 1088 (CA9 2006) (failure to report is not a “violent felony”).
Ill
We initially consider the classification of the crime. In ordinary speech, words such as “crime” and “felony” can refer not only to a generic set of acts, say, burglary in general, but also to a specific act committed on a particular occasion, say, the burglary that the defendant engaged in last month. We have made clear, however, that, for purposes of ACCA’s definitions, it is the generic sense of the word “felony” that counts. Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575, 602 (1990); see also Shepard v. United States, 544 U. S. 13,16-17 (2005). The statute’s defining language, read naturally, uses “felony” to refer to a crime as generally committed. And by so construing the statute, one avoids the practical difficulty of trying to ascertain at sentencing, perhaps from a paper record mentioning only a guilty plea, whether the present defendant’s prior crime, as committed on a particular occasion, did or did not involve violent behavior. See id., at 20-21. Thus, to determine, for example, whether attempted burglary is a “violent felony,” we have had to examine, not the unsuccessful burglary the defendant attempted on a particular occasion, but the generic crime of attempted burglary. James v. United States, 550 U. S. 192, 204-206 (2007).
This categorical approach requires courts to choose the right category. And sometimes the choice is not obvious. The nature of the behavior that likely underlies a statutory phrase matters in this respect. Where Massachusetts, for example, placed within a single, separately numbered statutory section (entitled “Breaking and entering at night,” Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 266, § 16 (West 2008)) burglary of a “building, ship, vessel or vehicle,” this Court found that the behavior underlying, say, breaking into a building differs so significantly from the behavior underlying, say, breaking into a vehicle that for ACCA purposes a sentencing court must treat the two as different crimes. See Shepard, supra, at 16-17; see also Taylor, supra, at 598.
The Illinois statute now before us, like the Massachusetts statute, places together in a single numbered statutory section several different kinds of behavior. It separately describes those behaviors as (1) escape from a penal institution, (2) escape from the custody of an employee of a penal institution, (3) failing to report to a penal institution, (4) failing to report for periodic imprisonment, (5) failing to return from furlough, (6) failing to return from work and day release, and (7) failing to abide by the terms of home confinement. Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, § 5/31 — 6(a); see Appendix A, infra. We know from the state-court information in the record that Chambers pleaded guilty to “knowingly fail[ing] to report” for periodic imprisonment “to the Jefferson County Jail, a penal institution.” App. 68; see Shepard, supra, at 25 (sentencing court may look, for example, to charging document, plea agreement, jury instructions, or transcript of plea colloquy to determine crime at issue). But we must decide whether for ACCA purposes a failure to report counts as a separate crime.
Unlike the lower courts, we believe that a failure to report (as described in the statutory provision’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth phrases) is a separate crime, different from escape (the subject matter of the statute’s first and second phrases), and from the potentially less serious failure to abide by the terms of home confinement (the subject of the final phrase); The behavior that likely underlies a failure to report would seem less likely to involve a risk of physical harm than the less passive, more aggressive behavior underlying an escape from custody. See Begay v. United States, 553 U. S. 137, 144-146 (2008). Moreover, the statute itself not only lists escape and failure to report separately (in its title and its body) but also places the behaviors in two different felony classes (Class Two and Class Three) of different degrees of seriousness. See Appendix A, infra.
At the same time, we believe the statutory phrases setting forth various kinds of failure to report (or to return) describe roughly similar forms of behavior. Each is characterized by a failure to present oneself for detention on a specified occasion. All amount to variations on a single theme. For that reason we consider them as together constituting a single category. Cf. James, supra, at 207-209 (determining that where separately listed behaviors pose a similar degree of risk, sentencing courts may consider all listed behaviors as a single crime). We consequently treat the statute for ACCA purposes as containing at least two separate crimes, namely, escape from custody on the one hand, and a failure to report on the other. Failure to abide by home confinement terms— potentially the least serious of the offenses — is not at issue here.
IV
We now must consider whether the “failure to report” crime satisfies ACCA’s “violent felony” definition. It clearly satisfies the first part of that definition, for it is a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B). But it satisfies none of the other parts. It does not have “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). It does not consist of “burglary, arson, or extortion,” or “involv[e] use of explosives.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). And, more critically for present purposes, it does not “ ‘involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.’” See Begay, 553 U. S., at 141-142; id., at 153-154 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (treating serious risk of physical injury to another as critical definitional factor); id., at 156-158 (Alito, J., dissenting) (same).
Conceptually speaking, the crime amounts to a form of inaction, a far cry from the “purposeful, ‘violent,’ and ‘aggressive’ conduct” potentially at issue when an offender uses explosives against property, commits arson, burgles a dwelling or residence, or engages in certain forms of extortion. Cf. id., at 144-145. While an offender who fails to report must of course be doing something at the relevant time, there is no reason to believe that the something poses a serious potential risk of physical injury. Cf. James, 550 U. S., at 203-204. To the contrary, an individual who fails to report would seem unlikely, not likely, to call attention to his whereabouts by simultaneously engaging in additional violent and unlawful conduct.
The Government argues that a failure to report reveals the offender’s special, strong aversion to penal custody. And it points to three cases arising over a period of 30 years in which reported opinions indicate that individuals shot at officers attempting to recapture them. See United States v. Eaglin, 571 F. 2d 1069, 1072 (CA9 1977); State v. Johnson, 245 S. W. 3d 288, 291 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008); State v. Jones, 96 Wash. App. 369, 371-372, 979 P. 2d 898, 899 (1999). But even if we assume for argument’s sake the relevance of violence that may occur long after an offender fails to report, we are not convinced by the Government’s argument. The offender’s aversion to penal custody, even if special, is beside the point. The question is whether such an offender is significantly more likely than others to attack, or physically to resist, an apprehender, thereby producing a “serious potential risk of physical injury.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). And here a United States Sentencing Commission report helps provide a conclusive, negative answer. See Report on Federal Escape Offenses in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007, p. 7 (Nov. 2008) (hereinafter Commission’s Report), reprinted in part in Appendix B, infra. See also 473 F. 3d, at 727 (Posner, J.) (urging that such research be done).
The Commission’s Report identifies every federal case in 2006 or 2007 in which a federal sentencing court applied the Sentencing Guideline, “Escape, Instigating or Assisting Escape,” 1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2P1.1 (Nov. 2008), and in which sufficient detail was provided, say, in the presentence report, about the circumstances of the crime to permit analysis. The analysis included calculation of the likelihood that violence would accompany commission of the escape or the offender’s later apprehension.
Of 414 such cases, 160 involved a failure to report either for incarceration (42) or for custody after having been temporarily released (118). Commission’s Report 7; see also Appendix B, infra. Of these 160 cases, none at all involved violence — not during commission of the offense itself, not during the offender’s later apprehension — although in 5 instances (3.1%) the offenders were armed. Ibid. The upshot is that thé study strongly supports the intuitive belief that failure to report does not involve a serious potential risk of physical injury.
The three reported cases to which the Government points do not show the contrary. The Sentencing Commission culled its 160 instances from a set of federal sentences imposed over a period of two years. The Government apparently culled its three examples from a set of state and federal sentences imposed over a period of 30 years. Compare Eag lin, supra (CA9 1977), with Johnson, supra (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). Given the larger set, the presence of three instances of violence is consistent with the Commission’s data. Simple multiplication (2 years versus 30 years; federal alone versus federal-plus-state) suggests that they show only a small risk of physical violence (less than one in several thousand). And the Government provides no other empirical information.
For these reasons we conclude that the crime here at issue falls outside the scope of ACCA’s definition of “violent felony.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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.
APPENDIXES
A
“Escape; failure to report to a penal institution or to report for periodic imprisonment.
“A person convicted of a felony, adjudicated a delinquent minor for the commission of a felony offense under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, or charged with the commission of a felony who intentionally escapes from any penal institution or from the custody of an employee of that institution commits a Class 2 felony; however, a person convicted of a felony or adjudicated a delinquent minor for the commission of a felony offense under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 who knowingly fails to report to a penal institution or to report for periodic imprisonment at any time or knowingly fails to return from furlough or from work and day release or who knowingly fails to abide by the terms of home confinement is guilty of a Class 3 felony.” Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §5/31-6(a) (West Supp. 2008).
B
Report on Federal Escape Offenses in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007, p. 7, fig. 1 (Nov. 2008).
Cases can fall into more than one category. For example, one case could involve both force and injury. Such a case would be represented in the table for force and also for injury. Therefore, the reader should not aggregate the numbers in any column.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The sole question for decision in this case is whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has the power under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act to submit a plan of reorganization to a district court whereby a debtor railroad would be compelled to merge with another railroad having no prior connection with the debtor. Answer to this problem depends on understanding of a long legislative history. First, however, it is necessary to put the problem into its relevant context.
In August of 1931, the Florida East Coast Railway was thrown into equity receivership. It operated in this manner until January of 1941, when a committee representing the owners of a substantial portion of the debtor’s principal bond issue filed a petition for reorganization under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The petition was approved by the court, and, as provided in the statute, proceedings were initiated before the Interstate Commerce Commission for hearings on a plan of reorganization formulated by the bondholders’ committee.
In the course of the next ten years, many proposals have been considered by the Commission. Most of them were rejected for one reason or another, but three have in turn been certified by it to the District Court. None has as yet been confirmed by that court. The initial plan provided for a simple internal reorganization. It was rejected by the court, and the case was remanded to the Commission with directions to take account of an intervening improvement in the debtor’s cash position. 52 F. Supp. 420. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, the present respondent, first appeared on the scene in November 1944 when, after the Commission’s hearings for the purpose of devising a second plan had been closed, one Lynch, joined by other bondholders of the debtor, sought to reopen the proceedings for the purpose of proposing a new plan whereby each recipient of stock in the reorganized debtor would be required to sell 60% of his interest at par to Atlantic, a connecting carrier, thereby giving that railroad operating control of the debtor. On November 30, 1944, Atlantic was allowed to intervene before the Commission in support of the Lynch proposal. The St. Joe Paper Co., on the other hand, which had by that time acquired a majority interest in the debtor’s principal bond issue, opposed the Lynch plan. The Commission rejected the Lynch proposal, indicating that, in view of Atlantic’s operating deficits over the past years, combining the two railroads would not be in the public interest at that time. 261 I. C. C. 151, 187.
The subsequent struggle for control of the debtor has been largely between these two interests — the St. Joe Paper Co., owner of the major interest in the debtor, and Atlantic, a connecting carrier anxious to acquire the debtor’s coveted Florida east coast traffic from Jacksonville to Miami. Shortly after the Commission’s rejection of the Lynch plan, Atlantic proposed its own plan providing for the merger of the debtor into Atlantic in return for the distribution of cash and various types of Atlantic’s securities to the debtor’s bondholders. St. Joe again opposed, as did various other bondholders, two competitors of Atlantic, an association representing the debtor’s employees, and other interested parties. The matter was referred to an Examiner who, after a lengthy investigation, found that such a merger would not be in the public interest, and that the Atlantic plan would not constitute “fair and equitable” treatment for all the unwilling bondholders who were in substance the owners of the debtor railroad. The Commission, however, by a sharply divided decision overruled the Examiner and sanctioned a “forced merger.” 267 I. C. C. 295. Circuit Judge Sibley, sitting in the District Court, set the plan aside on the ground that the Commission had no power under the statute to force a merger; in addition, he held the plan not “fair and equitable.” 81 F. Supp. 926. On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, two judges sustained the Commission’s authority to propose such a plan while the third agreed with Judge Sibley; but a majority agreed with the District Court that the plan was not “fair and equitable.” 179 F. 2d 538.
The Commission then formulated another plan, which likewise provided for a forced merger of the debtor and Atlantic, 282 I. C. C. 81, and Circuit Judge Strum, sitting in the District Court, while bound on the question of the Commission’s power by the prior Court of Appeals decision, again set the plan aside as unfair and inequitable. 103 F. Supp. 825. The Court of Appeals was now convened en banc. Three of its judges, without further consideration of the Commission’s power, reversed the District Court and found the plan fair and equitable. The other two judges dissented and adopted the reasoning of Judge Sibley in the earlier case, i. e., that the Commission had no power under the statute to propose such a compelled merger plan. 201 F. 2d 325. Because of the importance of this question in the administration of § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, we granted certiorari. 345 U. S. 948.
The procedure by which the Commission is authorized to consider and approve a plan of reorganization and then submit it to the interested parties for acceptance, as well as the courts for judicial confirmation, is governed by an elaborate statutory scheme. See § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 47 Stat. 1474, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 205. Any question such as the one now here must be resolved by reference to this governing law and its underlying purpose, imbedded as that is not merely in the formal words of the statute but in the history which gives them meaning. If ever a long course of legislation is to be treated as an organic whole, whose parts are not disjecta membra, this is true of § 77.
The respondent relies on subsection (b)(5) to sustain the Commission’s power to submit a forced merger plan of the type here involved. This was subsection (b) (3) of the original § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act as enacted in 1933, 47 Stat. 1474, 1475. It then read, insofar as here material,
“(b) A plan of reorganization within the meaning of this section... (3) shall provide adequate means for the execution of the plan, which may, so far as may be consistent with the provisions of sections 1 and 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, include... the merger of the debtor with any other railroad corporation....”
The permissive merger provision in plans of reorganization was thus made expressly conditional on compliance with the requirements of §§ 1 and 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act. The reason for this proviso, commonly-referred to as the “consistency clause,” was stated as follows by Commissioner Joseph Eastman, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Interstate Commerce Commission and one of the weightiest voices before Congress on railroad matters:
“Explanation. — This act ought not to authorize railroad mergers... which are inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, particularly the consolidation-plan provisions. These amendments are intended to avoid that possibility.”
In the ensuing floor debates it was further made clear that the purpose of the consistency clause was to subject mergers under § 77 to whatever restrictions obtained for mergers under the Interstate Commerce Act. Representative Hatton Sumners, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which had reported out the bill and floor manager of the bill, gave this assurance:
“Mr. HORR. May I inquire whether or not, where the word'reorganization' is used, the gentleman is of the opinion that this would encourage consolidations of railroads?
“Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. They could not be consolidated in violation of the interstate commerce act.
“Mr. HORR. They would first have to go through that?
“Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. They would first have to go through that.” 76 Cong. Rec. 2909.
And Congressman Rayburn, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, put it thus:
“Fear has been expressed that with the enactment of this bill the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the courts over consolidations and mergers would be expanded. It is my firm conviction that this proposal in specific provisions safeguards the present consolidation and merger provisions of the interstate commerce act and gives no additional authority to the commission or the courts in these matters.” 76 Cong. Rec. 2917-2918.
In view of this deliberate and explicit incorporation of the restrictions attending mergers under the Interstate Commerce Act into § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, it is necessary to grite some consideration to the merger and consolidation provisions of the former, 49 U. S. C. § 5. The history of these provisions is long and tortuous; its detailed summary is relegated to an appendix, post, p. 315. Suffice it to say here that one clear thread which runs through a course of legislation extending over a period of twenty years, as well as through the various commentaries upon it, is that only mergers voluntarily initiated by the participating carriers are encompassed by that statute and sanctioned by it. From the initial enactment in the Transportation Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 456, 480, to the most recent comprehensive re-examination of these provisions in the Transportation Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 898, 905, Congress has consistently and insistently denied the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to take the initiative in getting one railroad to turn over its properties to another railroad in return for assorted securities of the latter. The role of the Commission in this regard has traditionally been confined to approving or disapproving mergers proposed by the railroads to be merged. And this adamant position taken by Congress has not been for want of attempts to secure relaxation. Advocacy of giving the Commission power to propose and enforce mergers has been steady and, at times, strong, but it has consistently failed in Congress.
The reasons for this hostility to mergers imposed by the Commission derive largely from the disadvantages attributed by Congress to such far-reaching corporate revampings. Employees of the constituent railroads would, it has been feared, almost certainly be adversely affected. Shippers and communities adequately served by railroad A may suddenly find themselves unfavorably dependent upon railroad B. Investors in one railroad would, contrary to their expectations, find their holdings transmuted into securities of a different railroad. As the Commission in its 1938 Annual Report said of consolidations:
“Projects of this character cannot be crammed down the throats of those who must carry them out or conform to them. Legal compulsion can be used with advantage to bring recalcitrants and stragglers into line, but not to drive hostile majorities into action.” (P. 23.)
We therefore conclude that the Commission does not have under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act a power which Congress has repeatedly denied it under the Interstate Commerce Act, namely to initiate the merger or consolidation of two railroads. In light of the continuously and vehemently reiterated policy against endowing the ICC with such a power under § 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act, it is inconceivable, wholly apart from the consistency clause, that such was the sub silentio effect of § 77, an emergency statute hurriedly enacted with scarcely any debate. The consistency clause serves but to strengthen this natural presumption against such a tacit grant. It would require unambiguous language indeed to accomplish a contrary result; yet nowhere in the committee reports and the debates on the original § 77, nor in any of the. legislative materials relating to the thorough re-examination of that statute in 1935, can we find so much as one word which conveys the impression that as to mergers under the Bankruptcy Act, Congress stealthily designed to jettison its long-standing and oft-reiterated policy against compulsory mergers. On the contrary, after the enactment of § 77 in 1933, the Commission in its annual reports, and the Federal Coordinator of Transportation in his several reports, had frequent occasion to discuss § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act and § 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act. It would indeed be strange for these railroad authorities to bemoan the Commission’s inability to initiate mergers and consolidations if it had been a fact that as to the substantial portion of the Nation’s railroad mileage then in receivership or § 77 proceedings the Commission clearly had this very power. Had it been the declared intention of the drafters of § 77 to confer such a power, it is fair to assume that, in view of the persistent opposition of organized labor and other groups to such attempts under the Commerce Act, the statute would not have passed.
All this of course is not to say that mergers cannot be carried out in the course of a § 77 reorganization. It merely means that if they are, they must be consummated in accordance with all the requirements and restrictions applicable to mergers under the Act primarily concerned with railroad amalgamations, the Interstate Commerce Act. So far as here relevant, that means that the merger must be worked out and put before the Commission by the merging carriers. It also means that one carrier cannot be railroaded by the Commission into an undesired merger with another carrier.
In short, the consistency clause of § 77 incorporates by reference § 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended. And the very heart of § 5 is that a merger of two carriers may be approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission only if it originates as a voluntary proposal by the merging carriers. This essential prerequisite for a merger between Florida East Coast and Atlantic Coast Line — two existing corporate entities— must be complied with, for by virtue of the consistency clause the command of Congress applies even if one of these carriers is in § 77 proceedings just as much as it would if neither of the carriers were in receivership or trusteeship. The legislative incorporation of § 5 into § 77 should not result in its judicial mutilation.
The most recent occasion on which the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce comprehensively re-examined the subject of railroad reorganization was the report submitted in 1946 by Chairman Wheeler, the guiding spirit of most of the legislation here under consideration. Much of what the Committee says there under the heading of “Avoidance of consolidation statute” is highly relevant here:
“In view of [the] many interests, immediately and directly affected by any proposed consolidation, Congress has provided a series of safeguards and procedural steps, in section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act....
“This statute and its statutory procedure, statutory safeguards, and statutory rights have been set to one side in the proceedings under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act. The institutional and other groups, and the Commission, have assumed that they could effect consolidations, not under the Interstate Commerce Act, but under the Bankruptcy Act; not under a statute dealing with transportation, but under a statute dealing with financial reorganization; not under a section which considers and specifies one single financial question, the effect of consolidation on fixed charges, but under a section which deals with all sorts of financial problems, most of them not related to consolidation. They have assumed to effect consolidations, not under legislation which deals primarily with the rights and interests of States, local communities, and employees, but under a bankruptcy law which deals primarily with the interests of securityholders.
“Those who are trying to bypass this statute and to consolidate railroads as part of a financial reorganization proceeding bring consolidation into the proceeding as something subsidiary, a mere tail to the main kite. When governors of States and representatives of communities and employees organizations are invited to the proceedings by the Commission, they find the issue which primarily concerns them enveloped in all sorts of other questions of a financial and technical nature. If they should want to appeal to a court from a consolidation decision in this grab bag of proceedings, their task would be far more complicated and far more difficult than Congress intended when it passed section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act. There is always the available cry — the courts should not disapprove any part of the reorganization plan, even though it be a consolidation matter, lest all the time and labor and expense which has gone into the reorganization proceeding be lost.
“The Commission justifies its course of action by citing two subsections of section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act. Subsection (b) lists a number of the substantive changes which can be made through a plan of reorganization under section 77. Then it lists a number of ‘means for the execution of the plan/.... Among these ‘means for the execution of the plan’ is included ‘the merger or consolidation of the debtor with another corporation or corporations.’ Subsection (f) authorizes the Commission, after the court confirms the plan, ‘without further proceedings’ to authorize the issuance of securities, transfer of property, sale, ‘consolidation or merger of the debtor’s property, or pooling of traffic, to the extent contemplated by the plan and not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of the Interstate Commerce Act as now or hereafter amended.’
“Note should be taken of the Commission’s position. It could, under its construction of the statute, authorize not only mergers, but also pooling of traffic, without complying with the requirements laid down by Congress in section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act. Consolidations, mergers, and pooling of traffic have long been regarded as dangerous, if not carefully regulated and supervised; Congress has long had those evils in mind and sought to prevent excesses, while saving what is good in such transactions; to this end Congress carefully elaborated a considerable number of safeguards in section 5 of that act. None of those safeguards is elaborated in section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act.
“It may not be assumed that Congress intended, in section 77, to permit it to bypass the section 5 procedure and proceedings. Section 77 was hurriedly passed by Congress. It was not considered by either a subcommittee or full committee of the Senate, before being taken up on the floor. It was pushed through in the final days of the Seventy-second Congress on the plea that it would prevent receiverships. Congress would not, in such a manner, legislate out of existence, for companies requiring reorganizations, its carefully elaborated safeguards with respect to consolidations or traffic pools. If the Commission’s construction of section 77 is sound, that it can avoid the necessity of considering consolidations under section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act, it is obvious that the legislation enacted as section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act contained a ‘joker’ of serious and dangerous proportions.
“The most that the Commission may claim under section 77 is that, if it has approved a consolidation by an order under section 5 of the Transportation Act, it may perhaps be able to give effect to that action in the course of reorganization proceedings.
“This is of importance in administering both statutes. The procedure and safeguards of the Transportation Act must be preserved as a matter of law and of right;... (Emphasis added.)
The crucial question, therefore, is whether this merger plan meets the statutory requirements. Since it does not, as we have found, because it is sought to be imposed by Commission fiat rather than proposed by the merging carriers, it matters not that the security holders might ultimately accept it if it were put to them for a formal vote. The kind of Hobson’s choice, more or less, to which security holders are put when voting on a merger plan is not to be put to them on a plan initiated by the Commission rather than by their own corporation. And so, if a plan does not satisfy the basic conditions which circumscribe the Commission’s power, it has a congenital defect, and any interested party can object to its attempted effectuation.
Likewise, the so-called “cramdown” clause, much relied on by respondent, has no bearing on this case. That provision was added to § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act in 1935, 49 Stat. 911, 919, 11 U. S. C. § 205 (e), because under the prior law a plan had to be accepted by at least two-thirds (in amount) of each class of creditors and stockholders affected by the plan. This enabled a small dis-sentient minority to block any plan of reorganization, no matter how “fair and equitable,” in order to exact inequitable adjustments as the price of its acquiescence. Under the “cramdown” provision the district court may, under the appropriate circumstances and after making certain required findings, confirm a plan despite the disapproval of more than one-third of each class affected. From the existence of this general power in the district court to confirm a plan despite the opposition of dis-sentient elements, the conclusion is sought to be drawn that the Commission must therefore have initial power to submit a compulsory merger plan to the court. Obviously this does not follow. Since the vast majority of § 77 proceedings involve internal reorganizations, the “cramdown” provision has a purpose and scope of application wholly independent of mergers, and it therefore has no bearing one way or the other on the question at issue in this case. It is true that in view of our holding here that merger plans cannot be proposed by the Commission under the Bankruptcy Act, the “cramdown” provision can never be applied to such involuntary plans. But there is nothing particularly startling about this. Once its terms are found to be valid, a plan may be imposed on recalcitrant dissenters. But the validity of a plan cannot be derived from the existence of such “cramdown” power. It is still true that a horse-chestnut is not a chestnut horse.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
[For dissenting opinion, see post, p. 321.]
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
A brief outline of the history of the consolidation provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act.
Prior to 1920, competition was the desideratum of our railroad economy. Section 5 of the original Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 forbade any agreements for the pooling of freights or revenues, and the policy of the antitrust legislation was also applied to the railroads.
In 1919, when the Government was planning to return the railroads to private ownership, many of the smaller railroads were in very weak condition and their continued survival was in jeopardy. Hence, for the first time, governmental encouragement of railroad consolidation was discussed. It was agreed that the Interstate Commerce Commission should be directed to prepare a plan for the consolidation of the railroads of the country into a limited number of systems. But there was sharp disagreement over ways and means for carrying out this program. The House Committee opposed grant of power to the Commission to compel consolidations. The Senate Committee, however, under the leadership of Senator Cum-mins, an ardent advocate of compulsory consolidation, recommended a bill providing for voluntary consolidation in accordance with a master plan for a period of seven years, but authorizing compulsory consolidations thereafter. Although many groups, including virtually all the railroads, opposed the compulsory provisions, the Senate passed the bill, 59 Cong. Rec. 952. But in conference, “[t]he Senate receded from the provisions for compulsory consolidation” and the House version was adopted.
In 1921, the Commission promulgated a tentative consolidation plan. Strong opposition immediately developed and long hearings before the Commission ensued. The upshot was that in 1925, the Commission, recognizing the unfeasibility of working out a national plan of consolidation, asked Congress to be relieved of this burden. This request was left unheeded until 1940, and in 1929 the Commission adopted its final plan of consolidation.
Meanwhile Senator Cummins renewed his efforts to give the Interstate Commerce Commission power to compel consolidations if after a certain number of years the voluntary program had made no progress. This bill again met with strong opposition, but prior to his defeat in 1926, Senator Cummins made two further attempts to endow the Commission with power to force consolidations. All these legislative efforts failed.
In February of 1933, the drive for compulsory consolidation gained new impetus when the National Transportation Committee, headed by ex-President Coolidge, issued a report recommending legislation along these lines. Again the opposition was so vigorous that the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act of 1933, passed some months later, contained no such provision; on the contrary it had a special section designed to protect labor against further cutbacks in employment.
The 1933 Act also established the office of a Federal Coordinator of Transportation to investigate the entire transportation problem and make appropriate recommendations. In his first Report, the Coordinator, Commissioner Joseph Eastman, reviewed the subject of railroad consolidations and concluded that the sweeping proposal of his legal adviser, Mr. Leslie Craven, for compulsory-consolidation should not be followed, but that the remedy lay along lines of greater coordination and pooling, with some forced mergers on a “trial” basis. The third and fourth Reports reiterated the Commission’s inability to compel mergers. Again no legislative action resulted.
In 1938, President Roosevelt appointed Commissioners Eastman, Splawn, and Mahaffie of the Interstate Commerce Commission to make another comprehensive study of the railroad problem. This “Committee of Three,” after pointing out that “voluntary consolidation of railroad companies may now be accomplished, subject to certain limitations, with the approval of the Commission,” recommended new legislation, giving the Commission “authority... to require a unification, where it is sought by at least one carrier.” Subsequently the President also appointed another Committee consisting of three railroad executives and three representatives of railway labor, known as the “Committee of Six.” This Committee’s recommendations were vastly different:
“We do not think the country is ready for any compulsory system of consolidations. Whether ultimate resort must be had to the principle of compulsion is a question which we think it better to defer until after there has been an opportunity to see what can be accomplished if the railroads are relieved from these limitations and restrictions [of the consolidation plan]. In our opinion the best results will be achieved by leaving all initiative in the matter to the railroads themselves,....”
The Transportation Act of 1940 — Congress’ last word on the subject of consolidation — essentially rejected the recommendations of the Committee of Three and adopted those of the Committee of Six. The Commission was finally relieved of its duty to promulgate a national consolidation plan, and the power to initiate mergers and consolidations was left completely in the hands of the carriers.
Perhaps the best insight into the prevailing attitude towards compulsory mergers can be obtained from the following statements of Chairman Wheeler of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce during the hearings on S. 2009, which ultimately became the Transportation Act of 1940. In response to some fear expressed by the General Counsel of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen that the pending bill would encourage consolidations, Senator Wheeler said:
“Of course, as you well know, some people maintain that we ought to give the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to force consolidations.
“There is a very strong sentiment on the part of a great many people that consolidation should be compelled. They say that nothing will be done until such time as that happens.
“The railroad executives do not want forced consolidation; they are opposed to it. The railroad men are opposed to it, generally speaking.
“After all, when you speak of that [encouraging consolidations], the Interstate Commerce Commission has studied it for years, and no consolidation can take place under this bill until such time as it is a voluntary consolidation....
“I cannot understand why you are talking about consolidations before this committee, because there is nothing in this bill to indicate that we have taken the position that we are in favor of forced consolidations. There is nothing in the bill that will change the situation at all.
“As a matter of fact, much of the objection to this bill on the part of a number of people has been that it has not got some provision in it making it easier for consolidations; as a matter of fact, forcing consolidations and coordinations, or at least setting up in the Interstate Commerce Commission a committee that will go ahead and suggest how consolidations ought to be made.
“We have taken that out, and I have refused to adhere to that or to listen to agruments [sic] about it, but you are coming in here and telling us that there is something in here about consolidations that you do not want.
“I have repeatedly said that you could not get a bill to force consolidations, or to have in here a provision that the Commission should have an opportunity of carrying on investigations of the subject to try to force consolidations, and so forth. So, as far as this committee is concerned, with reference to this bill, you are just wasting our time in talking about consolidations, because that subject is out the window.”
Thus, hostility to the consolidation of railroads except by the voluntary action of the merging roads has been the undeviating policy of Congress since 1920. In assessing the failure of the consolidation program initiated by the Transportation Act of 1920, most students of transportation problems agree that one difficulty was this persistent refusal on the part of Congress to give the Commission power to take the initiative in proposing and enforcing particular mergers. Yet that is the policy deliberately and explicitly followed by Congress each time it considered this problem.
Examiner Jewell stated that under the plan previously approved by the Commission “control would vest in the St. Joe Company by reason of its ownership of a majority in amount of the debtor’s outstanding first and refunding mortgage bonds, these bonds being the only securities of the debtor exchangeable under the plan for the new securities of the reorganized debtor.” B,., VI, p. 736. The only other outstanding bond issue of the debtor was, under that plan, to be paid off out of available cash. Previously the Commission had decided that the claims of unsecured creditors and the equity of the stockholders could not be recognized, and that these parties would therefore be denied participation in the reorganization. 252 I. C. C. 423, 465.
By “forced merger” plan, or “compulsory merger” plan, is meant a merger plan foisted upon one of the parties by the Commission, as distinguished from a merger voluntarily initiated by the participating carriers.
Under the Commission’s statutory power to revise an approved plan upon objections received within sixty days of its promulgation, 11 U. S. C. §205 (d), this decision was shortly thereafter reaffirmed by another close vote of the full Commission membership. 267 I. C. C. 729.
The Circuit Judges of the Fifth Circuit who have at some stage in these proceedings passed on this question of the Commission’s power have thus divided evenly on the issue. Judges Hutcheson, Holmes and Rives concluded that the Commission had such power; Judges Sibley, Borah, and Russell concluded that it did not.
“A plan of reorganization... (5) shall provide adequate means for the execution of the plan, which may include... the merger or consolidation of the debtor with another corporation or corporations
Letter from Chairman Eastman to Senator Hastings, the sponsor of § 77, dated Jan. 31, 1933, reproduced in Hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 1869, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 288, 300. As to Eastman’s authority in the field of railroad regulation, see Fuess, Joseph B. Eastman — Servant of the People.
See also the remarks of Senator Couzens, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate Commerce, at 74 Cong. Rec. 6041 et seq.
In the course of the 1935 revision of § 77, the consistency clause was taken out of subsection (b)(3), combined with a similar clause in subsection (e), and, as thus combined, placed in subsection (f) of the statute, 49 Stat. 911, 920. Judge Sibley indicated that he thought the consistency clause “became accidentally misplaced in redrafting the Act.” 81 F. Supp., at 932. However that may be, it seems quite clear that Congress did not intend to alter the deliberately established relationship between § 5 of the Commerce Act and § 77 (b) (3) of the Bankruptcy Act merely by a change in the position of the consistency clause, unaccompanied by any explanatory comment. It would be a gross disregard of the meaning of legislation to be controlled by the bare words of the present merger provision detached from, and in defiance of, the whole history of the section.
In this connection it is interesting to note that in the course of a proposed comprehensive revision of § 77 in 1939, the question here in issue would have been made absolutely clear by the addition of the following proviso to the merger subsection:
“Provided, That nothing in this section shall authorize compulsory merger or consolidation....” S. 1869, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., March 20, 1939, p. 19.
After extensive hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, the bill was reported out and subsequently passed by the Senate, 84 Cong. Rec. 6257. Even more extensive hearings were then held by the House Committee, but the bill was never reported out, probably because of the controversial provision in the bill establishing a special reorganization court for § 77 cases.
In the course of the House hearings, the Commission was requested to submit its views on the bill. After commenting in detail on various sections of the bill, not including the proviso above referred to, the Commission simply added that it deemed it “unnecessary” to comment on the other “minor amendments” included in the bill. Hearings before Special Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and Reorganization of the House Committee on the Judiciary on S. 1869, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 11, pt. 1, p. 571.
Cassius M. Clay, Assistant General Counsel of the RFC and intimately acquainted with problems of railroad reorganization, questioned the need for the proviso on the ground that the consistency clause in subsection (f) already covered the matter and that the proviso might be construed to prevent the merger of a parent and its subsidiaries. Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 1869, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 329.
See, e. g., Report of the Federal Coordinator of Transportation, H. R. Doc. No. 89, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 41 (1935); 52 I. C. C. Ann. Rep. 22 (1938).
During the years 1933-1940 the percentage of railroad mileage representing roads in § 77 proceedings or receivership was as follows:
Year Percent Year Percent
1933. 16 1937. 28
1934. 16 1938. 31
1935. 27 1939. 31
1936. 28 1940. 31
(Figures computed from Table 1 of the ICC’s Annual Reports on the Statistics of Railways in the United States for 1933-1940, and the cumulative Table 151 in the 1940 volume.)
See Appendix, post, p. 315.
We are not aware of any case other than the present where this requirement was not observed. In all the reported cases of reorganizations involving mergers, the merger was either proposed by the debtor in conjunction with the other party, or the merger involved a parent and its subsidiaries, and was treated essentially as an internal reorganization. In any event, we are not now called upon to pass on the validity of the latter type of merger.
In this connection it is important to remember that a railroad in § 77 proceedings is not a defunct organism but remains a live and going concern. See the references throughout § 77 to “the debtor” as an active entity; also Van Schaick v. McCarthy, 116 F. 2d 987, 992-993. During the entire period that the Florida East Coast has been in receivership or trusteeship there have been annual stockholders’ meetings at which a Board of Directors was elected. See the Florida East Coast’s Annual Reports on file with 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: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant Carol Sosna married Michael Sosna on September 5, 1964, in Michigan. They lived together in New York between October 1967 and August 1971, after which date they separated but continued to live in New York. In August 1972, appellant moved to Iowa with her three children, and the following month she petitioned the District Court of Jackson County, Iowa, for a dissolution of her marriage. Michael Sosna, who had been personally served with notice of the action when he came to Iowa to visit his children, made a special appearance to contest the jurisdiction of the Iowa court. The Iowa court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Michael Sosna was not a resident of Iowa and appellant had not been a resident of the State of Iowa for one year preceding the filing of her petition. In so doing the Iowa court applied the provisions of Iowa Code § 598.6 (1973) requiring that the petitioner in such an action be “for the last year a resident of the state.”
Instead of appealing this ruling to the Iowa appellate courts, appellant filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa asserting that Iowa’s durational residency requirement for in-yoking its divorce jurisdiction violated the United States Constitution. She sought both injunctive and declaratory relief against the appellees in this case, one of which is the State of Iowa, and the other of whom is the judge of the District Court of Jackson County, Iowa, who had previously dismissed her petition.
A three-judge court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284, held that the Iowa durational residency requirement was constitutional. 360 F. Supp. 1182 (1973). We noted probable jurisdiction, 415 U. S. 911 (1974), and directed the parties to discuss “whether the United States District Court should have proceeded to the merits of the constitutional issue presented in light of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971) and related cases.” For reasons stated in this opinion, we decide that this case is not moot, and hold that the Iowa dura-tional residency requirement for divorce does not offend the United States Constitution.
I
Appellant sought certification of her suit as a class action pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 so that she might represent the “class of those residents of the State of Iowa who have resided therein for a period of less than one year and who desire to initiate actions for dissolution of marriage or legal separation, and who are barred from doing so by the one-year durational residency requirement embodied in Sections 598.6 and 598.9 of the Code of Iowa.” The parties stipulated that there were in the State of Iowa “numerous people in the same situation as plaintiff,” that joinder of those persons was impracticable, that appellant’s claims were representative of the class, and that she would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. See Rule 23 (a). This stipulation was approved by the District Court in a pretrial order. After the submission of briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties, the three-judge court by a divided vote upheld the constitutionality of the statute.
While the parties may be permitted to waive non-jurisdictional defects, they may not by stipulation invoke the judicial power of the United States in litigation which does not present an actual “case or controversy,” Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U. S. 24 (1974), and on the record before us we feel obliged to address the question of mootness before reaching the merits of appellant’s claim. At the time the judgment of the three-judge court was handed down, appellant had not yet resided in Iowa for one year, and that court was clearly presented with a case or controversy in every sense contemplated by Art. Ill of the Constitution. By the time her case reached this Court, however, appellant had long since satisfied the Iowa durational residency requirement, and Iowa Code § 598.6 (1973) no longer stood as a barrier to her attempts to secure dissolution of her marriage in the Iowa courts. This is not an unusual development in a case challenging the validity of a durational residency requirement, for in many cases appellate review will not be completed until after the plaintiff has satis- ' fied the residency requirement about which complaint was originally made.
If appellant had sued only on her own behalf, both the fact that she now satisfies the one-year residency requirement and the fact that she has obtained a divorce elsewhere would make this case moot and require dismissal. Alton v. Alton, 207 F. 2d 667 (CA3 1953), dismissed as moot, 347 U. S. 610 (1954); SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U. S. 403 (1972). But appellant brought this suit as a class action and sought to litigate the constitutionality of the durational residency requirement in a representative capacity. When the District Court certified the propriety of the class action, the class of unnamed persons described in the certification acquired a legal status separate from the interest asserted by appellant. We are of the view that this factor significantly affects the mootness determination.
In Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498 (1911), where a challenged ICC order had expired, and in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969), where petitioners sought to be certified as candidates in an election that had already been held, the Court expressed its concern that the defendants in those cases could be expected again to act contrary to the rights asserted by the particular named plaintiffs involved, and in each case the controversy was held not to be moot because the questions presented were “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” That situation is not presented in appellant’s case, for the durational residency requirement enforced by Iowa does not at this time bar her from the Iowa courts. Unless we were to speculate that she may move from Iowa, only to return and later seek a divorce within one year from her return, the concerns that prompted this Court’s holdings in Southern Pacific and Moore do not govern appellant’s situation. But even though appellees in this proceeding might not again enforce the Iowa durational residency requirement against appellant, it is clear that they will enforce it against those persons in the class that appellant sought to represent and that the District Court certified. In this sense the case before us is one in which state officials will undoubtedly continue to enforce the challenged statute and yet, because of the passage of time, no single challenger will remain subject to its restrictions for the period necessary to see such a lawsuit to its conclusion.
This problem was present in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972), and was there implicitly resolved in favor of the representative of the class. Respondent Blumstein brought a class action challenging the Tennessee law which barred persons from registering to vote unless, at the time of the next election, they would have resided in the State for a year and in a particular county for three months. By the time the District Court opinion was filed, Blumstein had resided in the county for the requisite three months, and the State contended that his challenge to the county requirement was moot. The District Court rejected this argument, Blumstein v. Ellington, 337 F. Supp. 323, 324-326 (MD Tenn. 1970). Although the State did not raise a mootness argument in this Court, we observed that the District Court had been correct:
“Although appellee now can vote, the problem to voters posed by the Tennessee residence requirements is ' “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” ’ ” 405 XJ. S., at 333 n. 2.
Although the Court did not expressly note the fact, by the time it decided the case Blumstein had resided in Tennessee for far more than a year.
The rationale of Dunn controls the present case. Although the controversy is no longer live as to appellant Sosna, it remains very much alive for the class of persons she has been certified to represent. Like the other voters in Dunn, new residents of Iowa are aggrieved by an allegedly unconstitutional statute enforced by state officials. We believe that a case such as this, in which, as in Dunn, the issue sought to be litigated escapes full appellate review at the behest of any single challenger, does not inexorably become moot by the intervening resolution of the controversy as to the named plaintiffs. Dunn, supra; Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752, 756 n. 5 (1973); Vaughan v. Bower, 313 F. Supp. 37, 40 (Ariz.), aff’d, 400 U. S. 884 (1970). We note, however, that the same exigency that justifies this doctrine serves . o identify its limits. In cases in which the alleged harm would not dissipate during the normal time required for resolution of the controversy, the general principles of Art. Ill jurisdiction require that the plaintiff's personal stake in the litigation continue throughout the entirety of the litigation.
Our conclusion that this case is not moot in no way detracts from the firmly established requirement that the judicial power of Art. Ill courts extends only to “cases and controversies” specified in that Article. There must not only be a named plaintiff who has such a case or controversy at the time the complaint is filed, and at the time the class action is certified by the District Court pursuant to Rule 23, but there must be a live controversy at the time this Court reviews the case. SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, supra. The controversy may exist, however, between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot.
In so holding, we disturb no principles established by our decisions with respect to class-action litigation. A named plaintiff in a class action must show that the threat of injury in a case such as this is “real and immediate,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 494 (1974); Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1969). A litigant must be a member of the class which he or she seeks to represent at the time the class action is certified by the district court. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (1962); Rosario, supra; Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45 (1969). Appellant Sosna satisfied these criteria.
This conclusion does not automatically establish that appellant is entitled to litigate the interests of the class she seeks to represent, but it does shift the focus of examination from the elements of justiciability to the ability of the named representative to “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Rule 23 (a). Since it is contemplated that all members of the class will be bound by the ultimate ruling on the merits, Rule 23 (c)(3), the district court must assure itself that the named representative will adequately protect the interests of the class. In the present suit, where it is unlikely that segments of the class appellant represents would have interests conflicting with those she has sought to advance, and where the interests of that class have been competently urged at each level of the proceeding, we believe that the test of Rule 23 (a) is met. We therefore address ourselves to the merits of appellant’s constitutional claim.
II
The durational residency requirement under attack in this case is a part of Iowa's comprehensive statutory regulation of domestic relations, an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States. Cases decided by this Court over a period of more than a century bear witness to this historical fact. In Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, 584 (1859), the Court said: “We disclaim altogether any jurisdiction in the courts of the United States upon the subject of divorce . . . .” In Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 734-735 (1878), the Court said: “The State . . . has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved,” and the same view was reaffirmed in Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 162, 167. (1899).
The statutory scheme in Iowa, like those in other States, sets forth in considerable detail the grounds upon which a marriage may be dissolved and the circumstances in which a divorce may be obtained. Jurisdiction over a petition for dissolution is established by statute in “the county where either party resides,” Iowa Code § 598.2 (1973), and the Iowa courts have construed the term . “resident” to have much the same meaning as is ordinarily associated with the concept of domicile. Korsrud v. Korsrud, 242 Iowa 178, 45 N. W. 2d 848 (1951). Iowa has recently revised its divorce statutes, incorporating the no-fault concept, but it retained the one-year dura-tional residency requirement.
The imposition of a durational residency requirement for divorce is scarcely unique to Iowa, since 48 States impose such a requirement as a condition for maintaining an action for divorce. As might be expected, the periods vary among the States and range from six weeks to two years. The one-year period selected by Iowa is the most common length of time prescribed.
Appellant contends that the Iowa requirement of one year’s residence is unconstitutional for two separate reasons: first, because it establishes two classes of persons and discriminates against those who have recently exercised their right to travel to Iowa, thereby contravening the Court’s holdings in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972); and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250 (1974); and, second, because it denies a litigant the opportunity to make an individualized showing of bona fide residence and therefore denies such residents access to the only method of legally dissolving their marriage. Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371 (1971).
State statutes imposing durational residency requirements were, of course, invalidated when imposed by States as a qualification for welfare payments, Shapiro, supra; for voting, Dunn, supra; and for medical care, Maricopa County, supra. But none of those cases intimated that the States might never impose durational residency requirements, and such a proposition was in fact expressly disclaimed. What those cases had in common was that the durational residency requirements they struck down were justified on the basis of budgetary or recordkeeping considerations which were held insufficient to outweigh the constitutional claims of the individuals. But Iowa’s divorce residency requirement is of a different stripe. Appellant was not irretrievably foreclosed from obtaining some part of what she sought, as was the case with the welfare recipients in Shapiro, the voters in Dunn, or the indigent patient in Maricopa County. She would eventually qualify for the same sort of adjudication which she demanded virtually upon her arrival in the State. Iowa’s requirement delayed her access to the courts, but, by fulfilling it, she could ultimately have obtained the same opportunity for adjudication which she asserts ought to have been hers at an earlier point in time.
Iowa’s residency requirement may reasonably be justified on grounds other than purely budgetary considerations or administrative convenience. Cf. Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S. 351 (1974). A decree of divorce is not a matter in which the only interested parties are the State as a sort of “grantor,” and a divorce petitioner such as appellant in the role of “grantee.” Both spouses are obviously interested in the proceedings, since it will affect their marital status and very likely their property rights. Where a married couple has minor children, a decree of divorce would usually include provisions for their custody and support. With consequences of such moment riding on a divorce decree issued by its courts, Iowa may insist that one seeking to initiate such a proceeding have the modicum of attachment to the State required here.
Such a requirement additionally furthers the State’s parallel interests both in avoiding officious intermeddling in matters in which another State has a paramount interest, and in minimizing the susceptibility of its own divorce decrees to collateral attack. A State such as Iowa may quite reasonably decide that it does not wish to become a divorce mill for unhappy spouses who have lived there as short a time as appellant had when she commenced her action in the state court after having long resided elsewhere. Until such time as Iowa is convinced that appellant intends to remain in the State, it lacks the “nexus between person and place of such permanence as to control the creation of legal relations and responsibilities of the utmost significance.” Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U. S. 226, 229 (1945). Perhaps even more important, Iowa’s interests extend beyond its borders and include the recognition of its divorce decrees by other States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, § 1. For that purpose, this Court has often stated that “judicial power to grant a divorce — jurisdiction, strictly speaking — is founded on domicil.” Williams, supra; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14 (1903); Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175 (1901). Where a divorce decree is entered after a finding of domicile in ex parte proceedings, this Court has held that the finding of domicile is not binding upon another State and may be disregarded in the face of “cogent evidence” to the contrary. Williams, supra, at 236. For that reason, the State asked to enter such a decree is entitled to insist that the putative divorce petitioner satisfy something more than the bare minimum of constitutional requirements before a divorce may be granted. The State’s decision to exact a one-year residency requirement as a matter of policy is therefore buttressed by a quite permissible inference that this requirement not only effectuates state substantive policy but likewise provides a greater safeguard against successful collateral attack than would a requirement of bona fide residence alone. This is precisely the sort of determination that a State in the exercise of its domestic relations jurisdiction is entitled to make.
We therefore hold that the state interest in requiring that those who seek a divorce from its courts be genuinely-attached to the State, as well as a desire to insulate divorce decrees from the likelihood of collateral attack, requires a different resolution of the constitutional issue presented than was the case in Shapiro, supra, Dunn, supra, and Maricopa County, supra.
Nor are we of the view that the failure to provide an individualized determination of residency violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973), relied upon by appellant, held that Connecticut might not arbitrarily invoke a permanent and irrebuttable presumption of non-residence against students who sought to obtain in-state tuition rates when that presumption was not necessarily or universally true in fact. But in Vlandis the Court warned that its decision should not “be construed to deny a State the right to impose on a student, as one element in demonstrating bona fide residence, a reasonable durational residency requirement.” Id., at 452. See Starns v. Malkerson, 326 F. Supp. 234 (Minn. 1970), aff’d, 401 U. S. 985 (1971). An individualized determination of physical presence plus the intent to remain, which appellant apparently seeks, would not entitle her to a divorce even if she could have made such a showing. For Iowa requires not merely “domicile” in that sense, but residence in the State for a year in order for its courts to exercise their divorce jurisdiction.
In Boddie v. Connecticut, supra, this Court held that Connecticut might not deny access to divorce courts to those persons who could not afford to pay the required fee. Because of the exclusive role played by the State in the termination of marriages, it was held that indigents could not be denied an opportunity to be heard “absent a countervailing state interest of overriding significance.” 401 U. S., at 377. But the gravamen of appellant Sosna’s claim is not total deprivation, as in Boddie, but only delay. The operation of the filing fee in Boddie served to exclude forever a certain segment of the population from obtaining a divorce in the courts of Connecticut. No similar total deprivation is present in appellant’s case, and the delay which attends the enforcement of the one-year durational residency requirement is, for the reasons previously stated, consistent with the provisions of the United States Constitution.
Affirmed.
Iowa Code § 598.6 (1973) provides:
“Except where the respondent is a resident of this state and is served by personal service, the petition for dissolution of marriage, in addition to setting forth the information required by section 598.5, must state that the petitioner has been for the last year a resident of the state, specifying the county in which the petitioner has resided, and the length of such residence therein after deducting all absences from the state; and that the maintenance of the residence has been in good faith and not for the purpose of obtaining a marriage dissolution only.”
Iowa Code § 598.9 (1973) requires dismissal of the action “[i]f the averments as to residence are not fully proved.”
In their answer to the complaint, appellees asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction over the State by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment, but thereafter abandoned this defense to the action. While the failure of the State to raise the defense of sovereign immunity in the District Court would not have barred Iowa from raising that issue in this Court, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974) ; Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, 323 U. S. 459 (1945), no such defense has been advanced in this Court. The failure of Iowa to raise the issue has likewise left us without any guidance from the parties’ briefs as to the circumstances under which Iowa law permits waiver of the defense of sovereign immunity by attorneys representing the State. Our own examination of Iowa precedents discloses, however, that the Iowa Supreme Court has held that the State consents to suit and waives any defense of sovereign immunity by entering a voluntary appearance and defending a suit on the merits. McKeown v. Brown, 167 Iowa 489, 499, 149 N. W. 593, 597 (1914). The law of Iowa on the point therefore appears to be different from the law of Indiana treated in Ford, supra.
Our request that the parties address themselves to Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and related cases, indicated our concern as to whether either this Court or the District Court should reach the merits of the constitutional issue presented by the parties in light of appellant Sosna’s failure to appeal the adverse ruling of the State District Court through the state appellate network. In response to our request, both parties urged that we reach the merits of appellant’s constitutional attack on Iowa’s durational residency requirement.
In this posture of the case, and in the absence of a disagreement between the parties, we have no occasion to consider whether any consequences adverse to appellant resulted from her first obtaining an adjudication of her claim on the merits in the Iowa state court and only then commencing this action in the United States District Court.
Since jurisdiction was predicated on 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), this case presents no problem of aggregation of claims in an attempt to satisfy the requisite amount in controversy of 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a). Cf. Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U. S. 291 (1973); Snyder v. Harris, 394 U. S. 332 (1969). Although the'complaint did not so specify, the absence of a claim for monetary relief and the nature of the claim asserted disclose that a Rule 23 (b) (2) class action was contemplated.' Therefore, the problems associated with a Rule 23 (b) (3) class action, which were considered by this Court last Term in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156 (1974), are not present in this case.
The defendant state-court- judge neither raised any claims of immunity as a defense to appellant's action, nor questioned the propriety of the appellant’s effort to represent a statewide class against a judge like him who apparently sat in a single county or judicial district within the State.
The District Court was aware of the possibility of mootness, 360 F. Supp. 1182, 1183 n. 5 (ND Iowa 1973), and expressed the view that even the “termination of plaintiff’s deferral period . . . would not render this case moot since the cause before us is a class aetion and the court is confronted with the reasonable likelihood that the problem will occur to members of the class of which plaintiff is currently a member.”
Counsel for appellant disclosed at oral argument that appellant has in fact obtained a divorce in New York. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22.
The certification of a suit as a class action has important consequences for the unnamed members of the class. If the suit proceeds to judgment on the merits, it is contemplated that the decision will bind all persons who have been found at the time of certification to be members of the class. Rule 23 (c) (3); Advisory Committee Note, 28 U. S. C. App., pp. 7765-7766. Once the suit is certified as a class action, it may not be settled or dismissed without the approval of the court. Rule 23 (e).
This view draws strength from the practical demands of time. A blanket rule under which a class action challenge to a short durational residency requirement would be dismissed upon the intervening mootness of the named representative’s dispute would permit a significant class of federal claims to remain unredressed for want of a spokesman who could retain a personal adversary position throughout the course of the litigation. Such a consideration would not itself justify any relaxation of the provision of Art. Ill which limits our jurisdiction to “cases and controversies,” but it is a factor supporting the result we reach if consistent with Art. III. For the reasons stated in the text, infra, we believe that our holding here does comport with both the language of Art. Ill and our prior decisions.
This has been the prevailing view in the Circuits. See, e. g., Cleaver v. Wilcox, 499 F. 2d 940 (CA9 1974); Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F. 2d 1159 (CA9 1972); Conover v. Montemuro, 477 F. 2d 1073 (CA3 1972); Roberts v. Union Co., 487 F. 2d 387 (CA6 1973); Shiffman v. Askew, 359 F. Supp. 1225 (MD Fla. 1973), aff’d sub nom. Makres v. Askew, 500 F. 2d 577 (CA5 1974); Moss v. Lane Co., Inc., 471 F. 2d 853 (CA4 1973). Contra: Watkins v. Chicago Housing Authority, 406 F. 2d 1234 (CA7 1969); cf. Norman v. Connecticut State Board of Parole, 458 F. 2d 497 (CA2 1972).
There may be cases in which the controversy involving the named plaintiffs is such that it becomes moot as to them before the district court can reasonably be expected to rule on a certification motion. In such instances, whether the certification can be said to “relate back” to the filing of the complaint may depend upon the circumstances of the particular case and especially the reality of the claim that otherwise the issue would evade review.
When this Court has entertained doubt about the continuing nature of a case or controversy, it has remanded the case to the lower court for consideration of the possibility of mootness. Indiana Employment Div. v. Burney, 409 U. S. 540 (1973).
There are frequently cases in which it appears that the particular class a party seeks to represent does not have a sufficient homogeneity of interests to warrant certification. Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32, 44 (1940); Phillips v. Klassen, 163 U. S. App. D. C. 360, 502 F. 2d 362 (1974), cert. denied, post, p. 996. In this case, however, it is difficult to imagine why any person in the class appellant represents would have an interest in seeing Iowa Code § 598.6 (1973) upheld.
See generally Peters, Iowa Reform of Marriage Termination, 20 Drake L. Rev. 211 (1971).
Louisiana and Washington are the exceptions. La. Code Civ. Proc., Art. 10A (7) (Supp. 1974); but see Art. 10B providing that “if a spouse has established and maintained a residence in a parish of this state for a period of twelve months, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that he has a domicile in this state in the parish of such residence.” Wash. Laws 1973,1st Ex. Sess., c. 157. Among the other 48 States, the durational residency requirements are of many varieties, with some applicable to all divorce actions, others only when the respondent is not domiciled in the State, and still others applicable depending on where the grounds for divorce accrued. See the 50-state compilation issued by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Divorce, Annulment and'Separation in the United States (1973).
See, e. g., Idaho Code § 32-701 (1963); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.-020 (1973).
See, e. g., R. I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 15-5-12 (1970); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., e. 208, §§ 4r-5 (1958 and Supp. 1974).
A majority of the States impose a one-year residency requirement of some kind. Divorce, Annulment and Separation in the United States, supra, n. 15.
Shapiro, 394 U. S., at 638 n. 21; Maricopa County, 415 U. S., at 258-259.
When a divorce decree is not entered on the basis of ex parte proceedings, this Court held in Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U. S. 343, 351-352 (1948):
“[T]he requirements of full faith and credit bar a defendant from collaterally attacking a divorce decree on jurisdictional grounds in the courts of a sister State where there has been participation by the defendant in the divorce proceedings, where the defendant has been accorded full opportunity to contest the jurisdictional issues, and where the decree is not susceptible to such collateral attack in the courts of the State which rendered the decree.”
Our Brother Marshall argues in dissent that the Iowa dura-tional residency requirement “sweeps too broadly” since it is not limited to ex parte proceedings and could be narrowed by a waiver provision. Post, at 425. But Iowa’s durational residency requirement cannot be tailored in this manner without disrupting settled principles of Iowa practice and pleading. Iowa’s rules governing special appearances make it impossible for the state court to know, either at the time a petition for divorce is filed or when a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is filed, whether or not a respondent will appear and participate in the divorce proceedings. Iowa Rules Civ. Proc. 66, 104. The fact that the state legislature might conceivably adopt a system of waivers and revise court rules governing special appearances does not make such detailed rewriting appropriate business for the federal judiciary.
Since the majority of States require residence for at least a year, see n. 18, supra, it is reasonable to assume that Iowa’s one-year "floor” makes its decrees less susceptible to successful collateral attack in other States. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit observed in upholding a six-month durational residency requirement imposed by Florida, an objective test may impart to a State’s divorce decrees “a verity that tends to safeguard them against the suspicious eyes of other states’ prosecutorial authorities, the suspicions of private counsel in other states, and the post-decree dissatisfactions of parties to the divorce who wish a second bite. Such a reputation for validity of divorce decrees is not, then, merely cosmetic.” Makres v. Askew, 500 F. 2d 577, 579 (1974), aff’g 359 F. Supp. 1225 (MD Fla. 1973).
In addition to a showing of residence within the State for a year, Iowa Code § 598.6 (1973) requires any petition for dissolution to state “that the maintenance of the residence has been in good faith and not for the purpose of obtaining a marriage dissolution only.” In dismissing appellant’s petition in state court, Judge Keck observed that appellant had failed to allege good-faith residence. (Jurisdictional Statement App. B. 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.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether, under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, a district court has the authority to order the Secretary of Health and Human Services to withhold a portion of past-due supplemental security income benefits for the payment of attorney’s fees.
After the Secretary of Health and Human Services denied Mary Alice Galbreath’s application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, she appealed to a Federal District Court. The District Court reversed the denial, and the Secretary accordingly paid Galbreath her full $7,954 in past-due benefits. Galbreath’s attorney, Anthony W. Bartels, then moved for attorney’s fees equal to 25% of the past-due benefits. The District Court determined that the amount requested was reasonable and, relying on 42 U. S. C. § 406(b)(1), ordered the Secretary “to compute, certify, and pay” Bartels his requested fee of $1,988.50 out of the the past-due benefits awarded Galbreath. The Secretary appealed, arguing that § 406(b)(1) applies only to cases under Title II of the Social Security'Act and that the relevant statutes and regulations do not permit withholding past-due SSI benefits for payment of attorney’s fees in Title XVI cases. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 799 F. 2d 370 (1986). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals, 481 U. S. 1036 (1987), and now reverse.
Title II is an insurance program. Enacted in 1935, it provides old-age, survivor, and disability benefits to insured individuals irrespective of financial need. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 403, 423 (1982 ed. and Supp. III). Title XVI is a welfare program. Enacted in 1972, it provides SSI benefits to financially needy individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled regardless of their insured status. See 42 U. S. C. § 1382(a) (1982 ed. and Supp. III).
Until 1965, Title II contained no provision expressly authorizing a district court to award fees to a claimant’s attorney. In 1965, however, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) implicitly authorized district courts to order the payment of attorney’s fees out of past-due benefits. See Celebrezze v. Sparks, 342 F. 2d 286 (1965). Under 42 U. S. C. § 405(g), a court reviewing a decision of the Secretary has the power to enter “a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary.” The court in Sparks reasoned that where a statute gives a court jurisdiction, it must be presumed, absent any indication to the contrary, that the court was intended to exercise all the powers of a court, including the power to provide for payment of attorney’s fees out of any recovery. 342 F. 2d, at 288-289. Later in 1965, Congress effectively codified Sparks by adding a new subsection (b)(1) to 42 U. S. C. § 406 that allows withholding of past-due benefits to pay attorney’s fees incurred in judicial proceedings under Title II. Social Security Amendments of 1965, Pub. L. 89-97, § 332, 79 Stat. 403. Subsection (b)(1) provides:
“Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Secretary may, notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(i) of this title, certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits.”
In 1968, Congress amended 42 U. S. C. § 406(a) by adding two sentences giving the Secretary similar withholding authority to pay attorney’s fees incurred in Title II administrative proceedings. Social Security Amendments of 1967, Pub. L. 90-248, § 173, 81 Stat. 877.
Thus, the District Court’s order in this case would clearly be valid if this were a Title II case. When Congress enacted Title XVI in 1972, however, it provided no similar authority to withhold past-due benefits for attorney’s fees. This omission is particularly telling because Congress incorporated many other provisions of Title II into Title XVI. In particular, while incorporating almost every other provision of §406 into Title XVI, Congress left out the provisions in § 406(b)(1) and § 406(a) that authorized judicial withholding and administrative withholding. Social Security Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-603, § 301, 86 Stat. 1476-1477, codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1383(d)(2). This omission does not appear to have been inadvertent. Indeed, with respect to administrative proceedings, the House Report specifically noted and explained the omission of withholding authority by twice stating:
“Where an individual who has requested a hearing is represented before the Secretary by an attorney . . . there would be no withholding of attorney fees from such individual’s benefits. Your committee believes that to withhold such fees would be contrary to the purpose of the program.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-231, pp. 156, 187 (1971).
The Senate Report also indicates the omission of administrative withholding authority was intentional. See S. Rep. No. 92-1230, p. 392 (1972) (“Where an individual who has requested a hearing is represented before the Secretary by an attorney . . . there would be no withholding of attorney fees from the individual’s benefits”). Although the legislative history offered no explanation specifically linked to the omission of judicial withholding authority, it is fair to assume that this omission also reflected Congress’ view that withholding past-due SSI benefits would be inconsistent with the purpose of the program. Given the extreme financial need of SSI beneficiaries, this view is not irrational. Nor would it be odd for Congress to conclude that withholding past-due benefits from financially needy individuals under Title XVI would cause greater hardship than withholding past-due benefits from insured individuals under Title II. We thus conclude that, as originally enacted, Title XVI evidenced a congressional intent not to allow the withholding of past-due SSI benefits to pay attorney’s fees incurred in judicial proceedings.
Respondent and the courts finding judicial withholding authority under Title XVI do not dispute the conclusion that Congress intended to disallow judicial withholding when it enacted Title XVI in 1972. Rather, they contend that courts possess inherent authority to order withholding and that a 1976 amendment to 42 U. S. C. § 1383(c)(3) — the judicial review provision of Title XVI — demonstrates Congress’ intent to allow that authority to be exercised. As enacted in 1972, 42 U. S. C. § 1383(c)(3) (1970 ed., Supp. IV) provided:
“The final determination of the Secretary after a hearing under paragraph (1) shall be,subject to judicial review as provided in Section 405(g) of this title to the same extent as the Secretary’s final determinations under Section 405 of this title; except that the determination of the Secretary after such hearing as to any fact shall be final and conclusive and not subject to review by any court.” Pub. L. 92-603, § 301, 86 Stat. 1476 (emphasis added).
The 1976 amendment simply deleted the italicized portion of the statute. Act of Jan. 2, 1976, Pub. L. 94-202, 89 Stat. 1135. The clear and expressed intent was to make the Secretary’s factual findings under Title XVI subject to judicial review, just as they were under Title II. Nothing in the legislative history mentions withholding benefits to pay attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals below and other courts have nonetheless reasoned that, because Congress intended to make judicial review under Title XVI the same as judicial review under Title II, courts adjudicating Title XVI cases must have the same inherent authority to order withholding under § 405(g) that, under Sparks, courts adjudicating Title II cases had even before § 406(b)(1) was added.
We find this analysis unpersuasive. On its face, the deletion of a provision making factual findings unreviewable bears no apparent relation to whether withholding of past-due benefits should be allowed. Indeed, the deletion does not even purport to address eases involving legal, rather than factual, disputes, and we can hardly imagine that Congress meant to change the ban on withholding without addressing both kinds of cases. The courts that have concluded that the 1976 amendment authorizes judicial withholding rely on statements in the legislative history indicating Congress’ intent to make judicial review under Title II and Title XVI “virtually identical,” to “provide the same rights to . . . judicial review” under both Titles, and “to apply the same rules of judicial review to Title XVI cases as apply to Title II cases.” S. Rep. No. 94-550, pp. 1, 3-4 (1975). None of these statements suggests that Congress intended to allow withholding of past-due benefits. Rather, they simply state the obvious point that removing the provision barring review under Title XVI of the Secretary’s factual determinations makes the scope of issues reviewable under Title XVI and Title II the same. Even assuming courts have inherent authority under Sparks to withhold a portion of past-due SSI benefits to pay attorney’s fees in Title XVI cases, we see no reason why Congress cannot divest courts of that authority if it so chooses. In originally enacting Title XVI, Congress manifested its intent, by selective incorporation and legislative history, to disallow the withholding of past-due SSI benefits to pay attorney’s fees incurred in Title XVI cases. Until Congress sees fit to override its original decision, by amending Title XVI in a way that manifests an intent to allow withholding, that original decision stands.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Compare Howard v. Bowen, 823 F. 2d 185 (CA7 1987) (withholding not permitted); McCarthy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 793 F. 2d 741 (CA6 1986) (same); Motley v. Heckler, 800 F. 2d 1253 (CA4 1986) (same), with Clay v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F. 2d 679 (CA1 1987) (withholding is permitted); Reid v. Heckler, 735 F. 2d 757 (CA3 1984) (same); and the decision below.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | F | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we address whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal patent law, but the answer contains a patent-law counterclaim.
I
Respondent, Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., is a manufacturer of patented fans and heaters. In late 1992, respondent sued a competitor, Duracraft Corp., claiming that Duraeraft’s use of a “spiral grill design” in its fans infringed respondent’s trade dress. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found for Duracraft, holding that Vornado had no protectable trade-dress rights in the grill design. See Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp., 58 F. 3d 1498 (1995) (Vornado I).
Nevertheless, on November 26,1999, respondent lodged a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission against petitioner, The Holmes Group, Inc., claiming that petitioner’s sale of fans and heaters with a spiral grill design infringed respondent’s patent and the same trade dress held unprotectable in Vornado I. Several weeks later, petitioner filed this action against respondent in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe respondent’s trade dress and an injunction restraining respondent from accusing it of trade-dress infringement in promotional materials. Respondent’s answer asserted a compulsory counterclaim alleging patent infringement.
The District Court granted petitioner the declaratory judgment and injunction it sought. 93 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (Kan. 2000). The court explained that the collateral-estoppel effect of Vornado I precluded respondent from relit-igating its claim of trade-dress rights in the spiral grill design. It rejected respondent’s contention that an intervening Federal Circuit case, Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F. 3d 1356 (1999), which disagreed with the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning in Vornado I, constituted a change in the law of trade dress that warranted relitigation of respondent’s trade-dress claim. The court also stayed all proceedings related to respondent’s counterclaim, adding that the counterclaim would be dismissed if the declaratory judgment and injunction entered in favor of petitioner were affirmed on appeal.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Notwithstanding petitioner’s challenge to its jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment, 13 Fed. Appx. 961 (2001), 4and remanded for consideration of whether the “change in the law” exception to collateral estoppel applied in light of TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U. S. 23 (2001), a case decided after the District Court’s judgment which resolved a Circuit split involving Vornado I and Midwest Industries. We granted certiorari to consider whether the Federal Circuit properly asserted jurisdiction over the appeal. 534 U. S. 1016 (2001).
II
Congress vested the Federal Circuit with exclusive jurisdiction over “an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States... if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on [28 U. S. C. §] 1338 ....” 28 U. S. C. § 1295(a)(1) (emphasis added). Section 1338(a), in turn, provides in relevant part that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents ....” Thus, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is fixed with reference to that of the district court, and turns on whether the action arises under federal patent law.
Section 1338(a) uses the same operative language as 28 U. S. C. § 1331, the statute conferring general federal-question jurisdiction, which gives the district courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) We said in Christianson v. Colt Industries Operat ing Corp., 486 U. S. 800, 808 (1988), that “[linguistic consistency” requires us to apply the same test to determine whether a case arises under § 1338(a) as under § 1331.
The well-pleaded-complaint rule has long governed whether a case “arises under” federal law for purposes of § 1331. See, e. g., Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco Inc., 415 U. S. 125, 127-128 (1974) (per curiam). As “appropriately adapted to § 1338(a),” the well-pleaded-complaint rule provides that whether a case “arises under” patent law “must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration . . . .” Christianson, 486 U. S., at 809 (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint must “establish] either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law____” Ibid. Here, it is undisputed that petitioner’s well-pleaded complaint did not assert any claim arising under federal patent law. The Federal Circuit therefore erred in asserting jurisdiction over this appeal.
A
Respondent argues that the well-pleaded-complaint rule, properly understood, allows a counterclaim to serve as the basis for a district court’s “arising under” jurisdiction. We disagree.
Admittedly, our prior cases have only required us to address whether a federal defense, rather than a federal counterclaim, can establish “arising under” jurisdiction. Nevertheless, those cases were decided on the principle that federal jurisdiction generally exists “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U. S. 386, 392 (1987) (emphasis added). As we said in The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U. S. 22, 25 (1913), whether a case arises under federal patent law “cannot depend upon the answer.” Moreover, we have declined to adopt proposals that “the answer as well as the complaint... be consulted before a determination [is] made whether the case ‘arftses] under’ federal law____” Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 10-11, n. 9 (1983) (citing American Law Institute, Study of the Division of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts §1312, pp. 188-194 (1969)). It follows that a counterclaim — which appears as part of the defendant’s answer, not as part of the plaintiff’s complaint — cannot serve as the basis for “arising under” jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Adams, 809 F. 2d 1187, 1188, n. 1 (CA5 1987); FDIC v. Elefant, 790 F. 2d 661, 667 (CA7 1986); Takeda v. Northwestern National Life Ins. Co., 765 F. 2d 815,822 (CA9 1985); 14B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3722, pp. 402-414 (3d ed. 1998).
Allowing a counterclaim to establish “arising under” jurisdiction would also contravene the longstanding policies underlying our precedents. First, since the plaintiff is “the master of the complaint,” the well-pleaded-complaint rule enables him, “by eschewing claims based on federal law,... to have the cause heard in state court.” Caterpillar Inc., supra, at 398-399. The rule proposed by respondent, in contrast, would leave acceptance or rejection of a state forum to the master of the counterclaim. It would allow a defendant to remove a case brought in state court under state law, thereby defeating a plaintiff’s choice of forum, simply by raising a federal counterclaim. Second, conferring this power upon the defendant would radically expand the class of removable cases, contrary to the “[d]ue regard for the rightful independence of state governments” that our cases addressing removal require. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100, 109 (1941) (internal quotation marks omitted). And finally, allowing responsive pleadings by the defendant to establish “arising under” jurisdiction would undermine the clarity and ease of administration of the well-pleaded-complaint doctrine, which serves as a “quick rule of thumb” for resolving jurisdictional conflicts. See Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 11.
For these reasons, we decline to transform the longstanding well-pleaded-complaint rule into the “well-pleaded-complaint-or-counterclaim rule” urged by respondent.
B
Respondent argues, in the alternative, that even if a counterclaim generally cannot establish the original “arising under” jurisdiction of a district court, we should interpret the phrase “arising under” differently in ascertaining the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. In respondent’s view, effectuating Congress’s goal of “promoting the uniformity of patent law,” Brief for Respondent 21, requires us to interpret §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1338(a) to confer exclusive appellate jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit whenever a patent-law counterclaim is raised.
We do not think this option is available. Our task here is not to determine what would further Congress’s goal of ensuring patent-law uniformity, but to determine what the words of the statute must fairly be understood to mean. It would be difficult enough to give “arising under” the meaning urged by respondent if that phrase appeared in § 1295(a)(1) — the jurisdiction-conferring statute — itself. Cf. Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, § 211(b)(2), 85 Stat. 749 (providing the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals “in cases and controversies arising under this title”). Even then the phrase would not be some neologism that might justify our adverting to the general purpose of the legislation, but rather a term familiar to all law students as invoking the well-pleaded-complaint rule. Cf. Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. New England Petroleum Corp., 604 F. 2d 179, 183 (CA2 1979) (“The use of the phrase ‘cases and controversies arising under’... is strong evidence that Congress intended to borrow the body of decisional law that has developed under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 and other grants of jurisdiction to the district courts over cases ‘arising under’ various regulatory statutes”). But the present case is even weaker than that, since § 1295(a)(1) does not itself use the term, but rather refers to jurisdiction under § 1338, where it is well established that “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents” invokes, specifically, the well-pleaded-complaint rule. It would be an unprecedented feat of interpretive necromancy to say that § 1338(a)’s “arising under” language means one thing (the well-pleaded-complaint rule) in its own right, but something quite different (respondent’s complaint-or-eounterclaim rule) when referred to by § 1295(a)(1).
* * *
Not all cases involving a patent-law claim fall within the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. By limiting the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to cases in which district courts would have jurisdiction under § 1338, Congress referred to a well-established body of law that requires courts to consider whether a patent-law claim appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Because petitioner’s complaint did not include any claim based on patent law, we vacate the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remand the case with instructions to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. See 28 U. S. C. § 1631.
It is so ordered.
Like Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U. S. 800, 814-815 (1988), this case does not call upon us to decide whether the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is fixed with reference to the complaint as initially filed or whether an actual or constructive amendment to the complaint raising a patent-law claim can provide the foundation for the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction.
The well-pleaded-complaint rule also governs whether a case is removable from state to federal court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a), which provides in relevant part:
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1 (1983).
Echoing a variant of this argument, Justice Ginsburg contends that “giv[ing] effect” to Congress’s intention “to eliminate forum shopping and to advance uniformity in ... patent law” requires that the Federal Circuit have exclusive jurisdiction whenever a patent claim was “actually adjudicated.” Post, at 840 (opinion concurring in judgment). We rejected precisely this argument in Christianson, viz., the suggestion that the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is “fixed ‘by reference to the case actually litigated.’ ” 486 U. S., at 813 (quoting Brief for Respondent in Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., O. T. 1987, No. 87-499, p. 31). We held that the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction, like that of the district court, “is determined by reference to the well-pleaded complaint, not the well-tried case.” 486 U. S., at 814.
Although Justice Stevens agrees that a correct interpretation of § 1295(a)(1) does not allow a patent-law counterclaim to serve as the basis for the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction, he nevertheless quibbles that “there is well-reasoned precedent” supporting the contrary conclusion. See post, at 835 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). There is not. The cases relied upon by Justice Stevens and by the court in Aerojet-General Corp. v. Machine Tool Works, Oerlikon-Buehrle Ltd., 895 F. 2d 736 (CA Fed. 1990), simply address whether a district court can retain jurisdiction over a counterclaim if the complaint (or a claim therein) is dismissed or if a jurisdictional defect in the complaint is identified. They do not even mention the well-pleaded-complaint rule that the statutory phrase “arising under” invokes. Nor do any of these cases interpret § 1295(a)(1) or another statute conferring appellate jurisdiction with reference to the jurisdiction of the district court. Thus, the cases relied upon by Justice Stevens have no bearing on whether the phrase “arising under” can be interpreted differently in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit than that of the district court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Part II, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Kennedy join.
The questions before us in these cases are whether 42 U. S. C. § 1981 provides an independent federal cause of action for damages against local governmental entities, and whether that cause of action is broader than the damages remedy available under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, such that a municipality may be held liable for its employees’ violations of § 1981 under a theory of respondeat superior.
I — I
Petitioner Norman Jett, a white male, was employed by respondent Dallas Independent School District (DISD) as a teacher, athletic director, and head football coach at South Oak Cliff High School (South Oak) until his reassignment to another DISD school in 1983. Petitioner was hired by the DISD in 1957, was assigned to assistant coaching duties at South Oak in 1962, and was promoted to athletic director and head football coach of South Oak in 1970. During petitioner’s lengthy tenure at South' Oak, the racial composition of the school changed from predominantly white to predominantly black. In 1975, the DISD assigned Dr. Fredrick Todd, a black, as principal of South Oak. Petitioner and Todd clashed repeatedly over school policies, and in particular over petitioner’s handling of the school’s football program. These conflicts came to a head following a November 19, 1982, football game between South Oak and the predominately white Plano High School. Todd objected to petitioner’s comparison of the South Oak team with professional teams before the match, and to the fact that petitioner entered the officials’ locker room after South Oak lost the game and told two black officials that he would never allow black officials to work another South Oak game. Todd also objected to petitioner’s statements, reported in a local newspaper, to the effect that the majority of South Oak players could not meet proposed National Collegiate Athletic Association academic requirements for collegiate athletes.
On March 15, 1983, Todd informed petitioner that he intended to recommend that petitioner be relieved of his duties as athletic director and head football coach at South Oak. On March 17, 1983, Todd sent a letter to John Kincaide, the director of athletics for DISD, recommending that petitioner be removed based on poor leadership and planning skills and petitioner’s comportment before and after the Plano game. Petitioner subsequently met with John Santillo, director of personnel for DISD, who suggested that petitioner should transfer schools because any remaining professional relationship with Principal Todd had been shattered. Petitioner then met with Linus Wright, the superintendent of the DISD. At this meeting, petitioner informed Superintendent Wright that he believed that Todd’s criticisms of his performance as head coach were unfounded and that in fact Todd was motivated by racial animus and wished to replace petitioner with a black head coach. Superintendent Wright suggested that the difficulties between Todd and petitioner might preclude petitioner from remaining in his coaching position at South Oak, but assured petitioner that another position in the DISD would be secured for him.
On March 25, 1983, Superintendent Wright met with Kin-caide, Santillo, Todd, and two other DISD officials to determine whether petitioner should remain at South Oak. After the meeting, Superintendent Wright officially affirmed Todd’s recommendation to remove petitioner from his duties as coach and athletic director at South Oak. Wright indicated that he felt compelled to follow the recommendation of the school principal. Soon after this meeting, petitioner was informed by Santillo that effective August 4, 1983, he was reassigned as a teacher at the DISD Business Magnet School, a position that did not include any coaching duties. Petitioner’s attendance and performance at the Business Magnet School were poor, and on May 5, 1983, Santillo wrote petitioner indicating that he was being placed on “unassigned personnel budget” and being reassigned to a temporary position in the DISD security department. Upon receiving Santillo’s letter, petitioner filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The DISD subsequently offered petitioner a position as a teacher and freshman football and track coach at Jefferson High School. Petitioner did not accept this assignment, and on August 19, 1983, he sent his formal letter of resignation to the DISD.
Petitioner brought this action against the DISD and Principal Todd in his personal and official capacities, under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981 and 1983, alleging due process, First Amendment, and equal protection violations. Petitioner’s due process claim alleged that he had a constitutionally protected property interest in his coaching position at South Oak, of which he was deprived without due process of law. Petitioner’s First Amendment claim was based on the allegation that his removal and subsequent transfer were actions taken in retaliation for his statements to the press regarding the sports program at South Oak. His equal protection and § 1981 causes of action were based on the allegation that his removal from the athletic director and head coaching positions at South Oak was motivated by the fact that he was white, and that Principal Todd, and through him the DISD, were responsible for the racially discriminatory diminution in his employment status. Petitioner also claimed that his resignation was in fact the product of racial harassment and retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights and thus amounted to a constructive discharge. These claims were tried to a jury, which found for petitioner on all counts. The jury awarded petitioner $650,000 against the DISD, $150,000 against Principal Todd and the DISD jointly and severally, and $50,000 in punitive damages against Todd in his personal capacity.
On motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the defendants argued that liability against the DISD was improper because there was no showing that petitioner’s injuries were sustained pursuant to a policy or custom of the school district. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 87-2084, p. 46A. The District Court rejected this argument, finding that the DISD Board of Trustees had delegated final and unreviewable authority to Superintendent Wright to reassign personnel as he saw fit. Id., at 47A. In any event, the trial court found that petitioner’s claim of racial discrimination was cognizable under § 1981 as well as § 1983, and indicated that “liability is permitted on solely a basis of respondeat superior when the claim is one of racial discrimination under § 1981.” Ibid. The District Court set aside the punitive damages award against Principal Todd as unsupported by the evidence, found the damages award against the DISD excessive and ordered a remittitur of $200,000, but otherwise denied the defendants’ motions for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial and upheld the jury’s verdict in all respects. Id., at 62A-63A. Principal Todd has reached a settlement with petitioner and is no longer a party to this action. Id., at 82A-84A.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. 798 F. 2d 748 (1986). Initially, the court found that petitioner had no constitutionally protected property interest “in the intangible, noneconomic benefits of his assignment as coach.” Id., at 754. Since petitioner had received both his teacher’s and coach’s salary after his reassignment, the change in duties did not deprive him of any state law entitlement protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court of Appeals also set aside the jury’s finding that petitioner was constructively discharged from his teaching position within the DISD. The court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the claim that petitioner’s loss of coaching duties and subsequent offer of reassignment to a lesser coaching position were so humiliating or unpleasant that a reasonable employee would have felt compelled to resign. Id., at 754-756. While finding the question “very close,” the Court of Appeals concluded that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Principal Todd’s recommendation that petitioner be transferred from his coaching duties at South Oak was motivated by impermissible racial animus. The court noted that Todd had replaced petitioner with- a black coach, that there had been racial overtones in the tension between Todd and petitioner before the Plano game, and that Todd’s explanation of his unsatisfactory rating of petitioner was questionable and was not supported by the testimony of other DISD officials who spoke of petitioner’s performance in laudatory terms. Id., at 756-757. The court also affirmed the jury’s finding that Todd’s recommendation that petitioner be relieved of his coaching duties was motivated in substantial part by petitioner’s protected statements to the press concerning the academic standing of athletes at South Oak. These remarks addressed matters of public concern, and Todd admitted that they were a substantial consideration in his decision to recommend that petitioner be relieved of his coaching duties.
The Court of Appeals then turned to the DISD’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of municipal liability under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court’s instructions as to the school district’s liability were deficient in two respects. First, the District Court’s instructions did not make clear that the school district could be held liable for the actions of Principal Todd or Superintendent Wright only if those officials were delegated policymaking authority by the school district or acted pursuant to a well settled custom that represented official policy. Second, even if Superintendent Wright could be considered a policymaker for purposes of the transfer of school district personnel, the jury made no finding that Superintendent Wright’s decision to transfer petitioner was either improperly motivated or consciously indifferent to the improper motivations of Principal Todd. Id., at 759-760.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the District Court’s conclusion that the DISD’s liability for Principal Todd’s actions could be predicated on a theory of respondeat superior under § 1981. The court noted that in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), this Court held that Congress did not intend municipalities to be subject to vicarious liability for the federal constitutional or statutory violations of their employees. The Court of Appeals reasoned that “[t]o impose such vicarious liability for only certain wrongs based on section 1981 apparently would contravene the congressional intent behind section 1983.” 798 F. 2d, at 762.
The Court of Appeals published a second opinion in rejecting petitioner’s suggestion for rehearing en banc in which the panel gave further explanation of its holding that respondeat superior liability against local governmental entities was unavailable under § 1981. 837 F. 2d 1244 (1988). The Court of Appeals noted that our decision in Monell rested in part on the conclusion that “ ‘creation of a federal law of respondeat superior would have raised all the constitutional problems’ ” associated with the Sherman amendment which was rejected by the framers of § 1983. 837 F. 2d, at 1247, quoting Monell, supra, at 693.
Because the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that local governmental bodies cannot be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior for their employees’ violations of the rights guaranteed by § 1981 conflicts with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals, see, e. g., Springer v. Seamen, 821 F. 2d 871, 880-881 (CA1 1987); Leonard v. Frankfort Electric and Water Plant Bd., 752 F. 2d 189, 194, n. 9 (CA6 1985) (dictum), we granted Norman Jett’s petition for certiorari in No. 87-2084. 488 U. S. 940 (1988). We also granted the DISD’s cross-petition for certiorari in No. 88-214, ibid., to clarify the application of our decisions in St. Louis v. Pra protnik, 485 U. S. 112 (1988) (plurality opinion), and Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U. S. 469 (1986) (plurality opinion), to the school district’s potential liability for the discriminatory actions of Principal Todd.
We note that at no stage in the proceedings has the school district raised the contention that the substantive scope of the “right... to make... contracts” protected by §1981 does not reach the injury suffered by petitioner here. See Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, ante, at 176-177. Instead, the school district has argued that the limitations on municipal liability under §1983 are applicable to violations of the rights protected by § 1981. Because petitioner has obtained a jury verdict to the effect that Dr. Todd violated his rights under § 1981, and the school district has never contested the judgment below on the ground that § 1981 does not reach petitioner’s employment injury, we assume for purposes of these cases, without deciding, that petitioner’s rights under § 1981 have been violated by his removal and reassignment. See Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378, 388-389, n. 8 (1989); United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 905 (1984). See also this Court’s Rule 21.1(a).
II
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1981, as amended, provides that:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exac-tions of every kind, and no other.”
In essence, petitioner argues that in 1866 the 39th Congress intended to create a cause of action for damages against municipal actors and others who violated the rights now enumerated in § 1981. While petitioner concedes that the text of the 1866 Act itself is completely silent on this score, see Brief for Petitioner 26, petitioner contends that a civil remedy was nonetheless intended for the violation of the rights contained in § 1 of the 1866 Act. Petitioner argues that Congress wished to adopt the prevailing approach to municipal liability to effectuate this damages remedy, which was re-spondeat superior. Petitioner concludes that with this federal damages remedy in place in 1866, it was not the intent of the 42d Congress, which passed present day § 1983, to narrow the more sweeping remedy against local governments which Congress had created five years earlier. Since “repeals by implication are not favored,”'id., at 15 (citations omitted), petitioner concludes that § 1981 must provide an independent cause of action for racial discrimination against local governmental entities, and that this broader remedy is unaffected by the constraints on municipal liability announced in Monell. In the alternative, petitioner argues that even if § 1981 does not create an express cause of action for damages against local governmental entities, 42 U. S. C. § 1988 invites this Court to craft a remedy by looking to common law principles, which again point to a rule of respondeat superior. Brief for Petitioner 27-29. To examine these contentions, we must consider the text and history of both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the precursors of §§ 1981 and 1983 respectively.
Justice Brennan’s dissent errs in asserting that we have strayed from the question upon which we granted certiorari. See post, at 739-740. Jett’s petition for certiorari asks us to decide “[wjhether a public employee who claims job discrimination on the basis of race must show that the discrimination resulted from official ‘policy or custom’ in order to recover under 42 U. S. C. § 1981.” Pet. for Cert, in No. 87-2084, p. i. In answering this question, the lower court looked to the relationship between §§ 1981 and 1983, and refused to differentiate “between sections 1981 and 1983 with respect to municipal respondeat superior liability.” 837 F. 2d, at 1247. In both his petition for certiorari and his brief on the merits in this Court, petitioner Jett took issue with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the express damages remedy under § 1983 militated against the creation or implication of a broader damages remedy under § 1981. See Pet. for Cert, in No. 87-2084, pp. 14-16; Brief for Petitioner 14-25. Moreover, petitioner concedes that “private causes of action under Sections 1981 and 1982 do not arise from the express language of those statutes,” Brief for Petitioner 27, and asks this Court to “look to state law or to fashion a single federal rule,” of municipal damages liability under §1981. Id., at 28-29 (footnote omitted). We think it obvious that the question whether a federal damages remedy broader than that provided by § 1983 should be implied from § 1981 is fairly included in the question upon which we granted certiorari.
Equally implausible is Justice Brennan’s suggestion that we have somehow unwittingly answered this question in the past. See post, at 741. Most of the cases cited by the dissent involved private conduct, and thus quite obviously could not have considered the propriety of judicial implication of a federal damages remedy under § 1981 in the state action context we address here. The only two cases cited by Justice Brennan which involved state actors, Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410 (1948), and Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24 (1948), are completely inapposite. See post, at 745. Takahashi involved a mandamus action filed in state court, and thus understandably had nothing to say about federal damages remedies against state actors under § 1981. Hurd also involved only injunctive relief, and could not have considered the relationship of § 1981 to § 1983, since the latter statute did not apply to the District of Columbia at the time of our decision in that case. See District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U. S. 418 (1973).
A
On December 18, 1865, the Secretary of State certified that the Thirteenth Amendment had been ratified and become part of the Constitution. Less than three weeks later, Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced S. 61, which was to become the Civil Rights Act of 1866. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 129 (1866). The bill had eight sections as introduced, the first three of which are relevant to our inquiry here. Section 1, as introduced to the Senate by Trumbull, provided:
“That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery; but the inhabitants of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.” Id., at 474.
On January 29, 1866, Senator Trumbull took the floor to describe S. 61 to his colleagues. Trumbull indicated that “the first section will amount to nothing more than the declaration in the Constitution itself unless we have the machinery to carry it into effect.” Id., at 475. The Senator then alluded to the second section of the bill which provided:
“That any person who under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude,... or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.” Ibid.
Senator Trumbull told the Senate: “This is the valuable section of the bill so far as protecting the rights of freedmen is concerned.” Ibid. This section would allow for criminal prosecution of those who denied the freedman the rights protected by § 1, and Trumbull felt, in retrospect somewhat naively, that, “it will only be necessary to go into the late slave-holding States and subject to fine and imprisonment one or two in a State, and the most prominent ones I should hope at that, to break up this whole business.” Ibid.
Trumbull then described the third section of the bill, which, as later enacted, provided in pertinent part:
“That the district courts of the United States, within their respective districts, shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offenses committed against the provisions of this act, and also, concurrently with the circuit courts of the United States, of all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State or locality where they may be any of the rights secured to them by the first section of this act; and if any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, has been or shall be commenced in any State court, against any such person, for any cause whatsoever... such defendant shall have the right to remove such cause for trial to the proper district or circuit court in the manner prescribed by the ‘Act relating to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases,’ approved March three, eighteen hundred and sixty three, and all acts amendatory thereof.” 14 Stat. 27.
Trumbull described this section as “giving to the courts of the United States jurisdiction over all persons committing offenses against the provisions of this act, and also over the cases of persons who are discriminated against by State laws or customs.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 475 (1866). Much of the debate in both the Senate and the House over the 1866 Act was taken up with the meaning of the terms “civil rights or immunities” contained in the first sentence of § 1 of the bill as introduced in the Senate. The phrase remained in the bill throughout the Senate’s consideration of S. 61, but was stricken by amendment in the House shortly before that body passed the bill.
Discussion of § 2 of the bill focused on both the propriety and constitutionality of subjecting state officers to criminal punishment for effectuating discriminatory state laws. Opponents of the bill consistently referred to criminal punishment and fines being levied against state judges and other state officers for the enforcement of state laws in conflict with § 1. See id,., at 475, 499, 500 (Sen. Cowan); id., at 598 (Sen. Davis); id., at 1121 (Rep. Rogers); id., at 1154 (Rep. El-dr idge). They never intimated that they understood any part of the bill to create a federal damages remedy against state officers or the political subdivisions of the States.
Debate concerning §3 focused on the right of removal of civil and criminal proceedings commenced in state court. Senator Howard, an opponent, engaged in a section by section criticism of the bill after its introduction by. Trumbull. As to § 3 he gave numerous examples of his perception of its operation. All of these involved removal of actions from state court, and none alluded to original federal jurisdiction except in the case of the exclusive criminal jurisdiction expressly provided for. Id., at 479 (“All such cases will be subject to be removed into the Federal courts”); see also id., at 598 (Sen. Davis) (“Section three provides that all suits brought in State courts that come within the purview of the previous sections may be removed into the Federal courts”). On February 2, 1866, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 33 to 12 and was sent to the House. Id., at 606-607.
Representative Wilson of Iowa, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced S. 61 in the House on March 1, 1866. Of § 1 of the bill, he said:
“Mr. Speaker, I think I may safely affirm that this bill, so far as it declares the equality of all citizens in the enjoyment of civil rights and immunities merely affirms existing law. We are following the Constitution.... It is not the object of this bill to establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which already belong to every citizen.” Id., at 1117.
As did Trumbull in the Senate, Wilson immediately alluded to § 2, the criminal provision, as the main enforcement mechanism of the bill. “In order to accomplish this end, it is necessary to fortify the declaratory portions of this bill with sanctions as will render it effective.” Id., at 1118.
The only discussion of a civil remedy in the House debates surrounding the 1866 Act came in response to Representative Bingham’s proposal to send the bill back to the House Judiciary Committee with instructions “to strike out all parts of said bill which are penal and which authorize criminal proceedings, and in lieu thereof to give all citizens of the United States injured by denial or violation of any of the other rights secured or protected by said act, an action in the United States courts, with double costs in all cases of emergency, without regard to the amount of damages.” Id., at 1266, 1291. Bingham was opposed to the civil rights bill strictly on the grounds that it exceeded the constitutional power of the Federal Government. As to States “sustaining their full constitutional relation to the Government of the United States,” Bingham, along with several other Republicans, doubted the power of the Federal Government to interfere with the reserved powers of the States to define property and other rights. Id., at 1292. While Bingham realized that the same constitutional objections applied to his proposal for modification of the bill, he felt that these would make the bill “less oppressive, and therefore less objectionable.” Id., at 1291.
Representative Wilson responded to his Republican colleague’s proposal. Wilson pointed out that there was no difference in constitutional principle “between saying that the citizen shall be protected by the legislative power of the United States in his rights by civil remedy and declaring that he shall be protected by penal enactments against those who interfere with his rights.” Id., at 1295. Wilson did however see a difference in the effectiveness of the two remedies. He stated:
“This bill proposes that the humblest citizen shall have full and ample protection at the cost of the Government, whose duty it is to protect him. The [Bingham] amendment... recognizes the principle involved, but it says that the citizen despoiled of his rights, instead of being properly protected by the Government, must press his own way through the courts and pay the bills attendant thereon.... The highest obligation which the Government owes to the citizen in return for the allegiance exacted of him is to secure him in the protection of his rights. Under the amendment of the gentleman the citizen can only receive that protection in the form of a few dollars in the way of damages, if he shall be so fortunate as to recover a verdict against a solvent wrongdoer. This is called protection. This is what we are asked to do in the way of enforcing the bill of rights. Dollars are weighed against the right of life, liberty and property.” Ibid.
Bingham’s proposal was thereafter defeated by a vote of 113 to 37. Id., at 1296. The Senate bill was subsequently carried in the House, after the removal of the “civil rights and immunities” language in § 1, and an amendment adding a ninth section to the bill providing for a final appeal to the Supreme Court in cases arising under the Act. Id., at 1366-1367. On March 15,1866, the Senate concurred in the House amendments without a record vote, see id., at 1413-1416, and the bill was sent to the President.
After holding the bill for a full 10 days, President Johnson vetoed the bill and returned it to the Senate with his objections. The President’s criticisms of §§ 2 and 3 of the bill, and Senator Trumbull’s responses thereto, are particularly illuminating. As to § 2, the President declared that it was designed to counteract discriminatory state legislation, “by imposing fine and imprisonment upon the legislators who may pass such... laws.” Id., at 1680. As to the third section, the President indicated that it would vest exclusive federal jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases where the rights guaranteed in § 1 were affected. Ibid.
Trumbull took issue with both statements. As to the charge that §2 would result in the criminal prosecution of state legislators, Trumbull replied:
“Who is to be punished? Is the law to be punished? Are the men who make the law to be punished? Is that the language of the bill? Not at all. If any person, ‘under color of any law,’ shall subject another to the deprivation of a right to which he is entitled, he is to be punished. Who? The person who, under the color of the law, does the act, not the men who made the law. In some communities in the South a custom prevails by which different punishment is inflicted upon the blacks from that meted out to whites for the same offense. Does this section propose to punish the community where the custom prevails? Or is it to punish the person who, under color of the custom, deprives the party of his right? It is a manifest perversion of the meaning of the section to assert anything else.” Id., at 1758.
Trumbull also answered the President’s charge that the third section of the bill created original federal jurisdiction in all cases where a freedman was involved in a state court proceeding. He stated:
“So in reference to this third section, the jurisdiction is given to the Federal courts of a case affecting the person that is discriminated against. Now, he is not necessarily discriminated against, because there may be a custom in the community discriminating against him, nor because a Legislature may have passed a statute discriminating against him; that statute is of no validity if it comes in conflict with a statute of the United States; and it is not to be presumed that any judge of a State court would hold that a statute of a State discriminating against a person on account of color was valid when there was a statute of the United States with which it was in direct conflict, and the case would not therefore rise in which a party was discriminated against until it was tested, and then if the discrimination was held valid he would have a right- to remove it to a Federal court.” Id., at 1759.
Senator Trumbull then went on to indicate that “[i]f it be necessary in order to protect the freedman in his rights that he should have authority to go into the Federal courts in all cases where a custom [of discrimination] prevails in a State... I think we have the authority to confer that jurisdiction under the second clause of the constitutional amendment.” Ibid. Two days later, on April 6, 1866, the Senate overrode the President’s veto by a vote of 33 to 15. Id., at 1809. On April 9, 1866, the House received both the bill and the President’s veto message which were read on the floor. Id., at 1857-1860. The House then promptly overrode the President’s veto by a vote of 122 to 41, id., at 1861, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 became law.
Several points relevant to our present inquiry emerge from the history surrounding the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. First, nowhere did the Act provide for an express damages remedy for violation of the provisions of § 1. See Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 414, n. 13 (1968) (noting “[t]hat 42 U. S. C. § 1982 is couched in declaratory terms and provides no explicit method of enforcement”); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229, 238 (1969); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 690, n. 12 (1979); id., at 728 (White, J., dissenting). Second, no original federal jurisdiction was created by the 1866 Act which could support a federal damages remedy against state actors. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 99, n. 14 (1980) (§3 of the 1866 Act embodied remedy of “postjudgment removal for state-court defendants whose civil rights were threatened”); Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U. S. 780, 788-789 (1966); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 311-312 (1880). Finally, the penal provision, the only provision explicitly directed at state officials, was, in Senator Trumbull’s words, designed to punish the “person who, under the color of the law, does the act,” not “the community where the custom prevails.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1758 (1866).
Two events subsequent to the passage of the 1866 Act bear on the relationship between §§ 1981 and 1983. First, on June 13, 1866, just over two months after the passage of the 1866 Act, a joint resolution was passed sending the Fourteenth Amendment to the States for ratification. As we have noted in the past, the first section of the 1866 Act “constituted an initial blueprint of the Fourteenth Amendment.” General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 389 (1982). Many of the Members of the 39th Congress viewed § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as “constitutional-izing” and expanding the protections of the 1866 Act and viewed what became § 5 of the Amendment as laying to rest doubts shared by both sides of the aisle concerning the constitutionality of that measure. See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2465 (1866) (Rep. Thayer) (“As I understand it, it is but incorporating in the Constitution of the United States the principle of the civil rights bill which has lately become a law”); id., at 2498 (Rep. Broomall); id., at 2459 (Rep. Stevens); id., at 2461 (Rep. Finck); id., at 2467 (Rep. Boyer). See also Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S., at 32 (“[A]s the legislative debates reveal, one of the primary purposes of many members of Congress in supporting the adoption of the Fourteenth
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code enables a debtor to "reject any executory contract"-meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). The section further provides that a debtor's rejection of a contract under that authority "constitutes a breach of such contract." § 365(g).
Today we consider the meaning of those provisions in the context of a trademark licensing agreement. The question is whether the debtor-licensor's rejection of that contract deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark. We hold it does not. A rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it. And that means all the rights that would ordinarily survive a contract breach, including those conveyed here, remain in place.
I
This case arises from a licensing agreement gone wrong. Respondent Tempnology, LLC, manufactured clothing and accessories designed to stay cool when used in exercise. It marketed those products under the brand name "Coolcore," using trademarks (e.g., logos and labels) to distinguish the gear from other athletic apparel. In 2012, Tempnology entered into a contract with petitioner Mission Product Holdings, Inc. See App. 203-255. The agreement gave Mission an exclusive license to distribute certain Coolcore products in the United States. And more important here, it granted Mission a non-exclusive license to use the Coolcore trademarks, both in the United States and around the world. The agreement was set to expire in July 2016. But in September 2015, Tempnology filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And it soon afterward asked the Bankruptcy Court to allow it to "reject" the licensing agreement. § 365(a).
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code sets out a framework for reorganizing a bankrupt business. See §§ 1101-1174. The filing of a petition creates a bankruptcy estate consisting of all the debtor's assets and rights. See § 541. The estate is the pot out of which creditors' claims are paid. It is administered by either a trustee or, as in this case, the debtor itself. See §§ 1101, 1107.
Section 365(a) of the Code provides that a "trustee [or debtor], subject to the court's approval, may assume or reject any executory contract." § 365(a). A contract is executory if "performance remains due to some extent on both sides." NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco , 465 U. S. 513, 522, n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 1188, 79 L.Ed.2d 482 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such an agreement represents both an asset (the debtor's right to the counterparty's future performance) and a liability (the debtor's own obligations to perform). Section 365(a) enables the debtor (or its trustee), upon entering bankruptcy, to decide whether the contract is a good deal for the estate going forward. If so, the debtor will want to assume the contract, fulfilling its obligations while benefiting from the counterparty's performance. But if not, the debtor will want to reject the contract, repudiating any further performance of its duties. The bankruptcy court will generally approve that choice, under the deferential "business judgment" rule. Id., at 523, 104 S.Ct. 1188.
According to Section 365(g), "the rejection of an executory contract[ ] constitutes a breach of such contract." As both parties here agree, the counterparty thus has a claim against the estate for damages resulting from the debtor's nonperformance. See Brief for Petitioner 17, 19; Brief for Respondent 30-31. But such a claim is unlikely to ever be paid in full. That is because the debtor's breach is deemed to occur "immediately before the date of the filing of the [bankruptcy] petition," rather than on the actual post-petition rejection date. § 365(g)(1). By thus giving the counterparty a pre-petition claim, Section 365(g) places that party in the same boat as the debtor's unsecured creditors, who in a typical bankruptcy may receive only cents on the dollar. See Bildisco , 465 U. S. at 531-532, 104 S.Ct. 1188 (noting the higher priority of post-petition claims).
In this case, the Bankruptcy Court (per usual) approved Tempnology's proposed rejection of its executory licensing agreement with Mission. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 83-84. That meant, as laid out above, two things on which the parties agree. First, Tempnology could stop performing under the contract. And second, Mission could assert (for whatever it might be worth) a pre-petition claim in the bankruptcy proceeding for damages resulting from Tempnology's nonperformance.
But Tempnology thought still another consequence ensued, and it returned to the Bankruptcy Court for a declaratory judgment confirming its view. According to Tempnology, its rejection of the contract also terminated the rights it had granted Mission to use the Coolcore trademarks. Tempnology based its argument on a negative inference. See Motion in No. 15-11400 (Bkrtcy. Ct. NH), pp. 9-14. Several provisions in Section 365 state that a counterparty to specific kinds of agreements may keep exercising contractual rights after a debtor's rejection. For example, Section 365(h) provides that if a bankrupt landlord rejects a lease, the tenant need not move out; instead, she may stay and pay rent (just as she did before) until the lease term expires. And still closer to home, Section 365(n) sets out a similar rule for some types of intellectual property licenses: If the debtor-licensor rejects the agreement, the licensee can continue to use the property (typically, a patent), so long as it makes whatever payments the contract demands. But Tempnology pointed out that neither Section 365(n) nor any similar provision covers trademark licenses. So, it reasoned, in that sort of contract a different rule must apply: The debtor's rejection must extinguish the rights that the agreement had conferred on the trademark licensee. The Bankruptcy Court agreed. See In re Tempnology, LLC , 541 B. R. 1 (Bkrtcy. Ct. NH 2015). It held, relying on the same "negative inference," that Tempnology's rejection of the licensing agreement revoked Mission's right to use the Coolcore marks. Id., at 7.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed, relying heavily on a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit about the effects of rejection on trademark licensing agreements. See In re Tempnology, LLC , 559 B. R. 809, 820-823 (Bkrtcy. App. Panel CA1 2016) ; Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago Am. Mfg., LLC , 686 F. 3d 372, 376-377 (CA7 2012). Rather than reason backward from Section 365(n) or similar provisions, the Panel focused on Section 365(g) 's statement that rejection of a contract "constitutes a breach." Outside bankruptcy, the court explained, the breach of an agreement does not eliminate rights the contract had already conferred on the non-breaching party. See 559 B. R. at 820. So neither could a rejection of an agreement in bankruptcy have that effect. A rejection "convert[s]" a "debtor's unfulfilled obligations" to a pre-petition damages claim. Id., at 822 (quoting Sunbeam , 686 F. 3d at 377 ). But it does not "terminate the contract" or "vaporize[ ]" the counterparty's rights. 559 B. R. at 820, 822 (quoting Sunbeam , 686 F. 3d at 377 ). Mission could thus continue to use the Coolcore trademarks.
But the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the Panel's and Seventh Circuit's view, and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court decision terminating Mission's license. See In re Tempnology, LLC , 879 F. 3d 389 (2018). The majority first endorsed that court's inference from Section 365(n) and similar provisions. It next reasoned that special features of trademark law counsel against allowing a licensee to retain rights to a mark after the licensing agreement's rejection. Under that body of law, the majority stated, the trademark owner's "[f]ailure to monitor and exercise [quality] control" over goods associated with a trademark "jeopardiz[es]
the continued validity of [its] own trademark rights." Id., at 402. So if (the majority continued) a licensee can keep using a mark after an agreement's rejection, the licensor will need to carry on its monitoring activities. And according to the majority, that would frustrate "Congress's principal aim in providing for rejection": to "release the debtor's estate from burdensome obligations." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Judge Torruella dissented, mainly for the Seventh Circuit's reasons. See id., at 405-407.
We granted certiorari to resolve the division between the First and Seventh Circuits. 586 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 397, 202 L.Ed.2d 309 (2018). We now affirm the Seventh's reasoning and reverse the decision below.
II
Before reaching the merits, we pause to consider Tempnology's claim that this case is moot. Under settled law, we may dismiss the case for that reason only if "it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever" to Mission assuming it prevails. Chafin v. Chafin , 568 U. S. 165, 172, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). That demanding standard is not met here.
Mission has presented a claim for money damages-essentially lost profits-arising from its inability to use the Coolcore trademarks between the time Tempnology rejected the licensing agreement and its scheduled expiration date. See Reply Brief 22, and n. 8. Such claims, if at all plausible, ensure a live controversy. See Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft , 436 U. S. 1, 8-9, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978). For better or worse, nothing so shows a continuing stake in a dispute's outcome as a demand for dollars and cents. See 13C C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.3, p. 2 (3d ed. 2008) (Wright & Miller) ("[A] case is not moot so long as a claim for monetary relief survives"). Ultimate recovery on that demand may be uncertain or even unlikely for any number of reasons, in this case as in others. But that is of no moment. If there is any chance of money changing hands, Mission's suit remains live. See Chafin , 568 U. S. at 172, 133 S.Ct. 1017.
Tempnology makes a flurry of arguments about why Mission is not entitled to damages, but none so clearly precludes recovery as to make this case moot. First, Tempnology contends that Mission suffered no injury because it "never used the trademark[s] during [the post-rejection] period." Brief for Respondent 24; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. But that gets things backward. Mission's non-use of the marks during that time is precisely what gives rise to its damages claim; had it employed the marks, it would not have lost any profits. So next, Tempnology argues that Mission's non-use was its own "choice," for which damages cannot lie. See id., at 26. But recall that the Bankruptcy Court held that Mission could not use the marks after rejection (and its decision remained in effect through the agreement's expiration). See supra, at 1659. And although (as Tempnology counters) the court issued "no injunction," Brief for Respondent 26, that difference does not matter: Mission need not have flouted a crystal-clear ruling and courted yet more legal trouble to preserve its claim. Cf. 13B Wright & Miller § 3533.2.2, at 852 ("[C]ompliance [with a judicial decision] does not moot [a case] if it remains possible to undo the effects of compliance," as through compensation). So last, Tempnology claims that it bears no blame (and thus should not have to pay) for Mission's injury because all it did was "ask[ ] the court to make a ruling." Tr. of Oral Arg. 34-35. But whether Tempnology did anything to Mission amounting to a legal wrong is a prototypical merits question, which no court has addressed and which has no obvious answer. That means it is no reason to find this case moot.
And so too for Tempnology's further argument that Mission will be unable to convert any judgment in its favor to hard cash. Here, Tempnology notes that the bankruptcy estate has recently distributed all of its assets, leaving nothing to satisfy Mission's judgment. See Brief for Respondent 27. But courts often adjudicate disputes whose "practical impact" is unsure at best, as when "a defendant is insolvent." Chafin , 568 U. S. at 175, 133 S.Ct. 1017. And Mission notes that if it prevails, it can seek the unwinding of prior distributions to get its fair share of the estate. See Reply Brief 23. So although this suit "may not make [Mission] rich," or even better off, it remains a live controversy-allowing us to proceed. Chafin , 568 U. S. at 176, 133 S.Ct. 1017.
III
What is the effect of a debtor's (or trustee's) rejection of a contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code ? The parties and courts of appeals have offered us two starkly different answers. According to one view, a rejection has the same consequence as a contract breach outside bankruptcy: It gives the counterparty a claim for damages, while leaving intact the rights the counterparty has received under the contract. According to the other view, a rejection (except in a few spheres) has more the effect of a contract rescission in the non-bankruptcy world: Though also allowing a damages claim, the rejection terminates the whole agreement along with all rights it conferred. Today, we hold that both Section 365 's text and fundamental principles of bankruptcy law command the first, rejection-as-breach approach. We reject the competing claim that by specifically enabling the counterparties in some contracts to retain rights after rejection, Congress showed that it wanted the counterparties in all other contracts to lose their rights. And we reject an argument for the rescission approach turning on the distinctive features of trademark licenses. Rejection of a contract-any contract-in bankruptcy operates not as a rescission but as a breach.
A
We start with the text of the Code's principal provisions on rejection-and find that it does much of the work. As noted earlier, Section 365(a) gives a debtor the option, subject to court approval, to "assume or reject any executory contract." See supra, at 1658. And Section 365(g) describes what rejection means. Rejection "constitutes a breach of [an executory] contract," deemed to occur "immediately before the date of the filing of the petition." See supra , at 1658. Or said more pithily for current purposes, a rejection is a breach. And "breach" is neither a defined nor a specialized bankruptcy term. It means in the Code what it means in contract law outside bankruptcy. See Field v. Mans , 516 U. S. 59, 69, 116 S.Ct. 437, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995) (Congress generally meant for the Bankruptcy Code to "incorporate the established meaning" of "terms that have accumulated settled meaning" (internal quotation marks omitted)). So the first place to go in divining the effects of rejection is to non-bankruptcy contract law, which can tell us the effects of breach.
Consider a made-up executory contract to see how the law of breach works outside bankruptcy. A dealer leases a photocopier to a law firm, while agreeing to service it every month; in exchange, the firm commits to pay a monthly fee. During the lease term, the dealer decides to stop servicing the machine, thus breaching the agreement in a material way. The law firm now has a choice (assuming no special contract term or state law). The firm can keep up its side of the bargain, continuing to pay for use of the copier, while suing the dealer for damages from the service breach. Or the firm can call the whole deal off, halting its own payments and returning the copier, while suing for any damages incurred. See 13 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 39:32, pp. 701-702 (4th ed. 2013) ("[W]hen a contract is breached in the course of performance, the injured party may elect to continue the contract or refuse to perform further"). But to repeat: The choice to terminate the agreement and send back the copier is for the law firm . By contrast, the dealer has no ability, based on its own breach, to terminate the agreement. Or otherwise said, the dealer cannot get back the copier just by refusing to show up for a service appointment. The contract gave the law firm continuing rights in the copier, which the dealer cannot unilaterally revoke.
And now to return to bankruptcy: If the rejection of the photocopier contract "constitutes a breach," as the Code says, then the same results should follow (save for one twist as to timing). Assume here that the dealer files a Chapter 11 petition and decides to reject its agreement with the law firm. That means, as above, that the dealer will stop servicing the copier. It means, too, that the law firm has an option about how to respond-continue the contract or walk away, while suing for whatever damages go with its choice. (Here is where the twist comes in: Because the rejection is deemed to occur "immediately before" bankruptcy, the firm's damages suit is treated as a pre-petition claim on the estate, which will likely receive only cents on the dollar. See supra, at 1658 - 1659.) And most important, it means that assuming the law firm wants to keep using the copier, the dealer cannot take it back. A rejection does not terminate the contract. When it occurs, the debtor and counterparty do not go back to their pre-contract positions. Instead, the counterparty retains the rights it has received under the agreement. As after a breach, so too after a rejection, those rights survive.
All of this, it will hardly surprise you to learn, is not just about photocopier leases. Sections 365(a) and (g) speak broadly, to "any executory contract[s]." Many licensing agreements involving trademarks or other property are of that kind (including, all agree, the Tempnology-Mission contract). The licensor not only grants a license, but provides associated goods or services during its term; the licensee pays continuing royalties or fees. If the licensor breaches the agreement outside bankruptcy (again, barring any special contract term or state law), everything said above goes. In particular, the breach does not revoke the license or stop the licensee from doing what it allows. See, e.g., Sunbeam , 686 F. 3d at 376 ("Outside of bankruptcy, a licensor's breach does not terminate a licensee's right to use [the licensed] intellectual property"). And because rejection "constitutes a breach," § 365(g), the same consequences follow in bankruptcy. The debtor can stop performing its remaining obligations under the agreement. But the debtor cannot rescind the license already conveyed. So the licensee can continue to do whatever the license authorizes.
In preserving those rights, Section 365 reflects a general bankruptcy rule: The estate cannot possess anything more than the debtor itself did outside bankruptcy. See Board of Trade of Chicago v. Johnson , 264 U. S. 1, 15, 44 S.Ct. 232, 68 L.Ed. 533 (1924) (establishing that principle); § 541(a)(1) (defining the estate to include the "interests of the debtor in property" (emphasis added)). As one bankruptcy scholar has put the point: Whatever "limitation[s] on the debtor's property [apply] outside of bankruptcy[ ] appl[y] inside of bankruptcy as well. A debtor's property does not shrink by happenstance of bankruptcy, but it does not expand, either." D. Baird, Elements of Bankruptcy 97 (6th ed. 2014). So if the not-yet debtor was subject to a counterparty's contractual right (say, to retain a copier or use a trademark), so too is the trustee or debtor once the bankruptcy petition has been filed. The rejection-as-breach rule (but not the rejection-as-rescission rule) ensures that result. By insisting that the same counterparty rights survive rejection as survive breach, the rule prevents a debtor in bankruptcy from recapturing interests it had given up.
And conversely, the rejection-as-rescission approach would circumvent the Code's stringent limits on "avoidance" actions-the exceptional cases in which trustees (or debtors) may indeed unwind pre-bankruptcy transfers that undermine the bankruptcy process. The most notable example is for fraudulent conveyances-usually, something-for-nothing transfers that deplete the estate (and so cheat creditors) on the eve of bankruptcy. See § 548(a). A trustee's avoidance powers are laid out in a discrete set of sections in the Code, see §§ 544-553, far away from Section 365. And they can be invoked in only narrow circumstances-unlike the power of rejection, which may be exercised for any plausible economic reason. See, e.g., § 548(a) (describing the requirements for avoiding fraudulent transfers); supra, at 1658 - 1659. If trustees (or debtors) could use rejection to rescind previously granted interests, then rejection would become functionally equivalent to avoidance. Both, that is, would roll back a prior transfer. And that result would subvert everything the Code does to keep avoidances cabined-so they do not threaten the rule that the estate can take only what the debtor possessed before filing. Again, then, core tenets of bankruptcy law push in the same direction as Section 365 's text: Rejection is breach, and has only its consequences.
B
Tempnology's main argument to the contrary, here as in the courts below, rests on a negative inference. See Brief for Respondent 33-41; supra, at 1658 - 1659. Several provisions of Section 365, Tempnology notes, "identif[y] categories of contracts under which a counterparty" may retain specified contract rights "notwithstanding rejection." Brief for Respondent 34. Sections 365(h) and (i) make clear that certain purchasers and lessees of real property and timeshare interests can continue to exercise rights after a debtor has rejected the lease or sales contract. See § 365(h)(1) (real-property leases); § 365(i) (real-property sales contracts); §§ 365(h)(2), (i) (timeshare interests). And Section 365(n) similarly provides that licensees of some intellectual property-but not trademarks-retain contractual rights after rejection. See § 365(n) ; § 101(35A) ; supra, at 1659. Tempnology argues from those provisions that the ordinary consequence of rejection must be something different-i.e., the termination, rather than survival, of contractual rights previously granted. Otherwise, Tempnology concludes, the statute's "general rule" would "swallow the exceptions." Brief for Respondent 19.
But that argument pays too little heed to the main provisions governing rejection and too much to subsidiary ones. On the one hand, it offers no account of how to read Section 365(g) (recall, rejection "constitutes a breach") to say essentially its opposite (i.e., that rejection and breach have divergent consequences). On the other hand, it treats as a neat, reticulated scheme of "narrowly tailored exception[s]," id., at 36 (emphasis deleted), what history reveals to be anything but. Each of the provisions Tempnology highlights emerged at a different time, over a span of half a century. See, e.g., 52 Stat. 881 (1938) (real-property leases); § 1(b), 102 Stat. 2538 (1988) (intellectual property). And each responded to a discrete problem-as often as not, correcting a judicial ruling of just the kind Tempnology urges. See Andrew, Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy, 59 U. Colo. L. Rev. 845, 911-912, 916-919 (1988) (identifying judicial decisions that the provisions overturned); compare, e.g., In re Sombrero Reef Club, Inc. , 18 B. R. 612, 618-619 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SD Fla. 1982), with, e.g., §§ 365(h)(2), (i). Read as generously as possible to Tempnology, this mash-up of legislative interventions says nothing much of anything about the content of Section 365(g) 's general rule. Read less generously, it affirmatively refutes Tempnology's rendition. As one bankruptcy scholar noted after an exhaustive review of the history: "What the legislative record [reflects] is that whenever Congress has been confronted with the consequences of the [view that rejection terminates all contractual rights], it has expressed its disapproval." Andrew, 59 U. Colo. L. Rev., at 928. On that account, Congress enacted the provisions, as and when needed, to reinforce or clarify the general rule that contractual rights survive rejection.
Consider more closely, for example, Congress's enactment of Section 365(n), which addresses certain intellectual property licensing agreements. No one disputes how that provision came about. In Lubrizol Enterprisesv.Richmond Metal Finishers, the Fourth Circuit held that a debtor's rejection of an executory contract worked to revoke its grant of a patent license. See 756 F. 2d 1043, 1045-1048 (1985). In other words, Lubrizol adopted the same rule for patent licenses that the First Circuit announced for trademark licenses here. Congress sprang into action, drafting Section 365(n) to reverse Lubrizol and ensure the continuation of patent (and some other intellectual property) licensees' rights. See 102 Stat. 2538 (1988); S. Rep. No. 100-505, pp. 2-4 (1988) (explaining that Section 365(n)"corrects [ Lubrizol 's] perception" that " Section 365 was ever intended to be a mechanism for stripping innocent licensee[s] of rights"). As Tempnology highlights, that provision does not cover trademark licensing agreements, which continue to fall, along with most other contracts, within Section 365(g) 's general rule. See Brief for Respondent 38. But what of that? Even put aside the claim that Section 365(n) is part of a pattern-that Congress whacked Tempnology's view of rejection wherever it raised its head. See supra , at 1664. Still, Congress's repudiation of Lubrizol for patent contracts does not show any intent to ratify that decision's approach for almost all others. Which is to say that no negative inference arises. Congress did nothing in adding Section 365(n) to alter the natural reading of Section 365(g) -that rejection and breach have the same results.
Tempnology's remaining argument turns on the way special features of trademark law may affect the fulfillment of the Code's goals. Like the First Circuit below, Tempnology here focuses on a trademark licensor's duty to monitor and "exercise quality control over the goods and services sold" under a license. Brief for Respondent 20; see supra, at 1659 - 1660. Absent those efforts to keep up quality, the mark will naturally decline in value and may eventually become altogether invalid. See 3 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 18:48, pp. 18-129, 18-133 (5th ed. 2018). So (Tempnology argues) unless rejection of a trademark licensing agreement terminates the licensee's rights to use the mark, the debtor will have to choose between expending scarce resources on quality control and risking the loss of a valuable asset. See Brief for Respondent 59. "Either choice," Tempnology concludes, "would impede a [debtor's] ability to reorganize," thus "undermining a fundamental purpose of the Code." Id., at 59-60.
To begin with, that argument is a mismatch with Tempnology's reading of Section 365. The argument is trademark-specific. But Tempnology's reading of Section 365 is not. Remember, Tempnology construes that section to mean that a debtor's rejection of a contract terminates the counterparty's rights "unless the contract falls within an express statutory exception." Id., at 27-28; see supra, at 1663 - 1664. That construction treats trademark agreements identically to most other contracts; the only agreements getting different treatment are those falling within the discrete provisions just discussed. And indeed, Tempnology could not have discovered, however hard it looked, any trademark-specific rule in Section 365. That section's special provisions, as all agree, do not mention trademarks; and the general provisions speak, well, generally. So Tempnology is essentially arguing that distinctive features of trademarks should persuade us to adopt a construction of Section 365 that will govern not just trademark agreements, but pretty nearly every executory contract. However serious Tempnology's trademark-related concerns, that would allow the tail to wag the Doberman.
And even putting aside that incongruity, Tempnology's plea to facilitate trademark licensors' reorganizations cannot overcome what Sections 365(a) and (g) direct. The Code of course aims to make reorganizations possible. But it does not permit anything and everything that might advance that goal. See, e.g. , Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. , 554 U. S. 33, 51, 128 S.Ct. 2326, 171 L.Ed.2d 203 (2008) (observing that in enacting Chapter 11, Congress did not have "a single purpose," but "str[uck] a balance" among multiple competing interests (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, Section 365 provides a debtor like Tempnology with a powerful tool: Through rejection, the debtor can escape all of its future contract obligations, without having to pay much of anything in return. See supra, at 1658 - 1659. But in allowing rejection of those contractual duties, Section 365 does not grant the debtor an exemption from all the burdens that generally applicable law-whether involving contracts or trademarks-imposes on property owners. See 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) (requiring a trustee to manage the estate in accordance with applicable law). Nor does Section 365 relieve the debtor of the need, against the backdrop of that law, to make economic decisions about preserving the estate's value-such as whether to invest the resources needed to maintain a trademark. In thus delineating the burdens that a debtor may and may not escape, Congress also weighed (among other things) the legitimate interests and expectations of the debtor's counterparties. The resulting balance may indeed impede some reorganizations, of trademark licensors and others. But that is only to say that Section 365 's edict that rejection is breach expresses a more complex set of aims than Tempnology acknowledges.
IV
For the reasons stated above, we hold that under Section 365, a debtor's rejection of an executory contract in bankruptcy has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy. Such an act cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted. Here, that construction of Section 365 means that the debtor-licensor's rejection cannot revoke the trademark license.
We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In its briefing before this Court, Mission contends that its exclusive distribution rights survived the licensing agreement's rejection for the same reason as its trademark rights did. See Brief for Petitioner 40-44; supra, at 1658. But the First Circuit held that Mission had waived that argument, see 879 F. 3d at 401, and we have no reason to doubt that conclusion. Our decision thus affects only Mission's trademark rights.
At the same time, Congress took the opportunity when drafting those provisions to fill in certain details, generally left to state law, about the post-rejection relationship between the debtor and counterparty. See, e.g., Andrew, Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy, 59 U. Colo. L. Rev. 845, 903, n. 200 (1988) (describing Congress's addition of subsidiary rules for real property leases in Section 365(h) ); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29 (noting that Congress similarly set out detailed rules for patent licenses in Section 365(n) ). The provisions are therefore not redundant of Section 365(g) : Each sets out a remedial scheme embellishing on or tweaking the general rejection-as-breach rule.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts II (introduction) and II-A.
The village of Kiryas Joel in Orange County, New York, is a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim, practitioners of a strict form of Judaism. The village fell within the MonroeWoodbury Central School District until a special state statute passed in 1989 carved out a separate district, following village lines, to serve this distinctive population. 1989 N. Y. Laws, ch. 748. The question is whether the Act creating the separate school district violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Because this unusual Act is tantamount to an allocation of political power on a religious criterion and neither presupposes nor requires governmental impartiality toward religion, we hold that it violates the prohibition against establishment.
I
The Satmar Hasidic sect takes its name from the town near the Hungarian and Romanian border where, in the early years of this century, Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum molded the group into a distinct community. After World War II and the destruction of much of European Jewry, the Grand Rebbe and most of his surviving followers moved to the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, New York. Then, 20 years ago, the Satmars purchased an approved but undeveloped subdivision in the town of Monroe and began assembling the community that has since become the village of Kiryas Joel. When a zoning dispute arose in the course of settlement, the Satmars presented the Town Board of Monroe with a petition to form a new village within the town, a right that New York’s Village Law gives almost any group of residents who satisfy certain procedural niceties. See N. Y. Village Law, Art. 2 (McKinney 1973 and Supp. 1994). Neighbors who did not wish to secede with the Satmars objected strenuously, and after arduous negotiations the proposed boundaries of the village of Kiryas Joel were drawn to include just the 320 acres owned and inhabited entirely by Satmars. The village, incorporated in 1977, has a population of about 8,500 today. Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, eldest son of the current Grand Rebbe, serves as the village rov (chief rabbi) and rosh yeshivah (chief authority in the parochial schools).
The residents of Kiryas Joel are vigorously religious people who make few concessions to the modern world and go to great lengths to avoid assimilation into it. They interpret the Torah strictly; segregate the sexes outside the home; speak Yiddish as their primary language; eschew television, radio, and English-language publications; and dress in distinctive ways that include headcoverings and special garments for boys and modest dresses for girls. Children are educated in private religious schools, most boys at the United Talmudic Academy where they receive a thorough grounding in the Torah and limited exposure to secular subjects, and most girls at Bais Rochel, an affiliated school with a curriculum designed to prepare girls for their roles as wives and mothers. See generally W. Kephart & W. Zellner, Extraordinary Groups (4th ed. 1991); I. Rubin, Satmar, An Island in the City (1972).
These schools do not, however, offer any distinctive services to handicapped children, who are entitled under state and federal law to special education services even when enrolled in private schools. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. IV); N. Y. Educ. Law, Art. 89 (McKinney 1981 and Supp. 1994). Starting in 1984 the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District provided such services for the children of Kiryas Joel at an annex to Bais Rochel, but a year later ended that arrangement in response to our decisions in Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U. S. 402 (1985), and School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373 (1985). Children from Kiryas Joel who needed special education (including the deaf, the mentally retarded, and others suffering from a range of physical, mental, or emotional disorders) were then forced to attend public schools outside the village, which their families found highly unsatisfactory. Parents of most of these children withdrew them from the Monroe-Woodbury secular schools, citing “the panic, fear and trauma [the children] suffered in leaving their own community and being with people whose ways were so different,” and some sought administrative review of the public-school placements. Board of Ed. of Monroe-Woodbury Central School Dist. v. Wieder, 72 N. Y. 2d 174, 180-181, 527 N. E. 2d 767, 770 (1988).
Monroe-Woodbury, for its part, sought a declaratory judgment in state court that New York law barred the district from providing special education services outside the district’s regular public schools. Id., at 180, 527 N. E. 2d, at 770. The New York Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that state law left Monroe-Woodbury free to establish a separate school in the village because it gives educational authorities broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate program. Id., at 186-187, 527 N. E. 2d, at 773. The court added, however, that the Satmars’ constitutional right to exercise their religion freely did not require a separate school, since the parents had alleged emotional trauma, not inconsistency with religious practice or doctrine, as the reason for seeking separate treatment. Id., at 189, 527 N. E. 2d, at 775.
By 1989, only one child from Kiryas Joel was attending Monroe-Woodbury’s public schools; the village’s other handicapped children received privately funded special services or went without. It was then that the New York Legislature passed the statute at issue in this litigation, which provided that the village of Kiryas Joel “is constituted a separate school district,... and shall have and enjoy all the powers and duties of a union free school district....” 1989 N. Y. Laws, ch. 748. The statute thus empowered a locally elected board of education to take such action as opening schools and closing them, hiring teachers, prescribing textbooks, establishing disciplinary rules, and raising property taxes to fund operations. N. Y. Educ. Law § 1709 (McKinney 1988). In signing the bill into law, Governor Cuomo recognized that the residents of the new school district were “all members of the same religious sect,” but said that the bill was “a good faith effort to solve th[e] unique problem” associated with providing special education services to handicapped children in the village. Memorandum filed with Assembly Bill Number 8747 (July 24, 1989), App. 40-41.
Although it enjoys plenary legal authority over the elementary and secondary education of all school-aged children in the village, N. Y. Educ. Law §3202 (McKinney 1981 and Supp. 1994), the Kiryas Joel Village School District currently runs only a special education program for handicapped children. The other village children have stayed in their parochial schools, relying on the new school district only for transportation, remedial education, and health and welfare services. If any child without a handicap in Kiryas Joel were to seek a public-school education, the district would pay tuition to send the child into Monroe-Woodbury or another school district nearby. Under like arrangements, several of the neighboring districts send their handicapped Hasidic children into Kiryas Joel, so that two thirds of the full-time students in the village’s public school come from outside. In all, the new district serves just over 40 full-time students, and two or three times that many parochial school students on a part-time basis.
Several months before the new district began operations, the New York State School Boards Association and respondents Grumet and Hawk brought this action against the State Education Department and various state officials, challenging Chapter 748 under the National and State Constitutions as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The State Supreme Court for Albany County allowed the Kiryas Joel Village School District and the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District to intervene as parties defendant and accepted the parties’ stipulation discontinuing the action against the original state defendants, although the attorney general of New York continued to appear to defend the constitutionality of the statute. See N. Y. Exec. Law § 71 (McKinney 1993). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled for the plaintiffs (respondents here), finding that the statute failed all three prongs of the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), and was thus unconstitutional under both the National and State Constitutions. Grumet v. New York State Ed. Dept., 151 Misc. 2d 60, 579 N. Y. S. 2d 1004 (1992).
A divided Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that Chapter 748 had the primary effect of advancing religion, in violation of both constitutions, 187 App. Div. 2d 16, 592 N. Y. S. 2d 123 (1992), and the State Court of Appeals affirmed on the federal question, while expressly reserving the state constitutional issue, 81 N. Y. 2d 518, 618 N. E. 2d 94 (1993). Judge Smith wrote for the court in concluding that because both the district’s public-school population and its school board would be exclusively Hasidic, the statute created a “symbolic union of church and State” that was “likely to be perceived by the Satmarer Hasidim as an endorsement of their religious choices, or by nonadherents as a disapproval” of their own. Id., at 529, 618 N. E. 2d, at 100. As a result, said the majority, the statute’s primary effect was an impermissible advancement of religious belief. In a concurring opinion, Judge Hancock found the effect purposeful, so that the statute violated the first as well as the second prong of Lemon. 81 N. Y. 2d, at 540, 618 N. E. 2d, at 107. Chief Judge Kaye took a different tack, applying the strict scrutiny we have prescribed for statutes singling out a particular religion for special privileges or burdens; she found Chapter 748 invalid as an unnecessarily broad response to a narrow problem, since it creates a full school district instead of simply prescribing a local school for the village’s handicapped children. Id., at 532, 618 N. E. 2d, at 102 (concurring opinion). In dissent, Judge Bellacosa objected that the new district was created to enable the village’s handicapped children to receive a secular, public-school education; that this was, indeed, its primary effect; and that any attenuated benefit to religion was a reasonable accommodation of both religious and cultural differences. Id., at 550-551, 618 N. E. 2d, at 113.
We stayed the mandate of the Court of Appeals, 509 U. S. 938 (1993), and granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 989 (1993).
II
“A proper respect for both the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clauses compels the State to pursue a course of ‘neutrality’ toward religion,” Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 792-793 (1973), favoring neither one religion over others nor religious adherents collectively over nonadherents. See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968). Chapter 748, the statute creating the Kiryas Joel Village School District, departs from this constitutional command by delegating the State’s discretionary authority over public schools to a group defined by its character as a religious community, in a legal and historical context that gives no assurance that governmental power has been or will be exercised neutrally.
Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116 (1982), provides an instructive comparison with the litigation before us. There, the Court was requested to strike down a Massachusetts statute granting religious bodies veto power over applications for liquor licenses. Under the statute, the governing body of any church, synagogue, or school located within 500 feet of an applicant’s premises could, simply by submitting written objection, prevent the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission from issuing a license. Id., at 117. In spite of the State’s valid interest in protecting churches, schools, and like institutions from “ ‘the hurly-burly’ associated with liquor outlets,” id., at 123 (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court found that in two respects the statute violated “[t]he wholesome ‘neutrality’ of which this Court’s cases speak,” School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 222 (1963). The Act brought about a “ ‘fusion of governmental and religious functions’” by delegating “important, discretionary governmental powers” to religious bodies, thus impermissibly entangling government and religion. 459 U. S., at 126, 127 (quoting School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, supra, at 222); see also Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, at 613. And it lacked “any ‘effective means of guaranteeing’ that the delegated power ‘[would] be used exclusively for secular, neutral, and nonideological purposes,’ ” 459 U. S., at 125 (quoting Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, at 780); this, along with the “significant symbolic benefit to religion” associated with “the mere appearance of a joint exercise of legislative authority by Church and State,” led the Court to conclude that the statute had a “ ‘primary* and ‘principal’ effect of advancing religion,” 459 U. S., at 125-126; see also Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, at 612. Comparable constitutional problems inhere in the statute before us.
A
Larkin presented an example of united civic and religious authority, an establishment rarely found in such straightforward form in modern America, cf. Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229, 263 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part), and a violation of “the core rationale underlying the Establishment Clause,” 459 U. S., at 126. See also Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 590-591 (1989) (Establishment Clause prevents delegating governmental power to religious group); id., at 660 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (same); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1947) (Establishment Clause prevents State from “participat[ing] in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa”); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488, 493-494 (1961) (same).
The Establishment Clause problem presented by Chapter 748 is more subtle, but it resembles the issue raised in Larkin to the extent that the earlier case teaches that a State may not delegate its civic authority to a group chosen according to a religious criterion. Authority over public schools belongs to the State, N. Y. Const., Art. XI, § 1, and cannot be delegated to a local school district defined by the State in order to grant political control to a religious group. What makes this litigation different from Larkin is the delegation here of civic power to the “qualified voters of the village of Kiryas Joel,” 1989 N. Y. Laws, ch. 748, as distinct from a religious leader such as the village rov, or an institution of religious government like the formally constituted parish council in Larkin. In light of the circumstances of these cases, however, this distinction turns out to lack constitutional significance.
It is, first, not dispositive that the recipients of state power in these cases are a group of religious individuals united by common doctrine, not the group’s leaders or officers. Although some school district franchise is common to all voters, the State’s manipulation of the franchise for this district limited it to Satmars, giving the sect exclusive control of the political subdivision. In the circumstances of these cases, the difference between thus vesting state power in the members of a religious group as such instead of the officers of its sectarian organization is one of form, not substance. It is true that religious people (or groups of religious people) cannot be denied the opportunity to exercise the rights of citizens simply because of their religious affiliations or commitments, for such a disability would violate the right to religious free exercise, see McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978), which the First Amendment guarantees as certainly as it bars any establishment. But McDaniel, which held that a religious individual could not, because of his religious activities, be denied the right to hold political office, is not in point here. That individuals who happen to be religious may hold public office does not mean that a State may deliberately delegate discretionary power to an individual, institution, or community on the ground of religious identity. If New York were to delegate civic authority to “the Grand Rebbe,” Larkin would obviously require invalidation (even though under McDaniel the Grand Rebbe may run for, and serve on, his local school board), and the same is true if New York delegates political authority by reference to religious belief. Where “fusion” is an issue, the difference lies in the distinction between a government’s purposeful delegation on the basis of religion and a delegation on principles neutral to religion, to individuals whose religious identities are incidental to their receipt of civic authority.
Of course, Chapter 748 delegates power not by express reference to the religious belief of the Satmar community, but to residents of the “territory of the village of Kiryas Joel.” 1989 N. Y. Laws, ch. 748. Thus the second (and arguably more important) distinction between these cases and Larkin is the identification here of the group to exercise civil authority in terms not expressly religious. But our analysis does not end with the text of the statute at issue, see Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 534 (1993); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 56-61 (1985); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 341-342 (1960), and the context here persuades us that Chapter 748 effectively identifies these recipients of governmental authority by reference to doctrinal adherence, even though it does not do so expressly. We find this to be the better view of the facts because of the way the boundary lines of the school district divide residents according to religious affiliation, under the terms of an unusual and special legislative Act.
It is undisputed that those who negotiated the village boundaries when applying the general village incorporation statute drew them so as to exclude all but Satmars, and that the New York Legislature was well aware that the village remained exclusively Satmar in 1989 when it adopted Chapter 748. See Brief for Petitioner in No. 93-517, p. 20; Brief for Respondents 11. The significance of this fact to the state legislature is indicated by the further fact that carving out the village school district ran counter to customary districting practices in the State. Indeed, the trend in New York is not toward dividing school districts but toward consolidating them. The thousands of small common school districts laid out in the early 19th century have been combined and recombined, first into union free school districts and then into larger central school districts, until only a tenth as many remain today. Univ. of State of N. Y. and State Education Dept., School District Reorganization, Law Pamphlet 14, pp. 8-12 (1962) (hereinafter Law Pamphlet); Woodward, N. Y. State Education Dept., Legal and Organizational History of School District Reorganization in New York State 10-11 (Aug. 1986). Most of these cover several towns, many of them cross county boundaries, and only one remains precisely coterminous with an incorporated village. Law Pamphlet, at 24. The object of the State’s practice of consolidation is the creation of districts large enough to provide a comprehensive education at affordable cost, which is thought to require at least 500 pupils for a combined junior-senior high school. Univ. of State of N. Y. and State Education Dept., Master Plan for School District Reorganization in New York State 10-11 (rev. ed. 1958). The Kiryas Joel Village School District, in contrast, has only 13 local, full-time students in all (even including out-of-area and part-time students leaves the number under 200), and in offering only special education and remedial programs it makes no pretense to be a full-service district.
The origin of the district in a special Act of the legislature, rather than the State’s general laws governing school district reorganization, is likewise anomalous. Although the legislature has established some 20 existing school districts by special Act, all but one of these are districts in name only, having been designed to be run by private organizations serving institutionalized children. They have neither tax bases nor student populations of their own but serve children placed by other school districts or public agencies. See N. Y. Educ. Law §3601-a (Statutory Notes), §§4001 and 4005 (McKinney Supp. 1994); Law Pamphlet, at 18 (“These districts are school districts only by way of a legal fiction”). The one school district petitioners point to that was formed by special Act of the legislature to serve a whole community, as this one was, is a district formed for a new town, much larger and more heterogeneous than this village, being built on land that straddled two existing districts. See 1972 N. Y. Laws, ch. 928 (authorizing Gananda School District). Thus the Kiryas Joel Village School District is exceptional to the point of singularity, as the only district coming to our notice that the legislature carved from a single existing district to serve local residents. Clearly this district “cannot be seen as the fulfillment of [a village’s] destiny as an independent governmental entity,” United States v. Scotland Neck City Bd. of Ed., 407 U. S. 484, 492 (1972) (Burger, C. J., concurring in result).
Because the district’s creation ran uniquely counter to state practice, following the lines of a religious community where the customary and neutral principles would not have dictated the same result, we have good reasons to treat this district as the reflection of a religious criterion for identifying the recipients of civil authority. Not even the special needs of the children in this community can explain the legislature’s unusual Act, for the State could have responded to the concerns of the Satmar parents without implicating the Establishment Clause, as we explain in some detail further on. We therefore find the legislature’s Act to be substantially equivalent to defining a political subdivision and hence the qualification for its franchise by a religious test, resulting in a purposeful and forbidden “fusion of governmental and religious functions.” Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 459 U. S., at 126 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
B
The fact that this school district was created by a special and unusual Act of the legislature also gives reason for concern whether the benefit received by the Satmar community is one that the legislature will provide equally to other religious (and nonreligious) groups. This is the second malady the Larkin Court identified in the law before it, the absence of an “effective means of guaranteeing” that governmental power will be and has been neutrally employed. Id., at 125 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But whereas in Larkin it was religious groups the Court thought might exercise civic power to advance the interests of religion (or religious adherents), here the threat to neutrality occurs at an antecedent stage.
The fundamental source of constitutional concern here is that the legislature itself may fail to exercise governmental authority in a religiously neutral way. The anomalously case-specific nature of the legislature’s exercise of state authority in creating this district for a religious community leaves the Court without any direct way to review such state action for the purpose of safeguarding a principle at the heart of the Establishment Clause, that government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligión. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S., at 52-54; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S., at 104; School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S., at 216-217. Because the religious community of Kiryas Joel did not receive its new governmental authority simply as one of many communities eligible for equal treatment under a general law, we have no assurance that the next similarly situated group seeking a school district of its own will receive one; unlike an administrative agency’s denial of an exemption from a generally applicable law, which “would be entitled to a judicial audience,” Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 878 F. 2d 1458, 1461 (CADC 1989) (R. B. Ginsburg, J.), a legislature’s failure to enact a special law is itself unreviewable. Nor can the historical context in these cases furnish us with any reason to suppose that the Satmars are merely one in a series of communities receiving the benefit of special school district laws. Early on in the development of public education in New York, the State rejected highly localized school districts for New York City when they were promoted as a way to allow separate schooling for Roman Catholic children. R. Church & M. Sedlak, Education in the United States 162, 167-169 (1976). And in more recent history, the special Act in these cases stands alone. See supra, at 701.
The general principle that civil power must be exercised in a manner neutral to religion is one the Larkin Court recognized, although it did not discuss the specific possibility of legislative favoritism along religious lines because the statute before it delegated state authority to any religious group assembled near the premises of an applicant for a liquor license, see 459 U. S., at 120-121, n. 3, as well as to a further category of institutions not identified by religion. But the principle is well grounded in our case law, as we have frequently relied explicitly on the general availability of any benefit provided religious groups or individuals in turning aside Establishment Clause challenges. In Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 673 (1970), for example, the Court sustained a property tax exemption for religious properties in part because the State had “not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such,” but had exempted “a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations.” Accord, id., at 696-697 (opinion of Harlan, J.). And Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U. S. 589, 608 (1988), upheld a statute enlisting a “wide spectrum of organizations” in addressing adolescent sexuality because the law was “neutral with respect to the grantee’s status as a sectarian or purely secular institution.” See also Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U. S. 1 (1989) (striking down sales tax exemption exclusively for religious publications); id., at 14-15 (plurality opinion); id., at 27-28 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment); Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U. S. 703, 711 (1985) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (statute impermissibly “singles out Sabbath observers for special... protection without according similar accommodation to ethical and religious beliefs and practices of other private employees”); cf. Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474 U. S. 481, 492 (1986) (Powell, J., concurring). Here the benefit flows only to a single sect, but aiding this single, small religious group causes no less a constitutional problem than would follow from aiding a sect with more members or religion as a whole, see Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244-246 (1982), and we are forced to conclude that the State of New York has violated the Establishment Clause.
C
In finding that Chapter 748 violates the requirement of governmental neutrality by extending the benefit of a special franchise, we do not deny that the Constitution allows the State to accommodate religious needs by alleviating special burdens. Our cases leave no doubt that in commanding neutrality the Religion Clauses do not require the government to be oblivious to impositions that legitimate exercises of state power may place on religious belief and practice. Rather, there is “ample room under the Establishment Clause for ‘benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference,’” Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 334 (1987) (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n, supra, at 673); “government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and... may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.” Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U. S. 136, 144-145 (1987). The fact that Chapter 748 facilitates the practice of religion is not what renders it an unconstitutional establishment. Cf. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 627 (1992) (Souter, J., concurring) (“That government must remain neutral in matters of religion does not foreclose it from ever taking religion into account”); School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S., at 299 (Brennan, J., concurring) (“[Hjostility, not neutrality, would characterize the refusal to provide chaplains and places of worship for prisoners and soldiers cut off by the State from all civilian opportunities for public communion”).
But accommodation is not a principle without limits, and what petitioners seek is an adjustment to the Satmars’ religiously grounded preferences that our cases do not countenance. Prior decisions have allowed religious communities and institutions to pursue their own interests free from governmental interference, see Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, supra, at 336-337 (government may allow religious organizations to favor their own adherents in hiring, even for secular employment); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952) (government may allow public schools to release students during the schoolday to receive off-site religious education), but we have never hinted that an otherwise unconstitutional delegation of political power to a religious group could be saved as a religious accommodation. Petitioners’ proposed accommodation singles out a particular religious sect for special treatment, and whatever the limits of permissible legislative accommodations may be, compare Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, supra (striking down law exempting only religious publications from taxation), with Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, supra (upholding law exempting religious employers from Title VII), it is clear that neutrality as among religions must be honored. See Larson v. Valente, supra, at 244-246.
This conclusion does not, however, bring the Satmar parents, the Monroe-Woodbury school district, or the State of New York to the end of the road in seeking ways to respond to the parents’ concerns. Just as the Court in Larkin observed that the State’s interest in protecting religious meeting places could be “readily accomplished by other means,” 459 U. S., at 124, there are several alternatives here for providing bilingual and bicultural special education to Satmar children. Such services can perfectly well be offered to village children through the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District. Since the Satmars do not claim that separatism is religiously mandated, their children may receive bilingual and bicultural instruction at a public school already run by the Monroe-Woodbury district. Or if the educationally appropriate offering by Monroe-Woodbury should turn out to be a separate program of bilingual and bicultural education at a neutral site near one of the village’s parochial schools, this Court has already made it clear that no Establishment Clause difficulty would inhere in such a scheme, administered in accordance with neutral principles that would not necessarily confine special treatment to Satmars. See Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S., at 247-248.
To be sure, the parties disagree on whether the services Monroe-Woodbury actually provided in the late 1980’s were appropriately tailored to the needs of Satmar children, but this dispute is of only limited relevance to the question whether such services could have been provided, had adjustments been made. As we understand New York law, parents who are dissatisfied with their handicapped child’s program have recourse through administrative review proceedings (a process that appears not to have run its course prior to resort to Chapter 748, see Board of Ed. of Monroe-Woodbury Central School Dist. v. Wieder, 72 N. Y. 2d, at 180, 527 N. E. 2d, at 770), and if the New York Legislature should remain dissatisfied with the responsiveness of the local school district, it could certainly enact general legislation tightening the mandate to school districts on matters of special education or bilingual and bicultural offerings.
Ill
Justice Cardozo once cast the dissenter as “the gladiator making a last stand against the lions.” B. Cardozo, Law and Literature 34 (1931). Justice Scalia’s dissent is certainly the work of a gladiator, but he thrusts at lions of his own imagining. We do not disable a religiously homogeneous group from exercising political power conferred on it without regard to religion. Cf. post, at 735-736. Unlike the States of Utah and New Mexico (which were laid out according to traditional political methodologies taking account of lines of latitude and longitude and topographical features, see U. S. Dept. of Interior, F. Van Zandt, Boundaries of the United States and the Several States 250-257 (Geological Survey Bulletin 1212,1966)), the reference line chosen for the Kiryas Joel Village School District was one purposely drawn to separate Satmars from non-Satmars. Nor do we impugn the motives of the New York Legislature, cf. post, at 737-740, which no doubt intended to accommodate the Satmar community without violating the Establishment Clause; we simply refuse to ignore that the method it chose is one that aids a particular religious community, as such, see App. 19-20 (Assembly sponsor thrice describes the Act’s beneficiaries as the “Hasidic” children or community), rather than all groups similarly interested in separate schooling. The dissent protests it is novel to insist “ ‘up front’ ” that a statute not tailor its benefits to apply only to one religious group, post, at 747-748, but if this were so, Texas Monthly, Inc., would have turned out differently, see 489 U. S., at 14-15 (opinion of Brennan, J.); id., at 28 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment), and language in Walz v. Tax Comm’n of New York
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
When law schools began restricting the access of military recruiters to their students because of disagreement with the Government’s policy on homosexuals in the military, Congress responded by enacting the Solomon Amendment. See 10 U. S. C. § 983 (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). That provision specifies that if any part of an institution of higher education denies military recruiters access equal to that provided other recruiters, the entire institution would lose certain federal funds. The law schools responded by suing, alleging that the Solomon Amendment infringed their First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. The District Court disagreed but was reversed by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ordered the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. We granted certiorari.
I
Respondent Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR), is an association of law schools and law faculties. App. 5. Its declared mission is “to promote academic freedom, support educational institutions in opposing discrimination and vindicate the rights of institutions of higher education.” Id., at 6. FAIR members have adopted policies expressing their opposition to discrimination based on, among other factors, sexual orientation. Id., at 18. They would like to restrict military recruiting on their campuses because they object to the policy Congress has adopted with respect to homosexuals in the military. See 10 U. S. C. §654. The Solomon Amendment, however, forces institutions to choose between enforcing their nondiscrimination policy against military recruiters in this way and continuing to receive specified federal funding.
In 2003, FAIR sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Solomon Amendment, which at that time— it has since been amended — prevented the Department of Defense (DOD) from providing specified federal funds to any institution of higher education “that either prohibits, or in effect prevents” military recruiters “from gaining entry to campuses.” § 983(b). FAIR considered the DOD’s interpretation of this provision particularly objectionable. Although the statute required only “entry to campuses,” the Government — after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 — adopted an informal policy of “ ‘requiring] universities to provide military recruiters access to students equal in quality and scope to that provided to other recruiters.’” 291 F. Supp. 2d 269, 283 (NJ 2003). Prior to the adoption of this policy, some law schools sought to promote their nondiscrimination policies while still complying with the Solomon Amendment by having military recruiters interview on the undergraduate campus. Id., at 282. But under the equal access policy, military recruiters had to be permitted to interview at the law schools, if other recruiters did so.
FAIR argued that this forced inclusion and equal treatment of military recruiters violated the law schools’ First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. According to FAIR, the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional because it forced law schools to choose between exercising their First Amendment right to decide whether to disseminate or accommodate a military recruiter’s message, and ensuring the availability of federal funding for their universities.
The District Court denied the preliminary injunction on the ground that FAIR had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims. The District Court held that inclusion “of an unwanted periodic visitor” did not “significantly affect the law schools’ ability to express their particular message or viewpoint.” Id., at 304. The District Court based its decision in large part on the determination that recruiting is conduct and not speech, concluding that any expressive aspect of recruiting “is entirely ancillary to its dominant economic purpose.” Id., at 308. The District Court held that Congress could regulate this expressive aspect of the conduct under the test set forth in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968). 291 F. Supp. 2d, at 311-314.
In rejecting FAIR’S constitutional claims, the District Court disagreed with “the DOD’s proposed interpretation that the statute requires law schools to ‘provide military recruiters access to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access provided other potential employers.’ ” Id., at 321. In response to the District Court’s concerns, Congress codified the DOD’s informal policy. See H. R. Rep. No. 108-443, pt. 1, p. 6 (2004) (discussing the District Court’s decision in this case and stating that the amended statute “would address the court’s opinion and codify the equal access standard”). The Solomon Amendment now prevents an institution from receiving certain federal funding if it prohibits military recruiters “from gaining access to campuses, or access to students... on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.” 10 U. S. C. § 983(b) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).
FAIR appealed the District Court’s judgment, arguing that the recently amended Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional for the same reasons as the earlier version. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed. 390 F. 3d 219 (2004). According to the Third Circuit, the Solomon Amendment violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine because it forced a law school to choose between surrendering First Amendment rights and losing federal funding for its university. Id., at 229-243. Unlike the District Court, the Court of Appeals did not think that the O’Brien analysis applied because the Solomon Amendment, in its view, regulated speech and not simply expressive conduct. 390 F. 3d, at 243-244. The Third Circuit nonetheless determined that if the regulated activities were properly treated as expressive conduct rather than speech, the Solomon Amendment was also unconstitutional under O’Brien. 390 F. 3d, at 244-246. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. Id., at 246. A dissenting judge would have applied O’Brien and affirmed. 390 F. 3d, at 260-262 (opinion of Aldisert, J.).
We granted certiorari. 544 U. S. 1017 (2005).
II
The Solomon Amendment denies federal funding to an institution of higher education that “has a policy or practice... that either prohibits, or in effect prevents” the military “from gaining access to campuses, or access to students... on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.” 10 U. S. C. § 983(b) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). The statute provides an exception for an institution with “a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation.” § 983(c)(2) (2000 ed.). The Government and FAIR agree on what this statute requires: In order for a law school and its university to receive federal funding, the law school must offer military recruiters the same access to its campus and students that it provides to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable access.
Certain law professors participating as amici, however, argue that the Government and FAIR misinterpret the statute. See Brief for William Alford et al. as Amici Curiae 10-18; Brief for 56 Columbia Law School Faculty Members as Amici Curiae 6-15. According to these amici, the Solomon Amendment’s equal access requirement is satisfied when an institution applies to military recruiters the same policy it applies to all other recruiters. On this reading, a school excluding military recruiters would comply with the Solomon Amendment so long as it also excluded any other employer that violates its nondiscrimination policy.
In its reply brief, the Government claims that this question is not before the Court because it was neither included in the questions presented nor raised by FAIR. Reply Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 4. But our review may, in our discretion, encompass questions “‘fairly included’” within the question presented, Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 535 (1992), and there can be little doubt that granting certiorari to determine whether a statute is constitutional fairly includes the question of what that statute says. Nor must we accept an interpretation of a statute simply because it is agreed to by the parties. After all, “[o]ur task is to construe what Congress has enacted.” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 172 (2001). We think it appropriate in the present ease to consider whether institutions can comply with the Solomon Amendment by applying a general nondiscrimination policy to exclude military recruiters.
We conclude that they cannot and that the Government and FAIR correctly interpret the Solomon Amendment. The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to compare the military’s “access to campuses” and “access to students” to “the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer(Emphasis added.) The statute does not call for an inquiry into why or how the “other employer” secured its access. Under amici’s reading, a military recruiter has the same “access” to campuses and students as, say, a law firm when the law firm is permitted on campus to interview students and the military is not. We do not think that the military recruiter has received equal “access” in this situation — regardless of whether the disparate treatment is attributable to the military’s failure to comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy.
The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the content of a school’s recruiting policy, as the amici would have it. Instead, it looks to the result achieved by the policy and compares the “access... provided” military recruiters to that provided other recruiters. Applying the same policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to comply with the statute if it results in a greater level of access for other recruiters than for the military. Law schools must ensure that their recruiting policy operates in such a way that military recruiters are given access to students at least equal to that “provided to any other employer.” (Emphasis added.)
Not only does the text support this view, but this interpretation is necessary to give effect to the Solomon Amendment’s recent revision. Under the prior version, the statute required “entry” without specifying how military recruiters should be treated once on campus. 10 U. S. C. § 983(b) (2000 ed.). The District Court thought that the DOD policy, which required equal access to students once recruiters were on campus, was unwarranted based on the text of the statute. 291 F. Supp. 2d, at 321. Congress responded directly to this decision by codifying the DOD policy. Under amici’s interpretation, this legislative change had no effect — law schools could still restrict military access, so long as they do so under a generally applicable nondiscrimination policy. Worse yet, the legislative change made it easier for schools to keep military recruiters out altogether: Under the prior version, simple access could not be denied, but under the amended version, access could be denied altogether, so long as a nonmilitary recruiter would also be denied access. That is rather clearly not what Congress had in mind in codifying the DOD policy. We refuse to interpret the Solomon Amendment in a way that negates its recent revision, and indeed would render it a largely meaningless exercise.
We therefore read the Solomon Amendment the way both the Government and FAIR interpret it. It is insufficient for a law school to treat the military as it treats all other employers who violate its nondiscrimination policy. Under the statute, military recruiters must be given the same access as recruiters who comply with the policy.
Ill
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” “[t]o raise and support Armies,” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy.” Art. I, §8, els. 1, 12-13. Congress’ power in this area “is broad and sweeping,” O’Brien, 391 U. S., at 377, and there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters. That is, of course, unless Congress exceeds constitutional limitations on its power in enacting such legislation. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 67 (1981). But the fact that legislation that raises armies is subject to First Amendment constraints does not mean that we ignore the purpose of this legislation when determining its constitutionality; as we recognized in Rostker, “judicial deference... is at its apogee” when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies. Id., at 70.
Although Congress has broad authority to legislate on matters of military recruiting, it nonetheless chose to secure campus access for military recruiters indirectly, through its Spending Clause power. The Solomon Amendment gives universities a choice: Either allow military recruiters the same access to students afforded any other recruiter or forgo certain federal funds. Congress’ decision to proceed indirectly does not reduce the deference given to Congress in the area of military affairs. Congress’ choice to promote its goal by creating a funding condition deserves at least as deferential treatment as if Congress had imposed a mandate on universities.
Congress’ power to regulate military recruiting under the Solomon Amendment is arguably greater because universities are free to decline the federal funds. In Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U. S. 555, 575-576 (1984), we rejected a private college’s claim that conditioning federal funds on its compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 violated the First Amendment. We thought this argument “warranted] only brief consideration” because “Congress is free to attach reasonable and unambiguous conditions to federal financial assistance that educational institutions are not obligated to accept.” Id., at 575. We concluded that no First Amendment violation had occurred— without reviewing the substance of the First Amendment claims — because Grove City could decline the Government’s funds. Id., at 575-576.
Other decisions, however, recognize a limit on Congress’ ability to place conditions on the receipt of funds. We recently held 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.’ ” United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U. S. 194, 210 (2003) (quoting Board of Comm’rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr, 518 U. S. 668, 674 (1996) (some internal quotation marks omitted)). Under this principle, known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the Solomon Amendment would be unconstitutional if Congress could not directly require universities to provide military recruiters equal access to their students.
This case does not require us to determine when a condition placed on university funding goes beyond the “reasonable” choice offered in Grove City and becomes an unconstitutional condition. It is clear that a funding condition cannot be unconstitutional if it could be constitutionally imposed directly. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958). Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds,
A
The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything. Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military’s congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (Solicitor General acknowledging that law schools “could put signs on the bulletin board next to the door, they could engage in speech, they could help organize student protests”). As a general matter, the Solomon Amendment regulates conduct, not speech. It affects what law schools must do — afford equal access to military recruiters — not what they may or may not say.
Nevertheless, the Third Circuit concluded that the Solomon Amendment violates law schools’ freedom of speech in a number of ways. First, in assisting military recruiters, law schools provide some services, such as sending e-mails and distributing flyers, that clearly involve speech. The Court of Appeals held that in supplying these services law schools are unconstitutionally compelled to speak the Government’s message. Second, military recruiters are, to some extent, speaking while they are on campus. The Court of Appeals held that, by forcing law schools to permit the military on campus to express its message, the Solomon Amendment unconstitutionally requires law schools to host or accommodate the military’s speech. Third, although the Court of Appeals thought that the Solomon Amendment regulated speech, it held in the alternative that, if the statute regulates conduct, this conduct is expressive and regulating it unconstitutionally infringes law schools’ right to engage in expressive conduct. We consider each issue in turn.
1
Some of this Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say. In West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), we held unconstitutional a state law requiring schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and to salute the flag. And in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 717 (1977), we held unconstitutional another that required New Hampshire motorists to display the state motto — “Live Free or Die” — on their license plates.
The Solomon Amendment does not require any similar expression by law schools. Nonetheless, recruiting assistance provided by the schools often includes elements of speech. For example, schools may send e-mails or post notices on bulletin boards on an employer’s behalf. See, e. g., App. 169-170; Brief for NALP (National Association for Law Placement) et al. as Amici Curiae 11. Law schools offering such services to other recruiters must also send e-mails and post notices on behalf of the military to comply with the Solomon Amendment. As FAIR points out, these compelled statements of fact (“The U. S. Army recruiter will meet interested students in Room 123 at 11 a.m.”), like compelled statements of opinion, are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. See Brief for Respondents 25 (citing Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 797-798 (1988)).
This sort of recruiting assistance, however, is a far cry from the compelled speech in Barnette and Wooley. The Solomon Amendment, unlike the laws at issue in those cases, does not dictate the content of the speech at all, which is only “compelled” if, and to the extent, the school provides such speech for other recruiters. There is nothing in this case approaching a Government-mandated pledge or motto that the school must endorse.
The compelled speech to which the law schools point is plainly incidental to the Solomon Amendment’s regulation of conduct, and “it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 502 (1949). Congress, for example, can prohibit employers from discriminating in hiring on the basis of race. The fact that this will require an employer to take down a sign reading “White Applicants Only” hardly means that the law should be analyzed as one regulating the employer’s speech rather than conduct. See R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 389 (1992) (“[W]ords can in some circumstances violate laws directed not against speech but against conduct”). Compelling a law school that sends scheduling e-mails for other recruiters to send one for a military recruiter is simply not the same as forcing a student to pledge allegiance, or forcing a Jehovah’s Witness to display the motto “Live Free or Die,” and it trivializes the freedom protected in Barnette and Wooley to suggest that it is.
2
Our compelled-speech cases are not limited to the situation in which an individual must personally speak the government’s message. We have also in a number of instances limited the government’s ability to force one speaker to host or accommodate another speaker’s message. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 566 (1995) (state law cannot require a parade to include a group whose message the parade’s organizer does not wish to send); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 20-21 (1986) (plurality opinion); accord, id., at 25 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment) (state agency cannot require a utility company to include a third-party newsletter in its billing envelope); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 258 (1974) (right-of-reply statute violates editors’ right to determine the content of their newspapers). Relying on these precedents, the Third Circuit concluded that the Solomon Amendment unconstitutionally compels law schools to accommodate the military’s message “[b]y requiring schools to include military recruiters in the interviews and recruiting receptions the schools arrange.” 390 F. 3d, at 240.
The compelled-speech violation in each of our prior cases, however, resulted from the fact that the complaining speaker’s own message was affected by the speech it was forced to accommodate. The expressive nature of a parade was central to our holding in Hurley. 515 U. S., at 568 (“Parades are... a form of expression, not just motion, and the inherent expressiveness of marching to make a point explains our cases involving protest marches’’). We concluded that because “every participating unit affects the message conveyed by the [parade’s] private organizers,” a law dictating that a particular group must be included in the parade “alter[s] the expressive content of th[e] parade.” Id., at 572-573. As a result, we held that the State’s public accommodation law, as applied to a private parade, “violates the fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.” Id., at 573.
The compelled-speech violations in Tornillo and Pacific Gas also resulted from interference with a speaker’s desired message. In Tornillo, we recognized that “the compelled printing of a reply... tak[es] up space that could be devoted to other material the newspaper may have preferred to print,” 418 U. S., at 256, and therefore concluded that this right-of-reply statute infringed the newspaper editors’ freedom of speech by altering the message the paper wished to express, id., at 258. The same is true in Pacific Gas. There, the utility company regularly included its newsletter, which we concluded was protected speech, in its billing envelope. 475 U. S., at 8-9. Thus, when the state agency ordered the utility to send a third-party newsletter four times a year, it interfered with the utility’s ability to communicate its own message in its newsletter. A plurality of the Court likened this to the situation in Tornillo and held that the forced inclusion of the other newsletter interfered with the utility’s own message. 475 U. S., at 16-18.
In this case, accommodating the military’s message does not affect the law schools’ speech, because the schools are not speaking when they host interviews and recruiting receptions. Unlike a parade organizer’s choice of parade contingents, a law school’s decision to allow recruiters on campus is not inherently expressive. Law schools facilitate recruiting to assist their students in obtaining jobs. A law school’s recruiting services lack the expressive quality of a parade, a newsletter, or the editorial page of a newspaper; its accommodation of a military recruiter’s message is not compelled speech because the accommodation does not sufficiently interfere with any message of the school.
The schools respond that if they treat military and nonmilitary recruiters alike in order to comply with the Solomon Amendment, they could be viewed as sending the message that they see nothing wrong with the military’s policies, when they do. We rejected a similar argument in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980). In that case, we upheld a state law requiring a shopping center owner to allow certain expressive activities by others on its property. We explained that there was little likelihood that the views of those engaging in the expressive activities would be identified with the owner, who remained free to disassociate himself from those views and who was “not... being compelled to affirm [a] belief in any govern-mentally prescribed position or view.” Id., at 88.
The same is true here. Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military’s policies. We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy. Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality opinion); accord, id., at 268 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment); see also Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 841 (1995) (attribution concern “not a plausible fear”). Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school.
3
Having rejected the view that the Solomon Amendment impermissibly regulates speech, we must still consider whether the expressive nature of the conduct regulated by the statute brings that conduct within the First Amendment’s protection. In O’Brien, we recognized that some forms of “‘symbolic speech’” were deserving of First Amendment protection. 391 U. S., at 376. But we rejected the view that “conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.” Ibid. Instead, we have extended First Amendment protection only to conduct that is inherently expressive. In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 406 (1989), for example, we applied O’Brien and held that burning the American flag was sufficiently expressive to warrant First Amendment protection.
Unlike flag burning, the conduct regulated by the Solomon Amendment is not inherently expressive. Prior to the adoption of the Solomon Amendment’s equal access requirement, law schools “expressed” their disagreement with the military by treating military recruiters differently from other recruiters. But these actions were expressive only because the law schools accompanied their conduct with speech explaining it. For example, the point of requiring military interviews to be conducted on the undergraduate campus is not “overwhelmingly apparent.” Johnson, supra, at 406. An observer who sees military recruiters interviewing away from the law school has no way of knowing whether the law school is expressing its disapproval of the military, all the law school’s interview rooms are full, or the military recruiters decided for reasons of their own that they would rather interview someplace else.
The expressive component of a law school’s actions is not created by the conduct itself but by the speech that accompanies it. The fact that such explanatory speech is necessary is strong evidence that the conduct at issue here is not so inherently expressive that it warrants protection under O’Brien. If combining speech and conduct were enough to create expressive conduct, a regulated party could always transform conduct into “speech” simply by talking about it. For instance, if an individual announces that he intends to express his disapproval of the Internal Revenue Service by refusing to pay his income taxes, we would have to apply O’Brien to determine whether the Tax Code violates the First Amendment. Neither O’Brien nor its progeny supports such a result.
Although the Third Circuit also concluded that O’Brien does not apply, it held in the alternative that the Solomon Amendment does not pass muster under O’Brien because the Government failed to produce evidence establishing that the Solomon Amendment was necessary and effective. 390 F. 3d, at 245. The Court of Appeals surmised that “the military has ample resources to recruit through alternative means,” suggesting “loan repayment programs” and “television and radio advertisements.” Id., at 234-235. As a result, the Government — according to the Third Circuit— failed to establish that the ‘statute’s burden on speech is no greater than essential to furthering its interest in military recruiting. Id., at 245.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning and result. We have held that “an incidental burden on speech is no greater than is essential, and therefore is permissible under O’Brien, so long as the neutral regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.” United States v. Albertini, 472 U. S. 675, 689 (1985). The Solomon Amendment clearly satisfies this requirement. Military recruiting promotes the substantial Government interest in raising and supporting the Armed Forces — an objective that would be achieved less effectively if the military were forced to recruit on less favorable terms than other employers. The Court of Appeals’ proposed alternative methods of recruiting are beside the point. The issue is not whether other means of raising an army and providing for a navy might be adequate. See id., at 689 (regulations are not “invalid simply because there is some imaginable alternative that might be less burdensome on speech”). That is a judgment for Congress, not the courts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, els. 12-13; Rostker, 453 U. S., at 64-65. It suffices that the means chosen by Congress add to the effectiveness of military recruitment. Accordingly, even if the Solomon Amendment were regarded as regulating expressive conduct, it would not violate the First Amendment under O’Brien.
B
The Solomon Amendment does not violate law schools’ freedom of speech, but the First Amendment’s protection extends beyond the right to speak. We have recognized a First Amendment right to associate for the purpose of speaking, which we have termed a “right of expressive association.” See, e. g., Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 644 (2000). The reason we have extended First Amendment protection in this way is clear: The right to speak is often exercised most effectively by combining one’s voice with the voices of others. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 622 (1984). If the government were free to restrict individuals’ ability to join together and speak, it could essentially silence views that the First Amendment is intended to protect. Ibid.
FAIR argues that the Solomon Amendment violates law schools’ freedom of expressive association. According to FAIR, law schools’, ability to express their message that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong is significantly affected by the presence of military recruiters on campus and the schools’ obligation to assist them. Relying heavily on our decision in Dale, the Court of Appeals agreed. 390 F. 3d, at 230-235.
In Dale, we held that the Boy Scouts’ freedom of expressive association was violated by New Jersey’s public accommodations law, which required the organization to accept a homosexual as a scoutmaster. After determining that the Boy Scouts was an expressive association, that “the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression,” and that the State’s interests did not justify this intrusion, we concluded that the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment rights were violated. 530 U. S., at 655-659.
The Solomon Amendment, however, does not similarly affect a law school’s associational rights. To comply with the statute, law schools must allow military recruiters on campus and assist them in whatever way the school chooses to assist other employers. Law schools therefore “associate” with military recruiters in the sense that they interact with them. But recruiters are not part of the law school. Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students — not to become members of the school’s expressive association. This distinction is critical. Unlike the public accommodations law in Dale, the Solomon Amendment does not force a law school “ To accept members it does not desire.’ ” Id., at 648 (quoting Roberts, supra, at 623). The law schools say that allowing military recruiters equal access impairs their own expression by requiring them to associate with the recruiters, but just as saying conduct is undertaken for expressive purposes cannot make it symbolic speech, see supra, at 66, so too a speaker cannot “erect a shield” against laws requiring access “simply by asserting” that mere association “would impair its message.” 530 U. S., at 653.
FAIR correctly notes that the freedom of expressive association protects more than just a group’s membership decisions. For example, we have held laws unconstitutional that require disclosure of membership lists for groups seeking anonymity, Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U. S. 87, 101-102 (1982), or impose penalties or withhold benefits based on membership in a disfavored group, Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169, 180-184 (1972). Although these laws did not directly interfere with an organization’s composition, they made group membership less attractive, raising the same First Amendment concerns about affecting the group’s ability to express its message.
The Solomon Amendment has no similar effect on a law school’s associational rights. Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military’s message; nothing about the statute affects the composition of the group by making group membership less desirable. The Solomon Amendment therefore does not violate a law school’s First Amendment rights. A military recruiter’s mere presence on campus does not violate a law school’s right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter’s message.
* * *
In this case, FAIR has attempted to stretch a number of First Amendment doctrines well beyond the sort of activities these doctrines protect. The law schools object to having to treat military recruiters like other recruiters, but that regulation of conduct does not violate the First Amendment. To the extent that the Solomon Amendment incidentally affects expression, the law schools’ effort to cast themselves as just like the schoolchildren in Barnette, the parade organizers in Hurley, and the Boy Scouts in Dale plainly overstates the expressive nature of their activity and the impact of the Solomon Amendment on it, while exaggerating the reach of our First Amendment precedents.
Because Congress could require law" schools to provide equal access to military recruiters without violating the schools’ freedoms of speech or association, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Solomon Amendment likely violates the First Amendment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Third Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Under this policy, a person generally may not serve in the Armed Forces if he has engaged in homosexual acts, stated that he is a homosexual, or married a person of the same sex. Respondents do not challenge that policy in this litigation.
The complaint named numerous other plaintiffs as well. The District Court concluded that each plaintiff had standing to bring this suit. 291 F. Supp. 2d 269, 284-296 (NJ 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that FAIR had assoeiational standing to bring this suit on behalf of its members. 390 F. 3d 219, 228, n. 7 (2004). The Court of Appeals did not determine whether the other plaintiffs have standing because the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article Ill’s ease-or-eontroversy requirement. Ibid. (citing Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 721 (1986)). Because we also agree that FAIR has standing, we similarly limit our discussion to FAIR.
The federal funds covered by the Solomon Amendment are specified
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether the First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, is violated by an order of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York that prohibits the inclusion in monthly electric bills of inserts discussing controversial issues of public policy.
I
The Consolidated Edison Company of New York, appellant in this case, placed written material entitled “Independence Is Still a Goal, and Nuclear Power Is Needed To Win the Battle” in its January 1976 billing envelope. The bill insert stated Consolidated Edison’s views on “the benefits of nuclear power,” saying that they “far outweigh any potential risk” and that nuclear power plants are safe, economical, and clean. App. 35. The utility also contended that increased use of nuclear energy would further this country’s independence from foreign energy sources.
In March 1976, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), requested Consolidated Edison to enclose a rebuttal prepared by NRDC in its next billing envelope. Id., at 45-46. When Consolidated Edison refused, NRDC asked the Public Service Commission of the State of New York to open Consolidated Edison’s billing envelopes to contrasting views on controversial issues of public importance. Id., at 32-33.
On February 17,1977, the Commission, appellee here, denied NRDC’s request, but prohibited “utilities from using bill inserts to discuss political matters, including the desirability of future development of nuclear power.” Id., at 50. The Commission explained its decision in a Statement of Policy on Advertising and Promotional Practices of Public Utilities issued on February 25, 1977. The Commission concluded that Consolidated Edison customers who receive bills containing inserts are a captive audience of diverse views who should not be subjected to the utility’s beliefs. Accordingly, the Commission barred utility companies from including bill inserts that express “their opinions or viewpoints on controversial issues of public policy.” App. to Juris. Statement 43a. The Commission did not, however, bar utilities from sending bill inserts discussing topics that are not “controversial issues of public policy.” The Commission later denied petitions for rehearing filed by Consolidated Edison and other utilities. Id., at 59a.
Consolidated Edison sought review of the Commission’s order in the New York state courts. The State Supreme Court, Special Term, held the order unconstitutional. 93 Misc. 2d 313, 402 N. Y. S. 2d 551 (1978). But the State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed, 63 App. Div. 2d 364, 407 N. Y. S. 2d 735 (1978), and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 47 N. Y. 2d 94, 390 N. E. 2d 749 (1979). The Court of Appeals held that the order did not violate the Constitution because it was a valid time, place, and manner regulation designed to protect the privacy of Consolidated Edison’s customers. Id., at 106-107, 390 N. E. 2d, at 755. We noted probable jurisdiction, 444 U. S. 822 (1979). We reverse.
II
The restriction on bill inserts cannot be upheld on the ground that Consolidated Edison is not entitled to freedom of speech. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 (1978), we rejected the contention that a State may confine corporate speech to specified issues. That decision recognized that “[t]he inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.” Id., at 777. Because the state action limited protected speech, we concluded that the regulation could not stand absent a showing of a compelling state interest. Id., at 786.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no State shall “abridg[e] the freedom of speech.” See Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 500-501 (1952). Freedom of speech is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth,” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring), and “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. . . .” Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The First and Fourteenth Amendments remove “governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity....” Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 24 (1971).
This Court has emphasized that the First Amendment “embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern. . . .” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 101-102 (1940); see Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218 (1966). In the mailing that triggered the regulation at issue, Consolidated Edison advocated the use of nuclear power. The Commission has limited the means by which Consolidated Edison may participate in the public debate on this question and other controversial issues of national interest and importance. Thus, the Commission’s prohibition of discussion of controversial issues strikes at the heart of the freedom to speak.
Ill
The Commission’s ban on bill inserts is not, of course, invalid merely because it imposes a limitation upon speech. See First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, at 786. We must consider whether the State can demonstrate that its regulation is constitutionally permissible. The Commission’s arguments require us to consider three theories that might justify the state action. We must determine whether the prohibition is (i) a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction, (ii) a permissible subject-matter regulation, or (iii) a narrowly tailored means of serving a compelling state interest.
A
This Court has recognized the validity of reasonable time, place, or manner regulations that serve a significant governmental interest and leave ample alternative channels for communication. See Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 86, 93 (1977); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976). See also Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77, 104 (1949) (Black, J., dissenting). In Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941), this Court upheld a licensing requirement for parades through city streets. The Court recognized that the regulation, which was based on time, place, or manner criteria, served the municipality’s legitimate interests in regulating traffic, securing public order, and insuring that simultaneous parades did not prevent all speakers from being heard. Id., at 576. Similarly, in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 (1972), we upheld an antinoise regulation prohibiting demonstrations that would disturb the good order of an educational facility. The narrowly drawn restriction constitutionally advanced the city’s interest “in having an undisrupted school session conducive to the students’ learning. . . .” Id., at 119. Thus, the essence of time, place, or manner regulation lies in the recognition that various methods of speech, regardless of their content, may frustrate legitimate governmental goals. No matter what its message, a roving sound truck that blares at 2 a. m. disturbs neighborhood tranquility.
A restriction that regulates only the time, place, or manner of speech may be imposed so long as it is reasonable. But when regulation is based on the content of speech, governmental action must be scrutinized more carefully to ensure that communication has not been prohibited “merely because public officials disapprove the speaker’s views.” Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 282 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result). As a consequence, we have emphasized that time, place, and manner regulations must be “applicable to all speech irrespective of content.” Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 209 (1975); see Carey v. Brown, ante, at 470. Governmental action that regulates speech on the basis of its subject matter “ ‘slip[s] from the neutrality of time, place, and circumstance into a concern about content.’ ” Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 99 (1972), quoting Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 29. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible time, place, or manner restriction may not be based upon either the content or subject matter of speech.
The Commission does not pretend that its action is unrelated to the content or subject matter of bill inserts. Indeed, it has undertaken to suppress certain bill inserts precisely because they address controversial issues of public policy. The Commission allows inserts that present information to consumers on certain subjects, such as energy conservation measures, but it forbids the use of inserts that discuss public controversies. The Commission, with commendable candor, justifies its ban on the ground that consumers will benefit from receiving “useful” information, but not from the prohibited information. See App. to Juris. Statement 66a-67a. The Commission’s own rationale demonstrates that its action cannot be upheld as a content-neutral time, place, or manner regulation.
B
The Commission next argues that its order is acceptable because it applies to all discussion of nuclear power, whether pro or con, in bill inserts. The prohibition, the Commission contends, is related to subject matter rather than to the views of a particular speaker. Because the regulation does not favor either side of a political controversy, the Commission asserts that it does not unconstitutionally suppress freedom of speech.
The First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an. entire topic. As a general matter, “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, supra, at 95; see Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 580-581 (1965) (opinion of Black, J.). In Mosley, we held that a municipality could not exempt labor picketing from a general prohibition on picketing at a school even though the ban would have reached both pro- and anti-union demonstrations. If the marketplace of ideas is to remain free and open, governments must not be allowed to choose “which issues are worth discussing or debating . . . 408 U. S., at 96. See also Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, supra, at 214-215; Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503, 510-511 (1969). To allow a government the choice of permissible subjects for public debate would be to allow that government control over the search for political truth.
Nevertheless, governmental regulation based on subject matter has been approved in narrow circumstances. The court below relied upon two cases in which this Court has recognized that the government may bar from its facilities certain speech that would disrupt the legitimate governmental purpose for which the property has been dedicated. 47 N. Y. 2d, at 107, 390 N. E. 2d, at 755. In Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828 (1976), we held that the Federal Government could prohibit partisan political speech on a military base even though civilian speakers had been allowed to lecture on other subjects. See id., at 838, n. 10. In Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298 (1974) (opinion of Blackmun, J.), a plurality of the Court similarly concluded that a city transit system that rented space in its vehicles for commercial advertising did not have to accept partisan political advertising. The municipality’s refusal to accept political advertising was based upon fears that partisan advertisements might jeopardize long-term commercial revenue, that commuters would be subjected to political propaganda, and that acceptance of particular political advertisements might lead to charges of favoritism. Id., at 302, 304.
Greer and Lehman properly are viewed as narrow exceptions to the general prohibition against subject-matter distinctions. In both cases, the Court was asked to decide whether a public facility was open to all speakers. The plurality in Lehman and the Court in Greer concluded that partisan political speech would disrupt the operation of governmental facilities even though other forms of speech posed no such danger.
The analysis of Greer and Lehman is not applicable to the Commission’s regulation of bill inserts. In both cases, a private party asserted a right of access to public facilities. Consolidated Edison has not asked to use the offices of the Commission as a forum from which to promulgate its views. Rather, it seeks merely to utilize its own billing envelopes to promulgate its views on controversial issues of public policy. The Commission asserts that the billing envelope, as a necessary adjunct to the operations of a public utility, is subject to the State’s plenary control. To be sure, the State has a legitimate regulatory interest in controlling Consolidated Edison’s activities, just as local governments always have been able to use their police powers in the public interest to regulate private behavior. See New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303 (1976) (per curiam). But the Commission’s attempt to restrict the free expression of a private party cannot be upheld by reliance upon precedent that rests on the special interests of a government in overseeing the use of its property.
C
Where a government restricts the speech of a private person, the state action may be sustained only if the government can show that the regulation is a precisely drawn means of serving a compelling state interest. See First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 786; Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 25 (1976) (per curiam). See also Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 524 (1960). The Commission argues finally that its prohibition is necessary (i) to avoid forcing Consolidated Edison’s views on a captive audience, (ii) to allocate limited resources in the public interest, and (iii) to ensure that ratepayers do not subsidize the cost of the bill inserts.
The State Court of Appeals largely based its approval of the prohibition upon its conclusion that the bill inserts intruded upon individual privacy. The court stated that the Commission could act to protect the privacy of the utility’s customers because they have no choice whether to receive the insert and the views expressed in the insert may inflame their sensibilities. 47 N. Y. 2d, at 106-107, 390 N. E. 2d, at 755. But the Court of Appeals erred in its assessment of the seriousness of the intrusion.
Even if a short exposure to Consolidated Edison’s views may offend the sensibilities of some consumers, the ability of government “to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it [is] dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.” Cohen v. California, 403 U. S., at 21. A less stringent analysis would permit a government to slight the First Amendment’s role “in affording the public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas.” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, at 783; see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 390 (1969); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, 308 (1965) (Brennan, J., concurring). Where a single speaker communicates to many listeners, the First Amendment does not permit the government to prohibit speech as intrusive unless the “captive” audience cannot avoid objectionable speech.
Passengers on public transportation, see Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U. S., at 307-308 (Douglas, J., concurring in judgment), or residents of a neighborhood disturbed by the raucous broadcasts from a passing sound truck, cf. Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949), may well be unable to escape an unwanted message. But customers who encounter an objectionable billing insert may “effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.” Cohen v. California, supra, at 21. See Spence v. Washington, 418 U. S. 405, 412 (1974) (per curiam). The customer of Consolidated Edison may escape exposure to objectionable material simply by transferring the bill insert from envelope to wastebasket.
The Commission contends that because a billing envelope can accommodate only a limited amount of information, political messages should not be allowed to take the place of inserts that promote energy conservation or safety, or that remind consumers of their legal rights. The Commission relies upon Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, supra, in which the Court held that the regulation of radio and television broadcast frequencies permits the Federal Government to exercise unusual authority over speech. But billing envelopes differ from broadcast frequencies in two ways. First, a broadcaster communicates through use of a scarce, publicly owned resource. No person can broadcast without a license, whereas all persons are free to send correspondence to private homes through the mails. Thus, it cannot be said that billing envelopes are a limited resource comparable to the broadcast spectrum. Second, the Commission has not shown on the record before us that the presence of the bill inserts at issue would preclude the inclusion of other inserts that Consolidated Edison might be ordered lawfully to include in the billing envelope. Unlike radio or television stations broadcasting on a single frequency, multiple bill inserts will not result in a “cacophony of competing voices.” Id., at 376.
Finally, the Commission urges that its prohibition would prevent ratepayers from subsidizing the costs of policy-oriented bill inserts. But the Commission did not base its order on an inability to allocate costs between the shareholders of Consolidated Edison and the ratepayers. Rather, the Commission stated that “using bill inserts to proclaim a utility’s viewpoint on controversial issues {even when the stockholder pays for it in full) is tantamount to taking advantage of a captive audience. . . .” App. to Juris. Statement 43a (emphasis added). Accordingly, there is no basis on this record to assume that the Commission could not exclude the cost of these bill inserts from the utility’s rate base. Mere speculation of harm does not constitute a compelling state interest. See Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U. S. 217, 222-223 (1967).
IV
The Commission’s suppression of bill inserts that discuss controversial issues of public policy directly infringes the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state action is neither a valid time, place, or manner restriction, nor a permissible subject-matter regulation, nor a narrowly drawn prohibition justified by a compelling state interest. Accordingly, the regulation is invalid. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 795.
The decision of the New York Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Nor does Consolidated Edison’s status as a privately owned but government regulated monopoly preclude its assertion of First Amendment rights. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, post, at 566-568. We have recognized that the speech of heavily regulated businesses may enjoy constitutional protection. See, e. g., Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U. S. 1 (1979); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 763-765 (1976). Consolidated Edison’s position as a regulated monopoly does not decrease the informative value of its opinions on critical public matters. See generally Public Media Center v. FCC, 190 U. S. App. D. C. 425, 428, 429, 587 F. 2d 1322, 1325, 1326 (1978); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal. App. 3d 123, 127-129, 131 Cal. Rptr. 350, 352-353 (1976).
Freedom of speech also protects the individual’s interest in self-expression. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777, n. 12 (1978); see T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 6 (1970).
See also A. Meiklejohn, Political Freedom 35-36 (1965).
See also Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85, 93-94 (1977); Papish v. University of Missouri Curators, 410 U. S. 667, 670 (1973) (per curiam).
For example, when courts are asked to determine whether a species of speech is covered by the First Amendment, they must look to the content of the expression. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, post, at 561-563 (commercial speech); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 340 (1974) (libel); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973) (obscenity); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 572-573 (1942) (fighting words). Compare FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, 746-747 (1978) (opinion of Stevens, J.), and Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 70-71 (1976) (opinion of Stevens, J.), with FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra, at 761 (opinion of Powell, J.), 762-763 (Brennan, J., dissenting), and Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., supra, at 87 (Stewart, J., dissenting) (indecent speech).
The necessity for excluding partisan speech was based upon the traditional policy “of keeping official military activities . . . wholly free of entanglement with partisan political campaigns of any kind.” 424 U. S., at 839. Thus, the Court’s decision construed the public right of access in light of “the unique character of the Government property upon which the expression is to take place.” Id., at 842 (Powell, J., concurring).
Mr. Justice Douglas, who concurred in the judgment in Lehman, did not view “the content of the message as relevant either to petitioner’s right to express it or to the commuters’ right to be free from it.” 418 U. S., at 308. Rather, Mr. Justice Douglas upheld the municipality’s actions because commuters were a captive audience. Id., at 306-308. The Consolidated Edison customers who receive bill inserts are not a captive audience. See infra, at 541-542. Four Justices dissented in Lehman on the ground that the municipality could not' discriminate among advertisers. 418 U. S., at 308, 309 (Brennan, J., joined by Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, JJ., dissenting).
Lehman and Greer represent only one category of this Court’s cases dealing with rights of access to governmental property. Compare Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503, 512-513 (1969), and Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515-516 (1939) (opinion of Roberts, J.), with Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966).
The Commission contends that its order should be judged under the standard of United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377 (1968), because the order “is only secondarily concerned with the subject matter of Consolidated Edison communications. . . .” Brief for Appellee 9, n. 3. The O’Brien test applies to regulations that incidentally limit speech where “the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. . . .” 391 U. S., at 377. The bill insert prohibition does not further a governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of speech. Indeed, the court below justified the ban expressly on the basis that the speech might be harmful to consumers. 47 N. Y. 2d 94, 106-107, 390 N. E. 2d 749, 755 (1979).
The State Court of Appeals also referred to the alternative means by which Consolidated Edison might promulgate its views on controversial issues of public policy. Although a time, place, and manner restriction cannot be upheld without examination of alternative avenues of communication open to potential speakers, see Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willing-boro, 431 U. S., at 93, we have consistently rejected the suggestion that a government may justify a content-based prohibition by showing that speakers have alternative means of expression. See Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S., at 757, n. 15; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 556 (1975) ; Spence v. Washington, 418 U. S. 405, 411, n. 4 (1974) {per curiam).
Although this Court has recognized the special privacy interests that attach to persons who seek seclusion within their own homes, see Rowan v. Post Office Department, 397 U. S. 728, 737 (1970), the arrival of a billing envelope is hardly as intrusive as the visit of a door-to-door solicitor. Yet the Court has rejected the contention that a municipality may ban door-to-door solicitors because they may invade the privacy of households. Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 146-147 (1943). Even if there were a compelling state interest in protecting consumers against overly intrusive bill inserts, it is possible that the State could achieve its goal simply by requiring Consolidated Edison to stop sending bill inserts to the homes of objecting customers. See Rowan v. Post Office Department, supra.
In its denial of petitions for rehearing, the Commission re-emphasized that it would impose the ban without regard to allocation of costs between shareholders and ratepayers. App. to Juris. Statement 67a, n. 1.
The Commission also contends that ratepayers cannot be forced to support the costs of Consolidated Edison’s bill inserts. Because the Commission has failed to demonstrate that such costs could not be allocated between shareholders and ratepayers, we have no occasion to decide whether the rule of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209 (1977), would prevent Consolidated Edison from passing on to ratepayers the costs of bill inserts that discuss controversial issues of public policy.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Texas, like 48 other States and the District of Columbia, has adopted an Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) program. Under these programs, certain client funds held by an attorney in connection with his practice of law are deposited in bank accounts. The interest income generated by the funds is paid to foundations that finance legal services for low-income individuals. The question presented by this case is whether interest earned on client funds held in IOLTA accounts is “private property” of either the client or the attorney for purposes of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We hold that it is the property of the client.
I
In the course of their legal practice, attorneys are frequently required to hold client funds for various lengths of time. Before 1980, an attorney generally held such funds in noninterest-bearing, federally insured checking accounts in which all client trust funds of an individual attorney were pooled. These accounts provided administrative convenience and ready access to funds. They were nonin-terest bearing because federal law prohibited federally insured banks and savings and loans from paying interest on cheeking accounts. See 12 U. S. C. §§371a, 1464(b)(1)(B), 1828(g). When a lawyer held a large sum in trust for his client, such funds were generally placed in an interest-bearing savings account because the interest generated outweighed the inconvenience caused by the lack of check-writing capabilities.
In 1980, Congress authorized the creation of Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW) accounts, which for the first time permitted federally insured banks to pay interest on demand deposits. § 303,94 Stat. 146, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1832. NOW accounts are permitted only for deposits that “consist solely of funds in which the entire beneficial interest is held by one or more individuals or by an organization which is operated primarily for religious, philanthropic, charitable, educational, political, or other similar purposes and which is not operated for profit.” § 1832(a)(2). For-profit corporations and partnerships are thus prohibited from earning interest on demand deposits. See ibid. However, interpreting § 1832(a), the Federal Reserve Board has concluded that corporate funds may be held in NOW accounts if the funds are held in trust pursuant to a program under which charitable organizations have “the exclusive right to the interest.” Letter from Federal Reserve Board General Counsel Michael Bradfield to Donald Middlebrooks (Oct. 15,1981), reprinted in Middlebrooks, The Interest on Trust Accounts Program: Mechanics of its Operation, 56 Fla. B. J. 115, 117 (Feb. 1982) (hereinafter Federal Reserve’s IOLTA Letter).
Beginning with Florida in 1981, a number of States moved quickly to capitalize on this change in the banking regulations by establishing IOLTA programs. Texas followed suit in 1984. Its Supreme Court issued an order, now codified as Article XI of the State Bar Rules, providing that an attorney who receives client funds that are “nominal in amount or are reasonably anticipated to be held for a short period of time” must place such funds in a separate, interest-bearing NOW account (an IOLTA account). Tex. State Bar Rule, Art. XI, § 5(A); Rules 4, 7 of the Texas Rules Governing the Operation of the Texas Equal Access to Justice Program. Client funds are considered “nominal in amount” or “held for a short period of time” if the attorney holding the funds determines that
“such fluids, considered without regard to funds of other clients which may be held by the attorney, law firm or professional corporation, could not reasonably be expected to earn interest for the client or if the interest which might be earned on such funds is not likely to be sufficient to offset the cost of establishing and maintaining the. account, service charges, accounting costs and tax reporting costs which would be incurred in attempting to obtain the interest on such funds for the client.” Texas IOLTA Rule 6.
Interest earned by the funds deposited in an IOLTA account is to be paid to the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation (TEAJF), a nonprofit corporation established by the Supreme Court of Texas. Tex. State Bar Rule, Art. XI, §§3, 4; Texas IOLTA Rule 9(a). TEAJF distributes the funds to nonprofit organizations that “have as a primary purpose the delivery of legal services to low. income persons.” Texas IOLTA Rule 10. The Internal Revenue Service does not attribute the interest generated by an IOLTA account to the individual clients for federal income tax purposes so long as the client has no control over the decision whether to place the funds in the IOLTA account and does not designate who will receive the interest generated by the account. See Rev. Rui. 81-209, 1981-2 Cum. Bull. 16; Rev. Rul. 87-2, 1987-1 Cum. Bull. 18.
Respondents are the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), Michael Mazzone, and William Summers. WLF is a public-interest law and policy center with members in the State of Texas who are opposed to the Texas IOLTA program. App. 26. Mazzone is an attorney admitted to practice in Texas who maintains an IOLTA account into which he regularly deposits client funds. Id., at 82. Summers is a Texas citizen and businessman whose work requires him to make regular use of the services of an attorney. In January 1994, Summers learned that a retainer he had deposited with his attorney was being held in an IOLTA account. Id., at 85. In February 1994, respondents filed this suit against petitioners — TEAJF, W. Frank Newton, in his official capacity as chairman of TEAJF, and the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of Texas. Respondents alleged, inter alia, that the Texas IOLTA program violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment, by taking their property without just compensation.
The District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners, reasoning that respondents had no property interest in the interest proceeds generated by the funds held in IOLTA accounts. Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation, 873 F. Supp. 1 (WD Tex. 1995). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that “any interest that accrues belongs to the owner of the principal.” Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation, 94 F. 3d 996, 1004 (1996). Because of a split over whether the interest income generated by funds held in IOLTA accounts is private property for purposes of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, we granted certiorari. 521 U.S. 1117 (1997).
II
The Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 239 (1897), provides that "private property” shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Because the Constitution protects rather than creates property interests, the existence of a property interest is determined by reference to “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972).
All agree that under Texas law the principal held in IOLTA trust accounts is the “private property” of the client. Texas IOLTA Rule 4 (discussing circumstances under which “client funds” must be deposited in an IOLTA account); Texas Bar Rule 1.14(a) (lawyers “shall hold funds ... belonging in whole or in part to clients ... separate from the lawyer’s own property”); see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10 (“There can be no doubt that the client funds underlying the IOLTA program are the property of respondents”). When deposited in an IOLTA account, these funds remain in the control of a private attorney and are freely available to the client upon demand. As to the principal, then, the IOLTA rules at most “regulate the use of [the] property.” Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 522 (1992). Respondents do not contend that the State’s regulation of the manner in which attorneys hold and manage client funds amounts to a taking of private property. The question in this case is whether the interest on an IOLTA account is “private property” of the client for whom the principal is being held.
The rule that “interest follows principal” has been established'under English common law since at least the mid-1700’s. Beckford v. Tobin, 1 Ves. Sen. 308, 310, 27 Eng. Rep. 1049, 1051 (Ch. 1749) (“[Ijnterest shall follow the principal, as the shadow the body”). Not surprisingly, this rule has become firmly embedded in the common.law of the various States. The Court of Appeals in this case, two of the three judges of which are Texans, held that Texas also follows this rule, citing Sellers v. Harris County, 483 S. W. 2d 242, 243 (Tex. 1972) (“The interest earned by deposit of money owned by the parties to the lawsuit is an increment that accrues to that money and to its owners”). Indeed, in Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 162 (1980), we cited the Sellers opinion as demonstrative of the general rule that “any interest... follows the principal.”
In Webb’s, we addressed a Florida statute providing that interest accruing on an interpleader fund deposited in the registry of the court “ ‘shall be deemed income of the office of the clerk of the circuit court.’ ” Id., at 156, n. 1 (quoting Fla. Stat. §28.33 (1977)) (emphasis deleted). The appellant in that case fled an interpleader action in Florida state court and tendered the sum at issue, nearly $2 million, into court. In addition to deducting $9,228.74 from the interpleader fund as a fee “for services rendered,” the clerk of court also retained the more than $100,000 in interest income generated by the deposited funds. We held that the statute authorizing the clerk to confiscate the earned interest violated the Takings Clause. As we explained, “a State, by ipse dixit, may not transform private property into public property without compensation” simply by legislatively abrogating the traditional rule that “earnings of a fund are incidents of ownership of the fund itself and are property just as the fund itself is property.” 449 U. S., at 164. In other words, at least as to confiscatory regulations (as opposed to those regulating the use of property), a State may not sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property interests long recognized under state law. See id., at 163-164; see also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1029 (1992).
Petitioners nevertheless contend that Webb’s does not control because Texas does not, in fact, adhere to the “interest follows principal” rule, “at least if elevated to the level of an absolute legal rule.” Brief for Petitioners 22. They point to several examples, such as income-only trusts and marital community property rules, where under Texas law interest does not follow principal. According to petitioners, the IOLTA program is simply another exception to the general rule.
We find these examples insufficient to dispel the presumption of deference given the views of a federal court as to the law of a State within its jurisdiction. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U. S. 198, 204 (1956). Petitioners’ examples miss the point of our decision in Webb’s. Texas’ exception of income-only trusts and certain marital property from the general rule that “interest follows principal” has a firm basis in traditional property law principles. Permitting the owner of a sum of money to distribute to a designated beneficiary the interest income generated by his principal is entirely consistent with the fundamental maxim of property law that the owner of a property interest may dispose of all or part of that interest as he sees fit. United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373, 377-378 (1945) (property “denote[s] the group of rights inhering in the citizen’s relation to the physical thing, as the right to ... dispose of it”). Similarly, the Texas rules governing the distribution of marital assets have a historical pedigree tracing back to the marital property laws adopted by the Texas Congress only four years after Texas became an independent republic. W. McGlanahan, Community Property Law in the United States § 3:23, pp. 123-124 (1982). But petitioners point to no "background principles” of property law, Lucas, supra, at 1030, that would lead one to the conclusion that the owner of a fund temporarily deposited in an attorney trust account may be deprived of the interest the fund generates.
Petitioners further contend that "interest follows principal” is an incomplete explication of the Texas rule. Reply Brief for Petitioners 11. Petitioners explain that interest follows principal in Texas only if the interest is "allowed by law or fixed by the parties.” Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., 696 S. W. 2d 549, 552 (Tex. 1985). We fail to see how this assists petitioners’ cause. We agree that the government has great latitude in regulating the circumstances under which interest may be earned. As we explained in Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51, 66 (1979), “anticipated gains ha[ve] traditionally been viewed as less compelling than other property-related interests.” But petitioners do not argue that the payment of interest on client funds deposited in an attorney trust account is not "allowed by law” in Texas. Rather, they argue that interest actually “earned” by funds held in IOLTA accounts, Texas IOLTA Rule 9, is not the private property of the owner of the principal. However, regardless of whether the owner of the principal has a constitutionally cognizable interest in the anticipated generation of interest by his funds, any interest that does accrue attaches as a property right incident to the ownership of the underlying principal.
Finally, petitioners argue that the interest income transferred to the TEAJF is not "private property” because the client funds held in IOLTA accounts “cannot reasonably be expected to generate interest income on their own.” Brief for Petitioners 18. As an initial matter, petitioners’ assertion that client funds held in IOLTA accounts cannot be expected to generate interest income is plainly incorrect under the express terms of the Texas IOLTA rules. Texas IOLTA Rule 6 requires that client funds held by an attorney be deposited in an IOLTA account “if the interest which might, be earned” is insufficient to offset the “cost of establishing and maintaining the account, service charges, accounting costs and tax reporting costs which would be incurred in attempting to obtain the interest on such funds for the client.” In other words, it is not that the client funds to be placed in IOLTA accounts cannot generate interest, but that they cannot generate net interest.
Whether client funds held in IOLTA accounts could generate net interest is a matter of some dispute. As written, the Texas IOLTA program requires the calculation as to net interest to be made “without regard to funds of other clients which may be held by the attorney.” Texas IOLTA Rule 6. This provision would deny to an attorney the traditional practice of pooling funds of several clients in one account, a practice which might produce net interest when opening an account for each client would not. But in the District Court, petitioners agreed that this portion of the rule was not to be enforced, and that an attorney could make the necessary calculation on the basis of pooled accounts. Petitioners made a similar concession during oral argument here. Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-16. We accept this concession but find that it does not avail petitioners.
We have never held that a physical item is not “property” simply because it lacks a positive economic or market value. For example, in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982), we held that a property right was taken even when infringement of that right arguably increased the market value of the property at issue. Id., at 437, n. 15. Our conclusion in this regard was premised on our longstanding recognition that property is more than economic value, see id., at 435; it also consists of “the group of rights which the so-called owner exercises in his dominion of the physical thing,” such “as the right to possess, use and dispose of it,” General Motors, supra, at 380. While the interest income at issue here may have no economically realizable value to its owner, possession, control, and disposition are nonetheless valuable rights that inhere in the property. See Hodel v. Irving, 481 U. S. 704, 715 (1987) (noting that “the right to pass on” property “is itself a valuable right”). The government may not seize rents received by the owner of a building simply because it can prove that the costs incurred in collecting the rents exceed the amount collected.
The United States, as amicus curiae, additionally argues that “private property5' is not implicated by the IOLTA program because the interest income-generated by funds held in IOLTA accounts is “government-created value.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20. We disagree. As an initial matter, this argument is factually erroneous. The interest income transferred to the TEAJF is not the product of increased efficiency, economies of scale, or pooling of funds by the government. Indeed, as noted above, the State has conceded at oral argument that if an attorney could in any way (such as pooling of client funds) earn interest for a client, he is ethically obligated to do so rather than place the funds in an IOLTA account. Interest income is economically realizable by IOLTA primarily because: (1) the Federal Government imposes tax reporting costs only on those who attempt to exercise control over the interest their funds generate, see Rev. Rui. 81-209, 1981-2 Cum. Bull. 16; Rev. Rul. 87-2, 1987-1 Cum. Bull. 18; and (2) the Federal Government prohibits for-profit corporations from holding funds in NOW accounts if the interest is paid to the corporation, but permits corporate funds to be held in NOW accounts if the interest is paid to the TEAJF, see Federal Reserve’s IOLTA Letter. In other words, the State does nothing to create value; the value is created by respondents’ funds. The Federal Government, through the structuring of its banking and taxation regulations, imposes costs on this value if private citizens attempt to exercise control over it. Waiver of these costs if the property is remitted to the State hardly constitutes “government-created value.”
In any event, we rejected a similar “government-created value” argument in Webb’s. There, the State of Florida argued that since the clerk’s authority to invest deposited funds was a statutorily created right, any interest income generated by the funds was not private property. 449 U. S., at 163. We rejected this argument, explaining that “the State’s having mandated the accrual of interest does not mean the State or its designate is entitled to assume ownership of the interest.” Id., at 162.
This would be a different case if the interest income generated by IOLTA accounts was transferred to the State as payment “for services rendered” by the State. Id., at 157. Our holding does not prohibit a State from imposing reasonable fees it incurs in generating and allocating interest income. See id., at 162; cf. United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U. S. 52, 60 (1989) (upholding the imposition of a “reasonable ‘user fee’” on those utilizing the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal). But here the State does not, indeed cannot, argue that its confiscation of respondents’ interest income amounts to a fee for services performed. Unlike in Webb’s, where the State safeguarded and invested the deposited funds, funds held in IOLTA accounts are managed entirely by banks and private attorneys.
hH h-i
In sum, we hold that the interest income generated by funds held in IOLTA accounts is the “private property” of the owner of the principal. We express no view as to whether these funds have been “taken” by the State; nor do we express an opinion as to the amount of “just compensation,” if any, due respondents. We leave these issues to be addressed on remand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Ala, Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(g) (1996); Alaska Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 44(c)(2) (1997); Ark. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d)(2) (1997); Cal. Bus. & Prof Code Ann. § 6211(a) (West 1990 and Supp. 1998); Colo. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(e)(2) (1997); Conn. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1998); Del. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(h) (1998); D. C. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(e) (1997); Fla. Bar Rule 5-1.1 (1994 and Supp. 1998); Ga. Code Prof. Responsibility Rule 3-109, DR 9-102 (1998); Haw. Sup.'Ct. Rule 11 (1997); Idaho Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Ill. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Iowa Code Prof Responsibility DR 9-102 (1997); Kan. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d)(3) (1997); Ky. Sup. Ct. Rule 3.830 (1998); La. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Me. Code Prof Responsibility 3.6(e)(4) (1997); Md. Bus. Occ. & Prof Code Ann. §10-303 (1995); Mass. Sup. Ct. Rule 3:07, DR 9-102 (1997); Mich. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Minn. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1993); Miss. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Mo. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Mont. Rule Prof Conduct 1.18(b) (1996); Neb. Sup. a. Trust Acct. Rules 1-8 (1997); Nev. Sup. Ct. Rule 217 (1998); Petition of New Hampshire Bar Assn., 122 N. H. 971, 453 A. 2d 1258 (1982); N. J. Rules Gen. Application 128A-2 (1998); N. M. Rule Prof Conduct 16-115(D) (1998); N.Y. Jud. Law §497 (McKinney Supp. 1997 and 1998); N. C. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15-3 (1997); N. D. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d)(1) (1997); OMo Rev. Code Ann. § 4705.09(A)(1) (1997); OWa. Rule Pro£ Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Ore. Code Pro£ Responsibility DR 9-101(D)(2) (1997); Pa. Rule Pro£ Conduct 1.15(d) (1997) and Pa. Rule Disciplinary Enforcement 601(d) (1997); R. I. Rule Prof. Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); S. C. App. Ct. Rule 412 (1988); S. D. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d)(4) (1995); Tenn. Code Prof. Responsibility DR 9-102(C)(2) (1997); In re Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts, 672 P. 2d 406 (Utah 1983); Va. Sup. Ct. Rules, Pt. 6, §4, ¶20 (1997); Vt. Code Prof Responsibility DR 9-103 (1996); Wash. Rule Pro£ Conduct 1.14(c)(1) (1997); W. Va. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(d) (1997); Wis. Sup. Ct. Rules 13.04, 20:1.15 (1997); Wyo. Rule Prof Conduct 1.15(11) (1997). Indiana is the only State that has not implemented an IOLTA program. See In re Indiana State Bar Assn. Petition, 550 N. E. 2d 311 (Ind. 1990).
We express no opinion as to the reasonableness of this interpretation of § 1832(a). See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984).
Cone v. State Bar of Fla., 819 F. 2d 1002 (CA11), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 917 (1987); In re Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts, 672 P. 2d 406 (Utah 1983); Petition of New Hampshire Bar Assn., 122 N. H., at 975-976, 453 A. 2d, at 1260-1261; In re Minnesota State Bar Assn., 332 N. W. 2d 151, 158 (Minn. 1982); In re Interest on Trust Accounts, 402 So. 2d 389, 395-396 (Fla. 1981).
We granted certiorari in this case to answer the question whether “interest earned on client trust funds held by lawyers in IOLTA accounts [is] a property interest of the client or lawyer, cognizable under the . . . Fifth Amendmen[t] to the U. S. Constitution...Pet. for Cert. i. Justice Souter contends that we should vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals because it was improper for that court to have answered this question apart from the takings and just compensation questions. Petitioners, however, did not argue in their petition for certiorari that it was error for the Fifth Circuit to address the property question alone. Because, under this Court’s Rule 14(l)(a), our practice is to consider “[o]nly the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein,” it would be improper for us sua sponte to raise and address the question answered by Justice Soxjter.
E. g., Freeman v. Young, 507 So. 2d 109, 110 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987) (“The earnings of a fund are incidents of ownership of the fend itself and are property just as the fend itself is property” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pomona City School Dist. v. Payne, 9 Cal. App. 2d 510, 512, 50 P. 2d 822, 823 (1935) (“[Ojbviously the interest accretions belong to such owner”); Vidal Realtors of Westport, Inc. v. Harry Bennett & Assocs., Inc., 1 Conn. App. 291, 297-298, 471 A. 2d 658, 662 (1984) (“As long as the attached fond is used for profit, the profit... is impounded for the benefit of the attaching creditor and is subject to the same ultimate disposition as the principal of which it is the incident” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Burnett v. Brito, 478 So. 2d 845, 849 (Fla. App. 1985) (“[A]ny interest earned on interpleaded and deposited funds follows the principal and shall be allocated to whomever is found entitled to the principal”); Morton Grove Park Dist. v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 78 Ill. 2d 353, 362-363, 399 N. E. 2d 1295, 1299 (1980) (“The earnings on the funds deposited are a mere incident of ownership of the fond itself”); B & M Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 501 N. E. 2d 401, 405 (Ind. 1986) (“[Ijnterest earnings must follow the principal and be distributed to the ultimate owners of the fund”); Unified School Dist. No. 490, Butler County v. Board of County Commissioners of Butler County, 237 Kan. 6, 9, 697 P. 2d 64, 69 (1985) (“[Ijnterest follows principal”); Pontiac School Dist. v. City of Pontiac, 294 Mich. 708, 715-716, 294 N. W. 141, 144 (1940) (“The generally understood and applied principles that interest is merely an incident of the principal and must be accounted for”); State Highway Comm’n v. Spainhower, 504 S. W. 2d 121, 126 (Mo. 1973) (“Interest earned by a deposit of special funds is an increment accruing thereto” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Siroky v. Richland County, 271 Mont. 67, 74, 894 P. 2d 309, 313 (1995) (“[Ijnterest earned belongs to the owner of the fends that generated the interest”); Bordy v. Smith, 150 Neb. 272, 276, 34 N. W. 2d 331, 334 (1948) (“Once settled clearly and definitely whose money the principal stun was, the interest necessarily belongs to that person as an increment to the principal fund”); State ex rel. Board of County Com missioners v. Montoya, 91 N. M. 421, 423, 575 P. 2d 605, 607 (1978) C‘[T]he general rule is that interest is an accretion or increment to the principal fund earning it”); Stuarco, Inc. v. Slafbro Realty Corp., 30 App. Div. 2d 80, 82, 289 N. Y. S. 2d 883, 885 (1968) (plaintiff “is entitled to the interest actually accrued . . . despite the absence of any agreement to pay interest on the deposit, and this precisely and only because interest was in fact earned thereon”); McMillan v. Robeson County, 262 N. C. 413, 417, 137 S. E. 2d 105, 108 (1964) (“The earnings on the fund are a mere incident of ownership of the fund itself”); Des Moines Mut. Hail & Cyclone Ins. Assn. v. Steen, 43 N. D. 298, 301, 175 N. W. 195 (1919) (“[A]ecruing interest follows the principal”); Board of Educ., Woodward Pub. Schools v. Hensely, 665 P. 2d 327, 331 (Okla. App. 1983) (“The interest earned ... becomes a part of the principal of the fund which generates it”); University of S. C. v. Elliott, 248 S. C. 218, 220, 149 S. E. 2d 433, 434 (1966) (“[I]nterest earned ... is simply an increment of the principal fund, making the interest the property of the party who owned the principal fund”); Board of County Commissioners of the County of Laramie v. Laramie County School Dist. No. One, 884 P. 2d 946, 953 (Wyo. 1994) (“In general, interest is merely an incident of the principal fund, making it the property of the party owning the principal fund”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents two questions affecting the priority of an unsecured claim in bankruptcy to collect an exaction under 26 U. S. C. § 4971(a), requiring a payment to the Internal Revenue Service equal to 10 percent of any accumulated funding deficiency of certain pension plans: first, whether the exaction is an “excise tax” for purposes of 11 U. S. C. § 507(a)(7)(E) (1988 ed.), which at the time relevant here gave seventh priority to a claim for such a tax; and, second, whether principles of equitable subordination support a categorical rule placing §4971 claims at a lower priority than unsecured claims generally. We hold that § 4971(a) does not create an excise tax within the meaning of § 507(a)(7)(E), but that categorical subordination of the Government’s claim to those of other unsecured creditors was error.
I
The CF&I Steel Corporation and its nine subsidiaries (CF&I) sponsored two pension plans, with the consequence that CF&I was obligated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 935, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., to make certain annual minimum funding contributions to the plans based on the value of the benefits earned by its employees. See § 1082; 26 U. S. C. § 412. The annual payments were due each September 15th for the preceding plan year, see 26 CFR § 11.412(c)-12(b) (1995), and on September 15, 1990, CF&I was required to pay a total of some $12.4 million for the year ending December 31, 1989. The day passed without any such payment, and on November 7, 1990, CF&I petitioned the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, in an attempt at financial reorganization prompted in large part by the company’s inability to fund the pension plans. In re CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 148 B. R. 332, 334 (Bkrtcy. Ct. CD Utah 1992).
In 1991, the IRS filed several proofs of claim for tax liabilities, one of which arose under 26 U. S. C. § 4971(a), imposing a 10 percent “tax” (of $1.24 million here) on any “accumulated funding deficiency” of certain pension plans. The Government sought priority for the claim, either as an “excise tax” within the meaning of 11 U. S. C. § 507(a)(7)(E) (1988 ed.), or as a tax penalty in compensation for pecuniary loss under § 507(a)(7)(G). CF&I disputed each alternative, and by separate adversary complaint asked the Bankruptcy Court to subordinate the §4971 claim to those of general unsecured creditors.
The Bankruptcy Court allowed the Government’s claim under § 4971(a) but denied it any priority under § 507(a)(7), finding the liability neither an “excise tax” under § 507(a)(7)(E) nor a tax penalty in compensation for actual pecuniary loss under § 507(a)(7)(G). Instead, the court read §4971 as creating a noncompensatory penalty, 148 B. R., at 340, and by subsequent order subordinated the claim to those of all other general unsecured creditors, on the supposed authority of the Bankruptcy Code’s provision for equitable subordination, 11 U. S. C. § 510(c).
The Government appealed to the District Court for the District of Utah, pressing its excise tax theory and objecting to equitable subordination as improper in the absence of Government misconduct. While that appeal was pending, CF&I presented the Bankruptcy Court with a reorganization plan that put the §4971 claim in what the plan called Class 13, a special category giving lowest priority (and no money) to claims for nonpecuniary loss penalties; but it also provided that, if the court found subordination behind general unsecured claims to be inappropriate, the §4971 claim would be ranked with them in what the reorganization plan called Class 12 (which would receive some funds). Appel-lees’ App. in No. 94-4034 et al. (CA10), pp. 96-101, 137-141, 197-200. The United States objected, but the Bankruptcy Court affirmed the plan. The Government appealed this order as well, and the District Court affirmed both the denial of excise tax treatment and the subsequent subordination to general unsecured claims. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-11. The Tenth Circuit likewise affirmed. 53 F. 3d 1155 (1995).
We granted certiorari, 516 U. S. 1005 (1995), to resolve a conflict among the Circuits over whether § 4971(a) claims are excise taxes within the meaning of § 507(a)(7)(E), and whether such claims are categorically subject to equitable subordination under § 510(c). We affirm on the first question but on the second vacate the judgment and remand.
II
The provisions for priorities among a bankrupt debtor s claimants are found in 11 U. S. C. § 507, subsection (a)(7) of which read, in relevant part, that seventh priority would be accorded to
“allowed unsecured claims of governmental units, only to the extent that such claims are for—
“(E) an excise tax on—
“(i) a transaction occurring before the date of the filing of the petition for which a return, if required, is last due, under applicable law or under any extension, after three years before the date of the filing of the petition;
or
“(ii) if a return is not required, a transaction occurring during the three years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition.”
What the Government here claims to be an excise tax obligation arose under 26 U. S. C. § 4971(a), which provides that
“[f]or each taxable year of an employer who maintains a [pension] plan . . . there is hereby imposed a tax of 10 percent (5 percent in the case of a multiemployer plan) on the amount of the accumulated funding deficiency under the plan, determined as of the end of the plan year ending with or within such taxable year.”
No one denies that Congress could have included a provision in the Bankruptcy Code calling a §4971 exaction an excise tax (thereby affording it the priority claimed by the Government); the only question is whether the exaction ought to be treated as a tax (and, if so, an excise) without some such dispositive direction.
A
Here and there in the Bankruptcy Code Congress has included specific directions that establish the significance for bankruptcy law of a term used elsewhere in the federal statutes. Some bankruptcy provisions deal specifically with subjects as identified by terms defined outside the Bankruptcy Code; 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(13), for example, addresses “restitution issued under title 18, United States Code,” and § 507(a)(1) refers to “any fees and charges assessed against the estate under chapter 123 of title 28.” Other bankruptcy provisions directly adopt definitions contained in other statutes; thus §§761(5), (7), and (8) adopt the Commodity Exchange Act’s definitions of “commodity option,” “contract market,” “contract of sale,” and so on. Not surprisingly, there are places where the Bankruptcy Code makes referential use of the Internal Revenue Code, as 11 U. S. C. § 101(41)(C)(i) does in referring to “an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code,” and as § 346(g)(1)(C) does in providing for recognition of a gain or loss “to the same extent that such transfer results in the recognition of gain or loss under section 371 of the Internal Revenue Code.”
It is significant, therefore, that Congress included no such reference in § 507(a)(7)(E), even though the Bankruptcy Code itself provides no definition of “excise,” “tax,” or “excise tax.” This absence of any explicit connector between §§ 507(a)(7)(E) and 4971 is all the more revealing in light of the following history of interpretive practice in determining whether a “tax” so called in the statute creating it is also a “tax” (as distinct from a debt or penalty) for the purpose of setting the priority of a claim under the bankruptcy laws.
B
Although § 507(a)(7), giving seventh priority to several different kinds of taxes, was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 2590 (1978 Act), a priority provision for taxes was nothing new. Section 64(a) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (1898 Act), which governed (as frequently amended) until 1978, gave priority to “taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt to the United States [or a] State, county, district, or municipality.” 30 Stat. 544, 563. On a number of occasions, this Court considered whether a particular exaction, whether or not called a “tax” in the statute creating it, was a tax for purposes of § 64(a), and in every one of those cases the Court looked behind the label placed on the exaction and rested its answer directly on the operation of the provision using the term in question.
The earliest such cases involved state taxes and are exemplified by City of New York v. Feiring, 313 U. S. 283 (1941). In considering whether a New York sales tax was a “tax” entitled to priority under § 64(a), the Court placed no weight on the “tax” label in the New York law, and looked to the state statute only “to ascertain whether its incidents are such as to constitute a tax within the meaning of § 64.” Id., at 285. See also New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U. S. 483, 492 (1906); New York v. Jersawit, 263 U. S. 493, 495-496 (1924). The Court later followed the same course when a federal statute created the exaction. In United States v. New York, 315 U. S. 510 (1942), the Court considered whether “‘tax[es]’” so called in two federal statutes, id., at 512, n. 2, were entitled to priority as “taxes” under § 64(a). In each instance the decision turned on the actual effects of the exac-tions, id., at 514-517, with the Court citing Feiring and Anderson as authority for its enquiry. 315 U. S., at 514-516. See also United States v. Childs, 266 U. S. 304, 309-310 (1924); United States v. Sotelo, 436 U. S. 268, 275 (1978) (“We ... cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that the ‘penalty’ language of Internal Revenue Code §6672 is dispositive of the status of respondent’s debt under Bankruptcy Act § 17(a)(1)(e)”).
Congress could, of course, have intended a different interpretive method for reading terms used in the Bankruptcy Code it created in 1978. But if it had so intended we would expect some statutory indication, see Midlantic Nat. Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 474 U. S. 494, 501 (1986), whereas the most obvious statutory indicator is very much to the contrary: in the specific instances noted before, it would have been redundant for Congress to refer specifically to Internal Revenue Code definitions of given terms if such cross-identity were to be assumed or presumed, as a matter of interpretive course.
While the Government does not directly challenge the continuing vitality of the cases in the Feiring line, it seeks to sidestep them by arguing, first, that similarities between the plain texts of §§4971 and 507(a)(7)(E) resolve this case. This approach, however, is inconsistent with New York and Sotelo, in each of which the Court refused to rely on the terminology used in the relevant tax and bankruptcy provisions. The argument is also unavailing on its own terms, for even if we were to accept the proposition that comparable use of similar terms is dispositive, the Government’s plain text argument still would fail.
The word “excise” appears nowhere in § 4971 (whereas, by contrast, 26 U. S. C. § 4401 explicitly states that it imposes “an excise tax”). And although there is one reference to “excise taxes” that applies to § 4971 in the heading of the subtitle covering that section (“Subtitle D — Miscellaneous Excise Taxes”), the Government disclaims any reliance on that caption. Tr. of Oral Arg. 14, 17-20; see also 26 U. S. C. § 7806(b) (“No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title”). Furthermore, though § 4971(a) does explicitly refer to its exaction as a “tax,” the Government disavows any suggestion that this language is dispositive as to whether § 4971(a) is a tax for purposes of § 507(a)(7)(E); while § 4971(b) “impostes] a tax equal to 100 percent of [the] accumulated funding deficiency to the extent not corrected,” the Government says that this explicit language does not answer the question whether § 4971(b) is, in fact, a tax under § 507(a)(7)(E). Reply Brief for United States 13-14; Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-24. The Government’s positions, then, undermine its suggestion that the statutes’ texts standing together demonstrate that § 4971(a) imposes an excise tax.
The Government’s second effort to avoid a New York and Sotelo interpretive enquiry relies on a statement from the legislative history of the 1978 Act, that “[a]ll Federal, State or local taxes generally considered or expressly treated as excises are covered by” § 507(a)(7)(E). 124 Cong. Rec. 32416 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Edwards); id., at 34016 (remarks of Sen. DeConcini). But even taking this statement as authoritative, it would provide little support for the Government’s position. Although the statement may mean that all exac-tions called “excise taxes” should be covered by § 507(a) (7)(E), § 4971 does not call its exaction an excise tax. And although the section occurs in a subtitle with a heading of “Miscellaneous Excise Taxes,” the Government has disclaimed reliance on the subtitle heading as authority for its position in this case, recognizing the provision of 26 U. S. C. § 7806(b) that no inference of legislative construction should be drawn from the placement of a provision in the Internal Revenue Code. See supra, at 222 and this page; Tr. of Oral Arg. 19. If, on the other hand, the statement in the legislative history is read more literally, its apparent upshot is that, among those exactions that are taxes, the ones that are expressly treated as excises are “excise tax[es]” within the meaning of § 507(a)(7)(E). But that proposition fails, of course, to answer the question whether the exaction is a tax to begin with.
In sum, we conclude that the 1978 Act reveals no congressional intent to reject generally the interpretive principle that characterizations in the Internal Revenue Code are not dispositive in the bankruptcy context, and no specific provision that would relieve us from making a functional examination of § 4971(a). We proceed to that examination.
C
Anderson and New York applied the same test in determining whether an exaction was a tax under § 64(a), or a penalty or debt: “a tax is a pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property for the purpose of supporting the Government.” Anderson, 203 U. S., at 492; New York, 315 U. S., at 515; accord, Feiring, 313 U. S., at 285 (“§ 64 extends to those pecuniary burdens laid upon individuals or their property ... for the purpose of defraying the expenses of government or of undertakings authorized by it”). Or, as the Court noted in a somewhat different context, “[a] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.” United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931).
We take La Franca’s statement of the distinction to be sufficient for the decision of this case; if the concept of penalty means anything, it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission, and a punishment for an unlawful omission is what this exaction is. Title 29 U. S. C. § 1082 requires a pension plan sponsor to fund potential plan liability according to a complex statutory formula, see also 26 U. S. C. § 412, and 26 U. S. C. § 4971(a) requires employers who maintain a pension plan to pay the Government 10 percent of any accumulated funding deficiency. If the employer fails to correct the deficiency before the earlier of a notice of deficiency under § 4971(a) or an assessment of the § 4971(a) exaction, the employer is obligated to pay an additional “tax” of 100 percent of the accumulated funding deficiency. § 4971(b). The obviously penal character of these exactions is underscored by other provisions, including one giving the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) an entirely independent claim against the employer for “the total amount of the unfunded benefit liabilities,” 29 U. S. C. § 1362(b)(1)(A) (a claim which in this case the PBGC has asserted and which is still pending, see Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 179 B. R. 704 (ND Utah 1994)); see also §§ 1306-1307. We are, indeed, unable to find any provision in the statutory scheme that would cast the “tax” at issue here in anything but this punitive light.
D
The legislative history reflects the statute’s punitive character:
“The bill also provides new and more effective penalties where employers fail to meet the funding standards. In the past, an attempt has been made to enforce the relatively weak funding standards existing under present law by providing for immediate vesting of the employees’ rights, to the extent funded, under plans which do not meet these standards. This procedure, however, has proved to be defective since it does not directly penalize those responsible for the underfunding. For this reason, the bill places the obligation for funding and the penalty for underfunding on the person on whom it belongs — namely, the employer.” H. R. Rep. No. 93-807, p. 28 (1974).
Accord, S. Rep. No. 93-383, p. 24 (1973). The Committee Reports also stated that, “[s]ince the employer remains liable for the contributions necessary to meet the funding standards even after the payment of the excise taxes, it is anticipated that few, if any, employers will willfully violate these standards.” H. R. Rep. No. 93-807, supra, at 28; S. Rep. No. 93-383, supra, at 24-25.
Given the patently punitive function of § 4971, we conclude that §4971 must be treated as imposing a penalty, not authorizing a tax. Accordingly, we hold that the “tax” under § 4971(a) was not entitled to seventh priority as an “excise tax” under § 507(a)(7)(E), but instead is, for bankruptcy purposes, a penalty to be dealt with as an ordinary, unsecured claim.
III
Hence, the next question: whether the Court of Appeals improperly subordinated the Government’s §4971 claim to those of the other general unsecured creditors. Though we have rejected the argument that the §4971 claim is for an “excise tax” within the meaning of § 507(a)(7)(E), both parties agree that the § 4971 claim is allowable on a nonpriority unsecured basis. CF&I’s reorganization plan did not lump all unsecured claims in one nonpriority class, however, but instead created four classes of unsecured creditors, only the first two of which would receive funds: Class 11 comprised small claims ($1,500 or less) grouped together for administrative convenience, see 11 U. S. C. § 1122(b); Class 12 comprised general unsecured claims (except for those assigned to other classes); Class 13 covered the §4971 claim and some other (much smaller) subordinated penalty claims; and Class 14, claims between the CF&I Steel Corporation and its subsidiaries (all of which were bankrupt), the net value of which was zero. The plan provided, nonetheless, that if a court determined that a Class 13 claim should not be subordinated, or that the Class 13 claims should not be separately classified, the claim or claims would be placed in Class 12. Appel-lees’ App. in No. 94-4034 et al., at 95-101, 137-141, 196-200.
When the Government challenged the proposal to subordinate its claim, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the reorganization plan, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-31, and ordered that the §4971 claim be “subordinated to the claims of all other general unsecured creditors of [CF&I] pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 510(c).” Id., at A-21. The District Court subsequently ruled that the §4971 claim “should be equitably subordinated to the claims of the general creditors under Section 510(c).” Id., at A-18. In the Tenth Circuit, the Government again contested subordination under § 510(c), which CF&I defended, even as it sought to sustain the Bankruptcy Court’s result with two new, alternative arguments: first, that 11 U. S. C. § 1122(a), restricting a given class to substantially similar claims, prohibited placement of the § 4971 claim in Class 12, because of its dissimilarity to other unsecured claims; and second, that, because 11 U. S. C. § 1129(a)(7) authorizes creditors with impaired claims (i. e., those getting less than full payment under the plan, like those in Class 12 here) to reject a plan that would give them less than they would get from a Chapter 7 liquidation, courts must have the power to assign a claim the same priority it would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation (in which a noncom-pensatory prepetition penalty claim would be subordinated, 11 U. S. C. § 726(a)(4)). The Court of Appeals addressed neither of these arguments, however, relying instead on the broad construction given § 510(c) in In re Virtual Network Servs. Corp., 902 F. 2d 1246 (CA7 1990) (subordinating a claim otherwise entitled to priority under § 507(a)(7) to those of general unsecured creditors), and holding specifically that “section 510(c)(1) does not require a finding of claimant misconduct to subordinate nonpecuniary loss tax penalty claims.” 53 F. 3d, at 1159. The Court of Appeals took note of the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that “[djeclining to subordinate the IRS’s penalty claim would harm innocent creditors rather than punish the debtor” and concluded that “the bankruptcy court correctly addressed the equities in this case.” Ibid.
Nothing in the opinion of the Court of Appeals (or, for that matter, in the rulings of the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court) addresses the arguments that the Bankruptcy Court’s result was sustainable without reliance on § 510(c). The court never suggested that either § 1122(a) or the Chapter 7 liquidation provisions were relevant. We thus necessarily review the subordination on the assumption that the Court of Appeals placed no reliance on the possibility that the Bankruptcy Code might permit the subordination on any basis except equitable subordination under § 510(c).
So understood, the subordination was error. In United States v. Noland, 517 U. S. 535 (1996), we reversed a judgment said to rely on § 510(c) when the subordination turned on nothing other than the very characteristic that entitled the Government’s claim to priority under §§ 507(a)(1) and 503(b)(1)(C). We held that the subordination fell beyond the scope of a court’s authority under the doctrine of equitable subordination, because categorical subordination at the same level of generality assumed by Congress in establishing relative priorities among creditors was tantamount to a legislative act and therefore was outside the scope of any leeway under § 510(c) for judicial development of the equitable subordination doctrine. See id., at 543. Of course it is true that Noland passed on the subordination from a higher priority class to the residual category of general unsecured creditors at the end of the line, whereas here the subordination was imposed upon a disfavored subgroup within the residual category. But the principle of Noland has nothing to do with transfer between classes, as distinct from ranking within one of them. The principle is simply that categorical reordering of priorities that takes place at the legislative level of consideration is beyond the scope of judicial authority to order equitable subordination under § 510(c). The order in this case was as much a violation of that principle as Noland’s order was.
Without passing on the merits of CF&I’s arguments that the § 4971 claim is not similar to the other unsecured claims and that courts dealing with Chapter 11 plans should be guided by Chapter 7 provisions, 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 Scalia joins all but Part II-D of this opinion.
Section 304(c) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 4132, added a new seventh priority and moved the provision relevant here from seventh (§ 507(a)(7)) to eighth priority (§ 507(a)(8)), without altering any of the language germane to this case. The parties agree that this change from seventh to eighth priority does not affect this case because it arose under the pre-1994 Bankruptcy Code, and we accordingly refer to the provision in question as § 507(a)(7), to reflect its codification at the time in question.
The Government also filed a claim under § 4971(b), which imposes an exaction of 100 percent of the accumulated funding deficiency if the deficiency is not corrected before the notice of deficiency under § 4971(a) is mailed or the exaction under § 4971(a) is assessed. For the plan year ending December 31, 1989, the claimed tax liability under § 4971(b) was thus $12.4 million. In addition, the Government filed a claim for an accumulated funding deficiency for the plan year ending December 31, 1990, in the approximate amount of $25.6 million ($12.4 million for 1989 plus an additional deficiency of $13.2 million for 1990); the liability claimed under § 4971(a) for 1990 was therefore $2.56 million, and under § 4971(b) the full $25.6 million. The Bankruptcy Court disallowed all of these additional claims (for reasons not pertinent here), see In re CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 148 B. R. 332, 341 (Bkrtcy. Ct. CD Utah 1992), and the Government has not sought review of its ruling. Thus, though the Government filed four §4971 claims in the Bankruptcy Court, we focus on the one at issue here, the § 4971(a) claim for the deficiency in the 1989 plan year.
Compare In re Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co., 942 F. 2d 1055 (CA6 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Krugliak v. United States, 502 U. S. 1092 (1992), with In re Cassidy, 983 F. 2d 161 (CA10 1992); In re C-T of Va., Inc., 977 F. 2d 137 (CA4 1992).
This provision was modified slightly between 1898 and 1978, most notably in 1938, when it was moved to § 64(a)(4) (and given fourth priority) and amended to apply to “taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt to the United States or any State or any subdivision thereof.” 52 Stat. 874.
As the Court stated in a different context: “Although the statute . . . terms the money demanded as ‘a further sum,’ and does not describe it as a penalty, still the use of those words does not change the nature and character of the enactment. Congress may enact that such a provision shall not be considered as a penalty or in the nature of one,. . . and it is the duty of the court to be governed by such statutory direction, but the intrinsic nature of the provision remains, and, in the absence of any declaration by Congress affecting the manner in which the provision shall be treated, courts must decide the matter in accordance with their views of the nature of the act.” Helwig v. United States, 188 U. S. 605, 612-613 (1903).
Justice Thomas’s suggestion that no case “has denied bankruptcy priority to a congressionally enacted tax,” post, at 230, is true, but not on point. United States v. New York, 315 U. S., at 514-517, employed the Feiring-Anderson analysis to the exactions at issue there; the Court did not rely on the label that Congress gave. See also United States v. Sotelo, 436 U. S., at 275; United States v. Childs, 266 U. S. 304, 309-310 (1924). The Court’s conclusion that the exactions functioned as taxes does not change the fact that it employed a functional analysis.
Assuming that an exaction would not be “generally considered” an excise tax unless it would be reasonable to consider it such, the possible application of this first prong of the legislators’ statement of intent is answered by the analysis of § 4971, below.
It should be noted, though, that such an interpretation may prove too much: the Government suggests that this statement from the legislative history does not affect the rule of construction that courts will look behind the denomination of state and local taxes, Reply Brief for United States 6, n. 4, but it is difficult to read that sentence as applying one rule for federal taxes and another for state and local ones.
The Government contends that § 4971(b) is more similar to a penalty than § 4971(a) is, because the Secretary of the Treasury can waive liability under the former but not the latter. The suggestion is that the Secretary can waive the imposition of the 100 percent tax, under ERISA § 3002(b), 88 Stat. 997, or can eliminate a violation by reducing the employer’s funding requirement, see 26 U. S. C. § 412(d); see also 29 U. S. C. § 1083(a). But §§ 412(d) and 1083(a) provide for waiver of the minimum funding requirements, so their application would avoid a violation of either §§ 4971(a) or (b); there simply would be no “accumulated funding deficiency” for purposes of either §§4971(a) or (b). Thus the Government is incorrect in suggesting that the Secretary has the ability to waive the exaction under § 4971(b) but not under § 4971(a).
More fundamentally, even if the Secretary could waive only §.4971(b), it is not clear why this would make any difference, as the exaction would still serve to reinforce a federal prohibition.
Cf. § 57(j) of the 1898 Act, 30 Stat. 561 (“Debts owing to the United States, a State, a county, a district, or a municipality as a penalty or forfeiture shall not be allowed, except for the amount of the pecuniary loss sustained by the act, transaction, or proceeding out of which the penalty or forfeiture arose”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case the Federal Trade Commission challenged the right of the Standard Oil Company, under the Robinson-Patman Act, to sell gasoline to four comparatively large “jobber” customers in Detroit at a less price per gallon than it sold like gasoline to many comparatively small service station customers in the same area. The company’s defenses were that (1) the sales involved were not in interstate commerce and (2) its lower price to the jobbers was justified because made to retain them as customers and in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor. The Commission, with one member dissenting, ordered the company to cease and desist from making such a price differential. 43 F. T. C. 56. The Court of Appeals slightly modified the order and required its enforcement as modified. 173 F. 2d 210. We granted certiorari on petition of the company because the case presents an important issue under the Robinson-Patman Act which has not been settled by this Court. 338 U. S. 865. The case was argued at our October Term, 1949, and reargued at this term. 339 U. S. 975.
For the reasons hereinafter stated, we agree with the court below that the sales were made in interstate commerce but we agree with petitioner that, under the Act, the lower price to the jobbers was justified if it was made to retain each of them as a customer and in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor.
I. Facts.
Reserving for separate consideration the facts determining the issue of interstate commerce, the other material facts are summarized here on the basis of the Commission’s findings. The sales described are those of Red Crown gasoline because those sales raise all of the material issues and constitute about 90% of petitioner’s sales in the Detroit area.
Since the effective date of the Robinson-Patman Act, June 19, 1936, petitioner has sold its Red Crown gasoline to its “jobber” customers at its tank-car prices. Those prices have been 1 y2$ per gallon less than its tank-wagon prices to service station customers for identical gasoline in the same area. In practice, the service stations have resold the gasoline at the prevailing retail service station prices. Each of petitioner’s so-called “jobber” customers has been free to resell its gasoline at retail or wholesale. Each, at some time, has resold some of it at retail. One now resells it only at retail. The others now resell it largely at wholesale. As to resale prices, two of the “jobbers” have resold their gasoline only at the prevailing wholesale or retail rates. The other two, however, have reflected, in varying degrees, petitioner’s reductions in the cost of the gasoline to them by reducing their resale prices of that gasoline below the prevailing rates. The effect of these reductions has thus reached competing retail service stations in part through retail stations operated by the “jobbers” and in part through retail stations which purchased gasoline from the “jobbers” at less than the prevailing tank-wagon prices. The Commission found that such reduced resale prices “have resulted in injuring, destroying, and preventing competition between said favored dealers and retail dealers in respondent’s [petitioner’s] gasoline and other major brands of gasoline....” 41 E. T. C. 263, 283. The distinctive characteristics of these “jobbers” are that each (1) maintains sufficient bulk storage to take delivery of gasoline in tank-car quantities (of 8,000 to 12,000 gallons) rather than in tank-wagon quantities (of 700 to 800 gallons) as is customary for service stations; (2) owns and operates tank wagons and other facilities for delivery of gasoline to service stations; (3) has an established business sufficient to insure purchases of from one to two million gallons a year; and (4) has adequate credit responsibility. While the cost of petitioner’s sales and deliveries of gasoline to each of these four “jobbers” is no doubt less, per gallon, than the cost of its sales and deliveries of like gasoline to its service station customers in the same area, there is no finding that such difference accounts for the entire reduction in price made by petitioner to these “jobbers,” and we proceed on the assumption that it does not entirely account for that difference.
Petitioner placed its reliance upon evidence offered to show that its lower price to each jobber was made in order to retain that jobber as a customer and in good faith to meet an equally low price offered by one or more competitors. The Commission, however, treated such evidence as not relevant.
II. The Sales Were Made in Interstate Commerce.
In order for the sales here involved to come under the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, they must have been made in interstate commerce. The Commission and the court below agree that the sales were so made. 41 F. T. C. 263, 271, 173 F. 2d 210, 213-214.
Facts determining this were found by the Commission as follows: Petitioner is an Indiana corporation, whose principal office is in Chicago. Its gasoline is obtained from fields in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. Its refining plant is at Whiting, Indiana. It distributes its products in 14 middle western states, including Michigan. The gasoline sold by it in the Detroit, Michigan, area, and involved in this case, is carried for petitioner by tankers on the Great Lakes from Indiana to petitioner’s marine terminal at River Rouge, Michigan. Enough gasoline is accumulated there during each navigation season so that a winter’s supply, is available from the terminal. The gasoline remains for varying periods at the terminal or in nearby bulk storage stations, and while there it is under the ownership of petitioner and en route from petitioner’s refinery in Indiana to its market in Michigan. “Although the gasoline was not brought to River Rouge pursuant to orders already taken, the demands of the Michigan territory were fairly constant, and the petitioner’s customers’ demands could be accurately estimated, so the flow of the stream of commerce kept surging from Whiting to Detroit.” 173 F. 2d at 213-214. Gasoline delivered to customers in Detroit, upon individual orders for it, is taken from the gasoline at the terminal in interstate commerce en route for delivery in that area. Such sales are well within the jurisdictional requirements of the Act. Any other conclusion would fall short of the recognized purpose of the Robinson-Patman Act to reach the operations of large interstate businesses in competition with small local concerns. Such temporary storage of the gasoline as occurs within the Detroit area does not deprive the gasoline of its interstate character. Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495. Compare Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U. S. 564, 570, with Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 275 U. S. 257, 268.
III. There Should Be a Finding as to Whether or Not Petitioner’s Price Reduction Was Made in Good Faith to Meet a Lawful Equally Low Price of a Competitor.
Petitioner presented evidence tending to prove that its tank-car price was made to each “jobber” in order to retain that “jobber” as a customer and in good faith to meet a lawful and equally low price of a competitor. Petitioner sought to show that it succeeded in retaining these customers, although the tank-car price which it offered them merely approached or matched, and did not undercut, the lower prices offered them by several competitors of petitioner. The trial examiner made findings on the point but the Commission declined to do so, saying:
“Based on the record in this case the Commission concludes as a matter of law that it is not material whether the discriminations in price granted by the respondent to the said four dealers were made to meet equally low prices of competitors. The Commission further concludes as a matter of law that it is unnecessary for the Commission to determine whether the alleged competitive prices were in fact available or involved gasoline of like grade or quality or of equal public acceptance. Accordingly the Commission does not attempt to find the facts regarding those matters because, even though the lower prices in question may have been made by respondent in good faith to meet the lower prices of competitors, this does not constitute a defense in the face of affirmative proof that the effect of the discrimination was to injure, destroy and prevent competition with the retail stations operated by the said named dealers and with stations operated by their retailer-customers.” 41 F. T. C. 263, 281-282.
The court below affirmed the Commission’s position. There is no doubt that under the Clayton Act, before its amendment by the Robinson-Patman Act, this evidence would have been material and, if accepted, would have established a complete defense to the charge of unlawful discrimination. At that time the material provisions of § 2 were as follows:
“Sec. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities... where the effect of such discrimination may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent discrimination in price between purchasers of commodities on account of differences in the grade, quality, or quantity of the commodity sold, or that makes only due allowance for difference in the cost of selling or transportation, or discrimination in price in the same or different communities made in good faith to meet competition: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade.” (Emphasis added within the first proviso.) 38 Stat. 730-731, 15 U. S. C. (1934 ed.) § 13.
The question before us, therefore, is whether the amendments made by the Robinson-Patman Act deprived those facts of their previously recognized effectiveness as a defense. The material provisions of § 2, as amended, are quoted below, showing in italics those clauses which bear upon the proviso before us. The modified provisions are distributed between the newly created subsections (a) and (b). These must be read together and in relation to the provisions they supersede. The original phrase “that nothing herein contained shall prevent” is still used to introduce each of the defenses.. The defense relating to the meeting of the price of a competitor appears only in subsection (b). There it is applied to discriminations in services or facilities as well as to discriminations in price, which alone are expressly condemned in subsection (a). In its opinion in the instant case, the Commission recognizes that it is an absolute defense to a charge of price discrimination for a seller to prove, under § 2 (a), that its price differential makes only due allowances for differences in cost or for price changes made in response to changing market conditions. 41 F. T. C. at 283. Each of these three defenses is introduced by the same phrase “nothing... shall prevent,” and all are embraced in the same word “justification” in the first sentence of § 2 (b). It is natural, therefore, to conclude that each of these defenses is entitled to the same effect, without regard to whether there also appears an affirmative showing of actual or potential injury to competition at the same or a lower level traceable to the price differential made by the seller. The Commission says, however, that the proviso in § 2 (b) as to a seller meeting in good faith a lower competitive price is not an absolute defense if an injury to competition may result from such price reduction. We find no basis for such a distinction between the defenses in § 2 (a) and (b).
The defense in subsection (b), now before us, is limited to a price reduction made to meet in good faith an equally low price of a competitor. It thus eliminates certain difficulties which arose under the original Clayton Act. For example, it omits reference to discriminations in price “in the same or different communities...” and it thus restricts the proviso to price differentials occurring in actual competition. It also excludes reductions which undercut the “lower price” of a competitor. None of these changes, however, cut into the actual core of the defense. That still consists of the provision that wherever a lawful lower price of a competitor threatens to deprive a seller of a customer, the seller, to retain that customer, may in good faith meet that lower price. Actual competition, at least in this elemental form, is thus preserved.
Subsections 2 (a) and (b), as amended, are as follows:
“Sec. 2. (a) That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality... where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered:... And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time... in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned....
“(b) Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor.” (Emphasis added in part.) 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13 (a) and (b).
This right of a seller, under § 2 (b), to meet in good faith an equally low price of a competitor has been considered here before. Both in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 324 U. S. 726, and in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Staley Mfg. Co., 324 U. S. 746, evidence in support of this defense was reviewed at length. There would have been no occasion thus to review it under the theory now contended for by the Commission. While this Court did not sustain the seller’s defense in either case, it did unquestionably recognize the relevance of the evidence in support of that defense. The decision in each case was based upon the insufficiency of the seller’s evidence to establish its defense, not upon the inadequacy of its defense as a matter of law.
In the Corn Products case, supra, after recognizing that the seller had allowed differentials in price in favor of certain customers, this Court examined the evidence presented by the seller to show that such differentials were justified because made in good faith to meet equally low prices of a competitor. It then said:
“Examination of the testimony satisfies us, as it did the court below, that it was insufficient to sustain a finding that the lower prices allowed to favored customers were in fact made to meet competition. Hence petitioners jailed to sustain the. burden of showing that the price discriminations were granted for the purpose of meeting competition.” (Emphasis added.) 324 U. S. at 741.
In the Staley case, supra, most of the Court’s opinion is devoted to the consideration of the evidence introduced in support of the seller’s defense under § 2 (b). The discussion proceeds upon the assumption, applicable here, that if a competitor’s “lower price” is a lawful individual price offered to any of the seller’s customers, then the seller is protected, under § 2 (b), in making a counteroffer provided the seller proves that its counteroffer is made to meet in good faith its competitor’s equally low price. On the record in the Staley case, a majority of the Court of Appeals, in fact, declined to accept the findings of the Commission and decided in favor of the accused seller. This Court, on review, reversed that judgment but emphatically recognized the availability of the seller’s defense under § 2 (b) and the obligation of the Commission to make findings upon issues material to that defense. It said:
"Congress has left to the Commission the determination of fact in each case whether the person, charged with making discriminatory prices, acted in good faith to meet a competitor’s equally low prices. The determination of this fact from the evidence is for the Commission. See Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific States Paper Trade Assn., 273 U. S. 52, 63; Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U. S. 67, 73. In the present case, the Commission’s finding that respondents’ price discrimina-tions were not made to meet a 'lower’ price and consequently were not in good faith, is amply supported by the record, and we think the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside this portion of the Commission’s order to cease and desist.
“In appraising the evidence, the Commission recognized that the statute does not place an impossible burden upon sellers, but it emphasized the good faith requirement of the statute, which places the burden of proving good faith on the seller, who has made the discriminatory prices....
“... We agree with the Commission that the statute at least requires the seller, who has knowingly discriminated in price, to show the existence of facts which would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the granting of. a lower price would in fact meet the equally low price of a competitor. Nor was the Commission wrong in holding that respondents failed to meet this burden.” 324 U. S. at 758, 759-760.
See also, Federal Trade Comm’n v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 721-726; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 43; and United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 92. All that petitioner asks in the instant case is that its evidence be considered and that findings be made by the Commission as to the sufficiency of that evidence to support petitioner’s defense under § 2 (b).
In addition, there has been widespread understanding that, under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is a complete defense to a charge of price discrimination for the seller to show that its price differential has been made in good faith to meet a lawful and equally low price of a competitor. This understanding is reflected in actions and statements of members and counsel of the Federal Trade Commission. Representatives of the Department of Justice have testified to the effectiveness and value of the defense under the Robinson-Patman Act. We see no reason to depart now from that interpretation.
The heart of our national economic policy long has been faith in the value of competition. In the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as in the Robinson-Patman Act, “Congress was dealing with competition, which it sought to protect, and monopoly, which it sought to prevent.” Staley Mjg. Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 135 F. 2d 453, 455. We need not now reconcile, in its entirety, the economic theory which underlies the Robinson-Pat-man Act with that of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. It is enough to say that Congress did not seek by the Robinson-Patman Act either to abolish competition or so radically to curtail it that a seller would have no substantial right of self-defense against a price raid by a competitor. For example, if a large customer requests his seller to meet a temptingly lower price offered to him by one of his seller’s competitors, the seller may well find it essential, as a matter of business survival, to meet that price rather than to lose the customer. It might be that this customer is the seller’s only available market for the major portion of the seller’s product, and that the loss of this customer would result in forcing a much higher unit cost and higher sales price upon the seller’s other customers. There is nothing to show a congressional purpose, in such a situation, to compel the seller to choose only between ruinously cutting its prices to all its customers to match the price offered to one, or refusing to meet the competition and then ruinously raising its prices to its remaining customers to cover increased unit costs. There is, on the other hand, plain language and established practice which permits a seller, through § 2 (b), to retain a customer by realistically meeting in good faith the price offered to that customer, without necessarily changing the seller’s price to its other customers.
In a case where a seller sustains the burden of proof placed upon it to establish its defense under § 2 (b), we find no reason to destroy that defense indirectly, merely because it also appears that the beneficiaries of the seller’s price reductions may derive a competitive advantage from them or may, in a natural course of events, reduce their own resale prices to their customers. It must have been obvious to Congress that any price reduction to any dealer may always affect competition at that dealer’s level as well as at the dealer’s resale level, whether or not the reduction to the dealer is discriminatory. Likewise, it must have been obvious to Congress that any price reductions initiated by a seller’s competitor would, if not met by the seller, affect competition at the beneficiary’s level or among the beneficiary’s customers just as much as if those reductions had been met by the seller. The proviso in § 2 (b), as interpreted by the Commission, would not be available when there was or might be an injury to competition at a resale level. So interpreted, the proviso would have such little, if any, applicability as to be practically meaningless. We may, therefore, conclude that Congress meant to permit the natural consequences to follow the seller’s action in meeting in good faith a lawful and equally low price of‘its competitor.
In its argument here, the Commission suggests that there may be some situations in which it might recognize the proviso in § 2 (b) as a complete defense, even though the.seller’s differential in price did injure competition. In support of this, the Commission indicates that in each case it must weigh the potentially injurious effect of a seller’s price reduction upon competition at all lower levels against its beneficial effect in permitting the seller to meet competition at its own level. In the absence of more explicit requirements and more specific standards of comparison than we have here, it is difficult to see how an injury to competition at a level below that of the seller can thus be balanced fairly against a justification for meeting the competition at the seller’s level. We hesitate to accept § 2 (b) as establishing such a dubious defense. On the other hand, the proviso is readily understandable as simply continuing in effect a defense which is equally absolute, but more limited in scope than that which existed under § 2 of the original Clayton Act.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to remand it to the Federal Trade Commission to make findings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Me. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Specifically under § 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13. For the material text of § 2 (a) and (b) see pp. 242-243, infra.
The company contended before the Commission that the price differential allowed by it to the jobbers made only due allowance for differences in the cost of sale and delivery of gasoline to them. It did not, however, pursue this defense in the court below and does not do so here.
About 150 of these stations are owned or leased by the customers independently of petitioner. Their operators buy all of their gasoline from petitioner under short-term agreements. The other 208 stations are leased or subleased from petitioner for short terms.
Not denying the established industry practice of recognizing such dealers as a distinctive group for operational convenience, the Commission held that petitioner’s classification of these four dealers as “jobbers” was arbitrary because it made “no requirement that said jobbers should sell only at wholesale.” 41 F. T. C. at 273. We use the term “jobber” in this opinion merely as one of convenience and identification, because the result here is the same whether these four dealers are wholesalers or retailers.
Section 2 (a) of the Clayton Act, as amended, relates only to persons “engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce... where either or any of the purchases involved... are in commerce....” 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. §13 (a). “Commerce” is defined in § 1 of the Clayton Act as including “trade or commerce among the several States....” 38 Stat. 730, 15 U. S. C. § 12.
The Fair Labor Standards Act cases relied on by petitioner are not inconsistent with this result. They hold that, for the purposes of that statute, interstate commerce ceased on delivery to a local distributor. Higgins v. Carr Bros. Co., 317 U. S. 572; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., supra. The sales involved here, on the other hand, are those of an interstate producer and refiner to a local distributor.
The trial examiner concluded:
“The recognition by respondent [petitioner] of Ned’s Auto Supply Company as a jobber or wholesaler [which carried with it the tank-car price for gasoline], was a forced recognition given to retain that company’s business. Ned’s Company at the time of recognition, and ever since, has possessed all qualifications required by respondent [petitioner] for recognition as a jobber and the recognition was given and has ever since been continued in transactions between the parties, believed by them to be bona fide in all respects (Conclusion of Fact 2, under § IX, R. 5098-5099.)
“The differentials on its branded gasolines respondent [petitioner] granted Ned’s Auto Supply Company, at all times subsequent to March 7, 1938, and Stikeman Oil Company, Citrin-Kolb Oil Company and the Wayne Company [the four jobbers], at all times subsequent to June 19, 1936, were granted to meet equally low prices offered by competitors on branded gasolines of comparable grade and quality.” (Conclusion of Fact, under § X, R. 5104.)
“Now as to the contention that the discriminatory prices here complained of were made in good faith to meet a lower price of a competitor. While the Commission made no finding on this point, it assumed its existence but held, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, that this was not a defense.
“We agree with the Commission that the showing of the petitioner that it made the discriminatory price in good faith to meet competition is not controlling in view of the very substantial evidence that its discrimination was used to affect and lessen competition at the retail level.” 173 F. 2d at 214,217.
In contrast to that factual situation, the trial examiner for the Commission in the instant case has found the necessary facts to sustain the seller’s defense (see note 7, supra), and yet the Commission refuses, as a matter of law, to give them consideration.
In the Corn Products ease, the same point of view was expressed by the Court of Appeals below: “We think the evidence is insufficient to sustain this affirmative defence.” 144 F. 2d 211, 217 (C. A. 7th Cir.). The Court of Appeals also indicated that, to sustain this defense, it must appear not only that the competitor’s lower price was met in good faith but that such price was lawful.
The Staley case was twice before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In 1943 the case was remanded by that court to the Commission for findings as to wherein the discriminations occurred and how they substantially lessened competition and promoted monopoly and also “for consideration of the defense [under §2 (b)] urged by the petitioners, and for findings in relation thereto.” 135 F. 2d 453, 456. In 1944, a majority of the court decided in favor of the seller. 144 F. 2d 221. One judge held that the complaint was insufficient under § 2 (a) and that, therefore, he need not reach the seller’s defense under § 2 (b). He expressly stated, however, that he did not take issue with the basis for the conclusion that the seller’s price was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor. Id., at 227-231. His colleague held squarely that the seller’s defense of meeting competition in good faith under § 2 (b) had been established. Id., at 221-225. The third judge found against the seller both under § 2 (a) and (b). Id., at 225-227. The important point for us is that the Court of Appeals, as well as this Court, unanimously recognized in that ease the materiality of the seller’s evidence in support of its defense under § 2 (b), even though the “discriminations ‘have resulted, and do result, in substantial injury to competition among purchasers....’” Id., at 222.
In cease and desist orders, issued both before and after the order in the instant case, the Commission has inserted saving clauses which recognize the propriety of a seller making a price reduction in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, even though the seller’s discrimination may have the effect of injuring competition at a lower level. See In re Ferro Enamel Corp., 42 F. T. C. 36; In re Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 31 F. T. C. 986; In re Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 28 F. T. C. 186.
See also, the statement filed by Walter B. Wooden, Assistant Chief Counsel, and by Hugh E. White, Examiner for the Commission, with the Temporary National Economic Committee in 1941:
“The amended Act now safeguards the right of a seller to discriminate in price in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, but he has the burden of proof on that question. This right is guaranteed by statute and could not be curtailed by any mandate or order of the Commission.... The right of self defense against competitive price attacks is as vital in a competitive economy as the right of self defense against personal attack.” The Basing Point Problem 139 (TNEC Monograph 42,1941).
In regard to the Commission’s position on § 2 (b), urged in the instant case, Allen C. Phelps, Assistant Chief Trial Counsel and Chief of the Export Trade Division of the Commission, testified before the Subcommittee on Trade Policies of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in January, 1949, that “This position, if upheld in the courts, in my judgment will effectively and completely erase section 2 (b) from the Robinson-Patman Act.” Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on S. 236, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 66. See also, pp. 274r-275.
Herbert A. Bergson, then Assistant Attorney General, testifying for the Department, January 25, 1949, said: “The section [2 (b)] presently permits sellers to justify otherwise forbidden price discrimi-nations on the ground that the lower prices to one set of buyers were made in good faith to meet the equally low prices of a competitor.” Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on S. 236, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 77. See also, report on S. 236 by Peyton Ford, The Assistant to the Attorney General, to the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Id., at 320. Mr. Bergson added the following in June, 1949: “While we recognize the competitive problem which arises when one purchaser obtains advantages denied to other purchasers, we do not believe the solution to this problem lies in denying to sellers the opportunity to make sales in good faith competition with other sellers.” Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Committee on the Judiciary on S. 1008, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 12.
Attention has been directed again to the legislative history of the proviso. This was “considered in the Corn Products and Staley cases. See especially, 324 U. S. at 752-753. We find that the legislative history, at best, is inconclusive. It indicates that it was the purpose of Congress to limit, but not to abolish, the essence of the defense recognized as absolute in § 2 of the original Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, where a seller’s reduction in price had been made “in good faith to meet competition....” For example, the legislative history recognizes that the Robinson-Patman Act limits that defense to price differentials that do not undercut the competitor’s price, and the amendments fail to protect differentials between prices in different communities where those prices are not actually competitive. There is also a suggestion in the debates, as well as in the remarks of this Court in the Staley case, supra, that a competitor’s lower price, which may be met by a seller under the protection of §2 (b), must be a lawful price. And see, S. Res. 224, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., directing the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and report to it on chain-store operators and F. T. C. Final Report on the Chain-Store Investigation, S. Doc. No. 4, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.
In the report of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, which drafted the clause which became § 2 (b), there appears the following explanation of it:
“This proviso represents a contraction of an exemption now contained in section 2 of the Clayton Act which permits discriminations without limit where made in good faith to meet competition. It should be noted that while the seller is permitted to meet local competition, it does not permit him to cut local prices until his competitor has first offered lower prices, and then he can go no further than to meet those prices. If he goes further, he must do so likewise with all his other customers, or make himself liable to all of the penalties of the act, including treble damages. In other words, the proviso permits the seller to meet the price actually previously offered by a local competitor. It permits him to go no further.” H. R. Rep. No. 2287,74th Cong., 2d Sess. 16.
See also, 80 Cong. Rec. 6426, 6431-6436, 8229, 8235.
Somewhat changing this emphasis, there was a statement made by the managers on the part of the House of Representatives, accompanying the conference report, which said that the new clause was a “provision relating to the question of meeting competition, intended to operate only as a rule of evidence in a proceeding before the Federal Trade Commission....” Ii. R. Rep. No. 2951,74th Cong., 2d Sess. 7. The Chairman of the House Conferees also received permission to print in the Record an explanation of the proviso. 80 Cong. Rec. 9418.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a federal criminal defendant who has had his conviction overturned in collateral proceedings on the ground that a guilty plea entered by him during trial was not voluntary but induced in part by comments of the trial judge, may be tried again for the same crimes or is protected against such a prosecution by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We hold that under these circumstances retrial does not infringe the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
On May 16, 1956, the. appellee, Tateo, and another were brought to trial before a jury on a five-count indictment charging bank robbery (18 U. S. C. § 2113 (a)); kid-naping in connection with the robbery (18 U. S. C. § 2113 (e)); taking and carrying away bank money (18 U. S. C. § 2113 (b)); receiving and possessing stolen bank money (18 U. S. C. §2113 (c)); and conspiracy (18 U. S. C. § 371) to commit some of these substantive offenses. On the fourth day of trial, the judge informed Tateo’s counsel that if Tateo were found guilty by the jury he would impose a life sentence on the kidnaping charge and consecutive sentences on the other charges. Upon being told of the judge’s position and advised by his counsel that the likelihood of conviction was great, Tateo pleaded guilty, as did his codefendant. Thereupon the jury was discharged; the kidnaping count was dismissed with the prosecution’s consent; and Tateo was sentenced to a total of 22 years and 6 months imprisonment on the other counts.
In a later proceeding under 28 U. S. C. § 2255, another district judge (Judge Weinfeld) granted Tateo’s motion to set aside the judgment of conviction and for a new trial, determining that the cumulative impact of the trial testimony, the trial judge’s expressed views on punishment, and the strong advice given by his counsel rendered it doubtful that Tateo possessed the freedom of will necessary for a voluntary plea of guilty. 214 F. Supp. 560.
After being reindicted on the kidnaping charge, Tateo was brought before a third district judge (Judge Tyler) for trial on that charge and the four bank robbery charges to which he had earlier pleaded guilty. Upon motions by the defense, Judge Tyler dismissed both the kidnaping count, now abandoned by the Government, and the other four counts. He reasoned that, since neither genuine consent nor an “exceptional circumstance” underlay the termination of the first trial and no “waiver” of the double jeopardy claim had been made by Tateo, the Government was precluded from retrying him. 216 F. Supp. 850. The Government appealed, in accord with 18 U. S. C. § 3731, which permits direct appeal to this Court from a decision of a District Court sustaining a motion in bar before the defendant has been put in jeopardy. We noted probable jurisdiction, 375 U. S. 877. For reasons given below, we reverse the judgment of the District Court.
The Fifth Amendment provides that no “person [shall] be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” The principle that this provision does not preclude the Government’s retrying a defendant whose conviction is set aside because of an error in the proceedings leading to conviction is a well-established part of our constitutional jurisprudence. In this respect we differ from the practice obtaining in England. The rule in this country was explicitly stated in United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 671-672, a case in which defendants were reindicted after this Court had found the original indictment to be defective. It has been followed in a variety of circumstances; see, e. g., Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15 (after conviction reversed because of confession of error); Bryan v. United States, 338 U. S. 552 (after conviction reversed because of insufficient evidence); Forman v. United States, 361 U. S. 416 (after original conviction reversed for error in instructions to the jury).
That a defendant’s conviction is overturned on collateral rather than direct attack is irrelevant for these purposes, see Robinson v. United States, 144 F. 2d 392, 396, 397, aff’d on another ground, 324 U. S. 282. Courts are empowered to grant new trials under 28 U. S. C. § 2255, and it would be incongruous to compel greater relief for one who proceeds collaterally than for one whose rights are vindicated on direct review.
While different theories have been advanced to support the permissibility of retrial, of greater importance than the conceptual abstractions employed to explain the Ball principle are the implications of that principle for the sound administration of justice. Corresponding to the right of an accused to be given a fair trial is the societal interest in punishing one whose guilt is clear after he has obtained such a trial. It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction. From the standpoint of a defendant, it is at least doubtful that appellate courts would be as zealous as they now are in protecting against the effects of improprieties at the trial or pretrial stage if they knew that reversal of a conviction would put the accused irrevocably beyond the reach of further prosecution. In reality, therefore, the practice of retrial serves defendants’ rights as well as society’s interest. The underlying purpose of permitting retrial is as much furthered by application of the rule to this case as it has been in cases previously decided.
Tateo contends that his situation must be distinguished from one in which an accused has been found guilty by a jury, since his involuntary plea of guilty deprived him of the opportunity to obtain a jury verdict of acquittal. We find this argument unconvincing. If a case is reversed because of a coerced confession improperly admitted, a deficiency in the indictment, or an improper instruction, it is presumed that the accused did not have his case fairly put to the jury. A defendant is no less wronged by a jury finding of guilt after an unfair trial than by a failure to get a jury verdict at all; the distinction between the two kinds of wrongs affords no sensible basis for differentiation with regard to retrial. Appellee’s argument is considerably less strong than a similar one rejected in Bryan v. United States, supra. In that case the Court held that despite the Court of Appeals’ determination that defendant had been entitled — because of insufficiency in the evidence — to a directed verdict of acquittal, reversal of the conviction with a direction of a new trial was a permissible disposition.
Downum v. United States, 372 U. S. 734, is in no way inconsistent with permitting a retrial here. There the Court held that when a jury is discharged because the prosecution is not ready to go forward with its case, the accused may not then be tried before another jury. The opinion recognized, however, that there are circumstances in which a mistrial does not preclude a second trial, see, e. g., United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 (jury unable to agree); Simmons v. United States, 142 U. S. 148 (likelihood that a juror subject to bias). In Gori v. United States, 367 U. S. 364, we sustained a second conviction after the original trial judge declared a mistrial on the ground of possible prejudice to the defendant, although the judge acted without defendant’s consent and the wisdom of granting a mistrial was doubtful. If Tateo had requested a mistrial on the basis of the judge’s comments, there would be no doubt that if he had been successful, the Government would not have been barred from retrying him. See Gori v. United States, 367 U. S., at 368; see also 367 U. S., at 370 (dissenting opinion of Douglas, J.). Although there may be good reasons why Tateo and his counsel chose not to make such a motion before the trial judge, it would be strange were Tateo to benefit because of his delay in challenging the judge’s conduct.
We conclude that this case falls squarely within the reasoning of Ball and subsequent cases allowing the Government to retry persons whose convictions have been overturned. The judgment below is therefore reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with instructions to reinstate the four bank robbery counts.
It is so ordered.
Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, does not undermine this settled practice; it holds only that when one is convicted of a lesser offense included in that charged in the original indictment, he can be retried only for the offense of which he was convicted rather than that with which he was originally charged.
It is also difficult to understand why Tateo should be treated differently from one who is coerced into pleading guilty before a jury is impaneled.
If there were any intimation in a case that prosecutorial or judicial impropriety justifying a mistrial resulted from a fear that the jury was likely to acquit the accused, different considerations would, of course, obtain.
The dissent {post, p. 474) entirely misconceives the thrust of this argument. The point is not whether one could have expected Tateo to ask for a mistrial. Rather, it is whether, if such a request had been made and either had been granted or had underlain reversal on direct review, Tateo could have been tried again. If he could have been tried again, a decision proscribing retrial if attack is collateral would mean that any lawyer worth his salt would forbear requesting a mistrial in similar circumstances, even were he certain that his position would be sustained by the trial judge or on review. That any judicial system should encourage litigants to raise objections at the earliest rather than latest possible time seems self-evident. In other words, simple logic compels the conclusion that if the- Court precluded retrial here, it would also have to preclude retrial in a similar case in which a mistrial is granted. Such a result would contradict the language of both the prevailing and dissenting opinions in Gori.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In this case we must decide whether respondent, the National Wildlife Federation (hereinafter respondent), is a proper party to challenge actions of the Federal Government relating to certain public lands.
H — (
Respondent filed this action in 1985 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against petitioners the United States Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the Department. In its amended complaint, respondent alleged that petitioners had violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 90 Stat. 2744, 43 U. S. C. § 1701 et seq. (1982 ed.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. §4321 et seq., and § 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706, in the course of administering what the complaint called the “land withdrawal review program” of the BLM. Some background information concerning that program is necessary to an understanding of this dispute.
In various enactments, Congress empowered United States citizens to acquire title to, and rights in, vast portions of federally owned land. See, e. g., Rev. Stat. §2319, 30 U. S. C. §22 et seq. (Mining Law of 1872); 41 Stat. 437, as amended, 30 U. S. C. § 181 et seq. (Mineral Leasing Act of 1920). Congress also provided means, however, for the Executive to remove public lands from the operation of these statutes. The Pickett Act, 36 Stat. 847, 43 U. S. C. § 141 (1970 ed.), repealed, 90 Stat. 2792 (1976), authorized the President “at any time in his discretion, temporarily [to] withdraw from settlement, location, sale, or entry any of the public lands of the United States... and reserve the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification of lands, or other public purposes... Acting under this and under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269, as amended, 43 U. S. C. §315f, which gave the Secretary of the Interior authority to “classify” public lands as suitable for either disposal or federal retention and management, President Franklin Roosevelt withdrew all unreserved public land from disposal until such time as they were classified. Exec. Order No. 6910, Nov. 26, 1934; Exec. Order No. 6964, Feb. 5, 1935. In 1936, Congress amended § 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior “to examine and classify any lands” withdrawn by these orders and by other authority as “more valuable or suitable” for other uses “and to open such lands to entry, selection, or location for disposal in accordance with such classification under applicable public-land laws.” 49 Stat. 1976, 43 U. S. C. §315f (1982 ed.). The amendment also directed that “[s]uch lands shall not be subject to disposition, settlement, or occupation until after the same have been classified and opened to entry.” Ibid. The 1964 classification and multiple use Act, 78 Stat. 986, 43 U. S. C. §§1411-1418 (1970 ed.) (expired 1970), gave the Secretary further authority to classify lands for the purpose of either disposal or retention by the Federal Government.
Management of the public lands under these various laws became chaotic. The Public Land Law Review Commission,. established by Congress in 1964 to study the matter, 78 Stat. 982, determined in 1970 that “virtually all” of the country’s public domain, see Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation’s Land 52 (1970) — about one-third of the land within the United States, see id., at 19 — had been withdrawn or classified for retention; that it was difficult to determine “the extent of existing Executive withdrawals and the degree to which withdrawals overlap each other,” id., at 52; and that there were inadequate records to show the purposes of withdrawals and the permissible public uses. Ibid. Accordingly, it recommended that “Congress should provide for a careful review of (1) all Executive withdrawals and reservations, and (2) BLM retention and disposal classifications under the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964.” Ibid.
In 1976, Congress passed the FLPMA, which repealed many of the miscellaneous laws governing disposal of public land, 43 U. S. C. § 1701 et seq. (1982 ed.), and established a policy in favor of retaining public lands for multiple use management. It directed the Secretary to “prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values,” § 1711(a), required land use planning for public lands, and established criteria to be used for that purpose, § 1712. It provided that existing classifications of public lands were subject to review in the land use planning process, and that the Secretary could “modify or terminate any such classification consistent with such land use plans.” § 1712(d). It also authorized the Secretary to “make, modify, extend or revoke” withdrawals. § 1714(a). Finally it directed the Secretary, within 15 years, to review withdrawals in existence in 1976 in 11 Western States, § 1714 (0( 1), and to “determine whether, and for how long, the continuation of the existing withdrawal of the lands would be, in his judgment, consistent with the statutory objectives of the programs for which the lands were dedicated and of the other relevant programs,” § 1714(0(2). The activities undertaken by the BLM to comply with these various provisions constitute what respondent’s amended complaint styles the BLM’s “land withdrawal review program,” which is the subject of the current litigation.
Pursuant to the directives of the FLPMA, petitioners engage in a number of different types of administrative action with respect to the various tracts of public land within the United States. First, the BLM conducts the review and recommends the determinations required by § 1714(0 with respect to withdrawals in 11 Western States. The law requires the Secretary to “report his recommendations to the President, together with statements of concurrence or non-concurrence submitted by the heads of the departments or agencies which administer the lands”; the President must in turn submit this report to the Congress, together with his recommendation “for action by the Secretary, or for legislation.” § 1714(0(2). The Secretary has submitted a number of reports to the President in accordance with this provision.
Second, the Secretary revokes some withdrawals under § 204(a) of the Act, which the Office of the Solicitor has interpreted to give the Secretary the power to process proposals for revocation of withdrawals made during the “ordinary course of business.” U. S. Dept, of the Interior, Memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor, Oct. 30, 1980. These revocations are initiated in one of three manners: An agency or department holding a portion of withdrawn land that it no longer needs may file a notice of intention to relinquish the lands with the BLM. Any member of the public may file a petition requesting revocation. And in the case of lands held by the BLM, the BLM itself may initiate the revocation proposal. App. 56-57. Withdrawal revocations may be made for several reasons. Some are effected in order to permit sale of the land; some for record-clearing purposes, where the withdrawal designation has been superseded by congressional action or overlaps with another withdrawal designation; some in order to restore the land to multiple use management pursuant to § 102(a)(7) of the FLPMA, 43 U. S. C. § 1701(a)(7) (1982 ed.). App. 142-145.
Third, the Secretary engages in the ongoing process of classifying public lands, either for multiple use management, 43 CFR pt. 2420 (1988), for disposal, pt. 2430, or for other uses. Classification decisions may be initiated by petition, pt. 2450, or by the BLM itself, pt. 2460. Regulations promulgated by the Secretary prescribe the procedures to be followed in the case of each type of classification determination.
HH I — I
In its complaint, respondent averred generally that the reclassification of some withdrawn lands and the return of others to the public domain would open the lands up to mining activities, thereby destroying their natural beauty. Respondent alleged that petitioners, in the course of administering the Nation’s public lands, had violated the FLPMA by failing to “develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands,” 43 U. S. C. § 1712(a) (1982 ed.); failing to submit recommendations as to withdrawals in the 11 Western States to the President, § 1714(Z); failing to consider multiple uses for the disputed lands, § 1732(a), focusing inordinately on such uses as mineral exploitation and development; and failing to provide public notice of decisions, §§ 1701(a)(5), 1712(c)(9), 1712(f), and 1739(e). Respondent also claimed that petitioners had violated NEPA, which requires federal agencies to “include in every recommendation or report on... major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on... the environmental impact of the proposed action.” 42 U. S. C. §4332(2)(C) (1982 ed.). Finally, respondent alleged that all of the above actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” and should therefore be set aside pursuant to § 10(e) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. §706. Appended to the amended complaint was a schedule of specific land-status determinations, which the complaint stated had been “taken by defendants since January 1, 1981”; each was identified by a listing in the Federal Register.
In December 1985, the District Court granted respondent’s motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting petitioners from “[m]odifying, terminating or altering any withdrawal, classification, or other designation governing the protection of lands in the public domain that was in effect on January 1, 1981,” and from “[tjaking any action inconsistent” with any such withdrawal, classification, or designation. App. to Pet. for Cert. 185a. In a subsequent order, the court denied petitioners’ motion under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint for failure to demonstrate standing to challenge petitioners’ actions under the APA, 5 U. S. C. §702. App. to Pet. for Cert. 183a. The Court of Appeals affirmed both orders. National Wildlife Federation v. Burford, 266 U. S. App. D. C. 241, 835 F. 2d 305 (1987). As to the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals found sufficient to survive the motion the general allegation in the amended complaint that respondent’s members used environmental resources that would be damaged by petitioners’ actions. See id., at 248, 835 F. 2d, at 312. It held that this allegation, fairly read along with the balance of the complaint, both identified particular land-status actions that respondent sought to challenge — since at least some of the actions complained of were listed in the complaint’s appendix of Federal Register references — and asserted harm to respondent’s members attributable to those particular actions. Id., at 249, 835 F. 2d, at 313. To support the latter point, the Court of Appeals pointed to the affidavits of two of respondent’s members, Peggy Kay Peterson and Richard Erman, which claimed use of land “in the vicinity” of the land covered by two of the listed actions. Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded, there was “concrete indication that [respondent’s] members use specific lands covered by the agency’s Program and will be adversely affected by the agency’s actions,” and the complaint was “sufficiently specific for purposes of a motion to dismiss.” Ibid. On petitions for rehearing, the Court of Appeals stood by its denial of the motion to dismiss and directed the parties and the District Court “to proceed with this litigation with dispatch.” National Wildlife Federation v. Burford, 269 U. S. App. D. C. 271, 272, 844 F. 2d 889, 890 (1988).
Back before the District Court, petitioners again claimed, this time by means of a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (which motion had been outstanding during the proceedings before the Court of Appeals), that respondent had no standing to seek judicial review of petitioners’ actions under the APA. After argument on this motion, and in purported response to the court’s postargument request for additional briefing, respondent submitted four additional member affidavits pertaining to the issue of standing. The District Court rejected them as untimely, vacated the injunction, and granted the Rule 56 motion to dismiss. It noted that neither its earlier decision nor the Court of Appeals’ affirmance controlled the question, since both pertained to a motion under Rule 12(b). It found the Peterson and Erman affidavits insufficient to withstand the Rule 56 motion, even as to judicial review of the particular classification decisions to which they pertained. And even if they had been adequate for that limited purpose, the court said, they could not support respondent’s attempted APA challenge to “each of the 1250 or so individual classification terminations and withdrawal revocations” effected under the land withdrawal review program. National Wildlife Federation v. Burford, 699 F. Supp. 327, 332 (DC 1988).
This time the Court of Appeals reversed. National Wildlife Federation v. Burford, 278 U. S. App. D. C. 320, 878 F. 2d 422 (1989). It both found the Peterson and Erman affidavits sufficient in themselves and held that it was an abuse of discretion not to consider the four additional affidavits as well. The Court of Appeals also concluded that standing to challenge individual classification and withdrawal decisions conferred standing to challenge all such decisions under the land withdrawal review program. We granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 1042 (1990).
hH
A
We first address respondent’s claim that the Peterson and Erman affidavits alone suffice to establish respondent’s right to judicial review of petitioners’ actions. Respondent does not contend that either the FLPMA or NEPA provides a private right of action for violations of its provisions. Rather, respondent claims a right to judicial review under § 10(a) of the APA, which provides:
“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U. S. C. §702.
This provision contains two separate requirements. First, the person claiming a right to sue must identify some “agency action” that affects him in the specified fashion; it is judicial review “thereof” to which he is entitled. The meaning of “agency action” for purposes of § 702 is set forth in 5 U. S. C. §551(13), see 5 U. S. C. § 701(b)(2) (“For the purpose of this chapter... ‘agency action’ ha[s] the meanin[g] given... by section 551 of this title”), which defines the term as “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act,” 5 U. S. C. § 551(13). When, as here, review is sought not pursuant to specific authorization in the substantive statute, but only under the general review provisions of the APA, the “agency action” in question must be “final agency action.” See 5 U. S. C. §704 (“Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review” (emphasis added).
Second, the party seeking review under § 702 must show that he has “suffered] legal wrong” because of the challenged agency action, or is “adversely affected or aggrieved” by that action “within the meaning of a relevant statute.” Respondent does not assert that it has suffered “legal wrong,” so we need only discuss the meaning of “adversely affected or aggrieved... within the meaning of a relevant statute.” As an original matter, it might be thought that one cannot be “adversely affected or aggrieved within the meaning” of a statute unless the statute in question uses those terms (or terms like them) — as some pre-APA statutes in fact did when conferring rights of judicial review. See, e. g., Federal Communications Act of 1934, § 402(b)(2), 48 Stat. 1093, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §402(b)(6) (1982 ed.). We have long since rejected that interpretation, however, which would have made the judicial review provision of the APA no more than a restatement of pre-existing law. Rather, we have said that to be “adversely affected or aggrieved... within the meaning” of a statute, the plaintiff must establish that the injury he complains of (his aggrievement, or the adverse effect upon him) falls within the “zone of interests” sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint. See Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388, 396-397 (1987). Thus, for example, the failure of an agency to comply with a statutory provision requiring “on the record” hearings would assuredly have an adverse effect upon the company that has the contract to record and transcribe the agency’s proceedings; but since the provision was obviously enacted to protect the interests of the parties to the proceedings and not those of the reporters, that company would not be “adversely affected within the meaning” of the statute.
B
Because this case comes to us on petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, we must assess the record under the standard set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule- 56(c) states that a party is entitled to summary judgment in his favor “if the pleadings/depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(e) further provides:
“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.”
As we stated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317 (1986), “the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id., at 322. Where no such showing is made, “[t]he moving party is ‘entitled to a judgment as a matter of law’ because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Id., at 323.
These standards are fully applicable when a defendant moves for summary judgment, in a suit brought under § 702, on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to show that he is “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” The burden is on the party seeking review under § 702 to set forth specific facts (even though they may be controverted by the Government) showing that he has satisfied its terms. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740 (1972). Celotex made clear that Rule 56 does not require the moving party to negate the elements of the nonmoving party’s case; to the contrary, “regardless of whether the moving party accompanies its summary judgment motion with affidavits, the motion may, and should, be granted so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for the entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” 477 U. S., at 323.
C
We turn, then, to whether the specific facts alleged in the two affidavits considered by the District Court raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether an “agency action” taken by petitioners caused respondent to be “adversely affected or aggrieved... within the meaning of a relevant statute.” We assume, since it has been uncontested, that the allegedly affected interests set forth in the affidavits — “recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment” — are sufficiently related to the purposes of respondent association that respondent meets the requirements of § 702 if any of its members do. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333 (1977).
As for the “agency action” requirement, we think that each of the affidavits can be read, as the Court of Appeals believed, to complain of a particular “agency action” as that term is defined in § 551. The parties agree that the Peterson affidavit, judging from the geographic area it describes, must refer to that one of the BLM orders listed in the appendix to the complaint that appears at 49 Fed. Reg. 19904-19905 (1984), an order captioned W-6228 and dated April 30, 1984, terminating the withdrawal classification of some 4,500 acres of land in that area. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioners 8-10. The parties also appear to agree, on the basis of similar deduction, that the Erman affidavit refers to the BLM order listed in the appendix that appears at 47 Fed. Reg. 7232-7233 (1982), an order captioned Public Land Order 6156 and dated February 18, 1982.
We also think that whatever “adverse effect” or “aggrievement” is established by the affidavits was “within the meaning of the relevant statute” —?:, e., met the “zone of interests” test. The relevant statute, of course, is the statute whose violation is the gravamen of the complaint — both the FLPMA and NEPA. We have no doubt that “recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment” are among the sorts of interests those statutes were specifically designed to protect. The only issue, then, is whether the facts alleged in the affidavits showed that those interests of Peterson and Erman were actually affected.
The Peterson affidavit averred:
“My recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of federal lands, particularly those in the vicinity of South Pass-Green Mountain, Wyoming have been and continue to be adversely affected in fact by the unlawful actions of the Bureau and the Department. In particular, the South Pass-Green Mountain area of Wyoming has been opened to the staking of mining claims and oil and gas leasing, an action which threatens the aesthetic beauty and wildlife habitat potential of these lands.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 191a.
Erman’s affidavit was substantially the same as Peterson’s, with respect to all except the area involved; he claimed use of land “in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park, the Arizona Strip (Kanab Plateau), and the Kaibab National Forest.” Id., at 187a.
The District Court found the Peterson affidavit inadequate for the following reasons:
“Peterson... claims that she uses federal lands in the vicinity of the South Pass-Green Mountain area of Wyoming for recreational purposes and for aesthetic enjoyment and that her recreational and aesthetic enjoyment has been and continues to be adversely affected as the result of the decision of BLM to open it to the staking of mining claims and oil and gas leasing.... This decision [W-6228] opened up to mining approximately 4500 acres within a two million acre area, the balance of which, with the exception of 2000 acres, has always been open to mineral leasing and mining.... There is no showing that Peterson’s recreational use and enjoyment extends to the particular 4500 acres covered by the decision to terminate classification to the remainder of the two million acres affected by the termination. All she claims is that she uses lands ‘in the vicinity.’ The affidavit on its face contains only a bare allegation of injury, and fails to show specific facts supporting the affiant’s allegation.” 699 F. Supp., at 331 (emphasis in original).
The District Court found the Erman affidavit “similarly flawed.”
“The magnitude of Erman’s claimed injury stretches the imagination.... [T]he Arizona Strip consists of all lands in Arizona north and west of the Colorado River on approximately 5.5 million acres, an area one-eighth the size oif the State of Arizona. Furthermore, virtually the entire Strip is and for many years has been open to uranium and other metalliferous mining. The revocation of withdrawal [in Public Land Order 6156] concerned only non-metalliferous mining in the western one-third of the Arizona Strip, an area possessing no potential for non-metalliferous mining.” Id,., at 332.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court’s assessment as to the Peterson affidavit (and thus found it unnecessary to consider the Erman affidavit) for the following reason:
“If Peterson was not referring to lands in this 4500-acre affected area, her allegation of impairment to her use and enjoyment would be meaningless, or perjurious.... [T]he trial court overlooks the fact that unless Peterson’s language is read to refer to the lands affected by the Program, the affidavit is, at best, a meaningless document.
“At a minimum, Peterson’s affidavit is ambiguous regarding whether the adversely affected lands are the ones she uses. When presented with ambiguity on a motion for summary judgment, a District Court must resolve any factual issues of controversy in favor of the non-moving party.... This means that the District Court was obliged to resolve any factual ambiguity in favor of NWF, and would have had to assume, for the purposes of summary judgment, that Peterson used the 4500 affected acres.” 278 U. S. App. D. C., at 329, 878 F. 2d, at 431.
That is not the law. In ruling upon a Rule 56 motion, “a District Court must resolve any factual issues of controversy in favor of the non-moving party” only in the sense that, where the facts specifically averred by that party contradict facts specifically averred by the movant, the motion must be denied. That is a world apart from “assuming” that general averments embrace the “specific facts” needed to sustain the complaint. As set forth above, Rule 56(e) provides that judgment “shall be entered” against the nonmoving party unless affidavits or other evidence “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” The object of this provision is not to replace conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit. Cf. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 249 (1986) (“[T]he plaintiff could not rest on his allegations of a conspiracy to get to a jury without ‘any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint’”), quoting First National Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co., 391 U. S. 253, 290 (1968). Rather, the purpose of Rule 56 is to enable a party who believes there is no genuine dispute as to a specific fact essential to the other side’s case to demand at least one sworn averment of that fact before the lengthy process of litigation continues.
At the margins there is some room for debate as to how “specific” must be the “specific facts” that Rule 56(e) requires in a particular case. But where the fact in question is the one put in issue by the §702 challenge here — whether one of respondent’s members has been, or is threatened to be, “adversely affected or aggrieved” by Government action — Rule 56(e) is assuredly not satisfied by averments which state only that one of respondent’s members uses unspecified portions of an immense tract of territory, on some portions of which mining activity has occurred or probably will occur by virtue of the governmental action. It will not do to “presume” the missing facts because without them the affidavits would not establish the injury that they generally allege. That converts the operation of Rule 56 to a circular promenade: plaintiff’s complaint makes general allegation of injury; defendant contests through Rule 56 existence of specific facts to support injury; plaintiff responds with affidavit containing general allegation of injury, which must be deemed to constitute averment of requisite specific facts since otherwise allegation of injury would be unsupported (which is precisely what defendant claims it is).
Respondent places great reliance, as did the Court of Appeals, upon our decision in United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U. S. 669 (1973). The SCRAP opinion, whose expansive expression of what would suffice for § 702 review under its particular facts has never since been emulated by this Court, is of no relevance here, since it involved not a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment but a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss on the pleadings. The latter, unlike the former, presumes that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
IV
We turn next to the Court of Appeals’ alternative holding that the four additional member affidavits proffered by respondent in response to the District Court’s briefing order established its right to § 702 review of agency action.
A
It is impossible that the affidavits would suffice, as the Court of Appeals held, to enable respondent to challenge the entirety of petitioners’ so-called “land withdrawal review program.” That is not an “agency action” within the meaning of §702, much less a “final agency action” within the meaning of §704. The term “land withdrawal review program” (which as far as we know is not derived from any authoritative text) does not refer to a single BLM order or regulation, or even to a completed universe of particular BLM orders and regulations. It is simply the name by which petitioners have occasionally referred to the continuing (and thus constantly changing) operations of the BLM in reviewing withdrawal revocation applications and the classifications of public lands and developing land use plans as required by the FLPMA. It is no more an identifiable “agency action” — much less a “final agency action” — than a “weapons procurement program” of the Department of Defense or a “drug interdiction program” of the Drug Enforcement Administration. As the District Court explained, the “land withdrawal review program” extends to, currently at least, “1250 or so individual classification terminations and withdrawal revocations.” 699 F. Supp., at 332.
Respondent alleges that violation of the law is rampant within this program — failure to revise land use plans in proper fashion, failure to submit certain recommendations to Congress, failure to consider multiple use, inordinate focus upon mineral exploitation, failure to provide required public notice, failure to provide adequate environmental impact statements. Perhaps so. But respondent cannot seek wholesale improvement of this program by court decree, rather than in the offices of the Department or the halls of Congress, where programmatic improvements are normally made. Under the terms of the APA, respondent must direct its attack against some particular “agency action” that causes it harm. Some statutes permit broad regulations to serve as the “agency action,” and thus to be the object of judicial review directly, even before the concrete effects normally required for APA review are felt. Absent such a provision, however, a regulation is not ordinarily considered the type of agency action “ripe” for judicial review under the APA until the scope of the controversy has been reduced to more manageable proportions, and its factual components fleshed out, by some concrete action applying the regulation to the claimant’s situation in a fashion that harms or threatens to harm him. (The major exception, of course, is a substantive rule which as a practical matter requires the plaintiff to adjust his conduct immediately. Such agency action is “ripe” for review at once, whether or not explicit statutory review apart from the APA is provided. See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 152-154 (1967); Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc., 387 U. S. 167, 171-173 (1967). Cf. Toi let Goods Assn., Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 158, 164-166 (1967).)
In the present case, the individual actions of the BLM identified in the six affidavits can be regarded as rules of general applicability (a “rule” is defined in the APA as agency action of “general or particular applicability and future effect,” 5 U. S. C. §551(4) (emphasis added)) announcing, with respect to vast expanses of territory that they cover, the agency’s intent to grant requisite permission for certain activities, to decline to interfere with other activities, and to take other particular action if requested. It may well be, then, that even those individual actions will not be ripe for challenge until some further agency action or inaction more immediately harming the plaintiff occurs. But it is at least entirely certain that the flaws in the entire “program” — consisting principally of the many individual actions referenced in the complaint, and presumably actions yet to be taken as well— cannot be laid before the courts for wholesale correction under the APA, simply because one of them that is ripe for review adversely affects one of respondent’s members.
The case-by-case approach that this requires is understandably frustrating to an organization such as respondent, which has as its objective across-the-board protection of our Nation’s wildlife and the streams and forests that support it. But this is the traditional, and remains the normal, mode of operation of the courts. Except where Congress explicitly provides for our correction of the administrative process at a higher level of generality, we intervene in the administration of the laws only when, and to the extent that, a specific “final agency action” has an actual or immediately threatened effect. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U. S., at 164-166. Such an intervention may ultimately have the effect of requiring a regulation, a series of regulations, or even a whole “program” to be revised by the agency in order to avoid the unlawful result that the court discerns. But it is assuredly not as swift or as immediately far-reaching a corrective process as those interested in systemic improvement would desire. Until confided to us,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1987, Congress amended a provision of the federal estate tax statute by limiting the availability of a recently added deduction for the proceeds of sales of stock to employee stock-ownership plans (E SOP’s). Congress provided that the amendment would apply retroactively, as if incorporated in the original deduction provision, which had been adopted in October 1986. The question presented by this case is whether the retroactive application of the amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
I
Congress effected major revisions of the Internal Revenue Code in the Tax Reform Act of 1986,100 Stat. 2085. One of those revisions was the addition of a new estate tax provision applicable to any estate that filed a timely return after the date of the Act, October 22, 1986. The new provision, codified as 26 U. S. C. §2057 (1982 ed., Supp. IV), granted a deduction for half the proceeds of “any sale of employer securities by the executor of an estate” to “an employee stock ownership plan.” § 2057(b). In order to qualify for the deduction, the sale of securities had to be made “before the date on which the [estate tax] return . . . [was] required to be filed (including any extensions).” § 2057(c)(1).
Respondent Jerry W. Carlton, the executor of the will of Willametta K. Day, deceased, sought to utilize the § 2057 deduction. Day died on September 29, 1985. Her estate tax return was due December 29, 1986 (after Carlton had obtained a 6-month filing extension). On December 10, 1986, Carlton used estate funds to purchase 1.5 million shares of MCI Communications Corporation for $11,206,000, at an average price of $7.47 per share. Two days later, Carlton sold the MCI stock to the MCI ESOP for $10,575,000, at an average price of $7.05 per share. The total sale price thus was $631,000 less than the purchase price. When Carlton filed the estate tax return on December 29, 1986, he claimed a deduction under § 2057 of $5,287,000, for half the proceeds of the sale of the stock to the MCI ESOP. The deduction reduced the estate tax by $2,501,161. The parties have stipulated that Carlton engaged in the MCI stock transactions specifically to take advantage of the § 2057 deduction.
On January 5, 1987, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that, “[pjending the enactment of clarifying legislation,” it would treat the §2057 deduction as available only to estates of decedents who owned the securities in question immediately before death. See IRS Notice 87-13, 1987-1 Cum. Bull. 432, 442. A bill to enact such an amendment to § 2057 was introduced in each Chamber of Congress on February 26, 1987. See 133 Cong. Rec. 4145 and 4293 (1987).
On December 22, 1987, the amendment to §2057 was enacted. As amended, the statute provided that, to qualify for the estate tax deduction, the securities sold to an ESOP must have been “directly owned” by the decedent “immediately before death.” Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, § 10411(a), 101 Stat. 1330-432. The 1987 amendment was made effective as if it had been contained in the statute as originally enacted in October 1986. § 10411(b).
The IRS disallowed the deduction claimed by Carlton under § 2057 on the ground that the MCI stock had not been owned by his decedent “immediately before death.” Carlton paid the asserted estate tax deficiency, plus interest, filed a claim for refund, and instituted a refund action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He conceded that the estate did not qualify for the deduction under the 1987 amendment to § 2057. He argued, however, that retroactive application of the 1987 amendment to the estate’s 1986 transactions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court rejected his argument and entered summary judgment in favor of the United States.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 972 F. 2d 1051 (1992). The majority considered two factors paramount in determining whether retroactive application of a tax violates due process: whether the taxpayer had actual or constructive notice that the tax statute would be retroactively amended, and whether the taxpayer reasonably relied to his detriment on preamendment law. The court concluded that both factors rendered retroactive application of the amendment in this case unduly harsh and oppressive and therefore unconstitutional. Judge Norris dissented. In his view, the 1987 amendment was within the wide latitude of congressional authority to legislate retroactively in regulating economic activity. We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 810 (1993).
II
This Court repeatedly has upheld retroactive tax legislation against a due process challenge. See, e.g., United States v. Hemme, 476 U. S. 558 (1986); United States v. Darusmont, 449 U. S. 292 (1981); Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S. 134 (1938); United States v. Hudson, 299 U. S. 498 (1937); Milliken v. United States, 283 U. S. 15 (1931); Cooper v. United States, 280 U. S. 409 (1930). Some of its decisions have stated that the validity of a retroactive tax provision under the Due Process Clause depends upon whether “retroactive application is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation.” Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S., at 147, quoted in United States v. Hemme, 476 U. S., at 568-569. The “harsh and oppressive” formulation, however, “does not differ from the prohibition against arbitrary and irrational legislation” that applies generally to enactments in the sphere of economic policy. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U. S. 717, 733 (1984). The due process standard to be applied to tax statutes with retroactive effect, therefore, is the same as that generally applicable to retroactive economic legislation:
“Provided that the retroactive application of a statute is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means, judgments about the wisdom of such legislation remain within the exclusive province of the legislative and executive branches ....
“To be sure, . . . retroactive legislation does have to meet a burden not faced by legislation that has only future effects. . . . ‘The retroactive aspects of legislation, as well as the prospective aspects, must meet the test of due process, and the justifications for the latter may not suffice for the former’.... But that burden is met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose.” Id., at 729-730, quoting Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1976).
There is little doubt that the 1987 amendment to §2057 was adopted as a curative measure. As enacted in October 1986, § 2057 contained no requirement that the decedent have owned the stock in question to qualify for the ESOP proceeds deduction. As a result, any estate could claim the deduction simply by buying stock in the market and immediately reselling it to an ESOP, thereby obtaining a potentially dramatic reduction in (or even elimination of) the estate tax obligation.
It seems clear that Congress did not contemplate such broad applicability of the deduction when it originally adopted §2057. That provision was intended to create an “incentive for stockholders to sell their companies to their employees who helped them build the company rather than liquidate, sell to outsiders or have the corporation redeem their shares on behalf of existing shareholders.” Joint Committee on Taxation, Tax Reform Proposals: Tax Treatment of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 37 (Joint Comm. Print 1985); see also 132 Cong. Rec. 14507 (1986) (statement of Sen. Long) (§ 2057 “allow[s]... an executor to reduce taxes on an estate by one-half by selling the decedent’s company to an ESOP”). When Congress initially enacted §2057, it estimated a revenue loss from the deduction of approximately $300 million over a 5-year period. See 133 Cong. Rec. 4145 (1987) (statement of Rep. Rostenkowski); id., at 4293 (statement of Sen. Bentsen). It became evident shortly after passage of the 1986 Act, however, that the expected revenue loss under § 2057 could be as much as $7 billion — over 20 times greater than anticipated — because the deduction was not limited to situations in which the decedent owned the securities immediately before death. Ibid. In introducing the amendment in February 1987, Senator Bentsen observed: “Congress did not intend for estates to be able to claim the deduction by virtue of purchasing stock in the market and simply reselling the stock to an ESOP . . . and Congress certainly did not anticipate a $7 billion revenue loss.” Id., at 4294. Without the amendment, Senator Bent-sen stated, “taxpayers could qualify for the deductions by engaging in essentially sham transactions.” Ibid.
We conclude that the 1987 amendment’s retroactive application meets the requirements of due process. First, Congress’ purpose in enacting the amendment was neither illegitimate nor arbitrary. Congress acted to correct what it reasonably viewed as a mistake in the original 1986 provision that would have created a significant and unanticipated revenue loss. There is no plausible contention that Congress acted with an improper motive, as by targeting estate representatives such as Carlton after deliberately inducing them to engage in ESOP transactions. Congress, of course, might have chosen to make up the unanticipated revenue loss through general prospective taxation, but that choice would have burdened equally “innocent” taxpayers. Instead, it decided to prevent the loss by denying the deduction to those who had made purely tax-motivated stock transfers. We cannot say that its decision was unreasonable.
Second, Congress acted promptly and established only a modest period of retroactivity. This Court noted in United States v. Darusmont, 449 U. S., at 296, that Congress “almost without exception” has given general revenue statutes effective dates prior to the dates of actual enactment. This “customary congressional practice” generally has been “confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation.” Id., at 296-297. In Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S. 134 (1938), the Court upheld a Wisconsin income tax adopted in 1935 on dividends received in 1933. The Court stated that the “ ‘recent transactions’ ” to which a tax law may be retroactively applied “must be taken to include the receipt of income during the year of the legislative session preceding that of its enactment.” Id., at 150. Here, the actual retroactive effect of the 1987 amendment extended for a period only slightly greater than one year. Moreover, the amendment was proposed by the IRS in January 1987 and by Congress in February 1987, within a few months of § 2057’s original enactment.
Respondent Carlton argues that the 1987 amendment violates due process because he specifically and detrimentally relied on the preamendment version of §2057 in engaging in the MCI stock transactions in December 1986. Although Carlton’s reliance is uncontested — and the reading of the original statute on which he relied appears to have been correct — his reliance alone is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Tax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code. Justice Stone explained in Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S., at 146-147:
“Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract. It is but a way of apportioning the cost of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its burdens. Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process . . . .”
Moreover, the detrimental reliance principle is not limited to retroactive legislation. An entirely prospective change in the law may disturb the relied-upon expectations of individuals, but such a change would not be deemed therefore to be violative of due process.
Similarly, we do not consider respondent Carlton’s lack of notice regarding the 1987 amendment to be dispositive. In Welch v. Henry, the Court upheld the retroactive imposition of a tax despite the absence of advance notice of the legislation. And in Milliken v. United States, the Court rejected a similar notice argument, declaring that a taxpayer “should be regarded as taking his chances of any increase in the tax burden which might result from carrying out the established policy of taxation.” 283 U. S., at 23.
In holding the 1987 amendment unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals relied on this Court’s decisions in Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U. S. 531 (1927), Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142 (1927), and Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U. S. 440 (1928). Those cases were decided during an era characterized by exacting review of economic legislation under an approach that “has long since been discarded.” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 730. (1963). To the extent that their authority survives, they do not control here. Blodgett and Untermyer, which involved the Nation’s first gift tax, essentially have been limited to situations involving “the creation of a wholly new tax,” and their “authority is of limited value in assessing the constitutionality of subsequent amendments that bring about certain changes in operation of the tax laws.” United States v. Hemme, 476 U. S., at 568. Nichols involved a novel development in the estate tax which embraced a transfer that occurred 12 years earlier. The amendment at issue here certainly is not properly characterized as a “wholly new tax,” and its period of retroactive effect is limited. Nor do the above cases stand for the proposition that retroactivity is permitted with respect to income taxes, but prohibited with respect to gift and estate taxes. In Hemme and Milliken, this Court upheld retroactive features of gift and estate taxes.
III
In focusing exclusively on the taxpayer’s notice and reliance, the Court of Appeals held the congressional enactment to an unduly strict standard. Because we conclude that retroactive application of the 1987 amendment to §2057 is rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose, we conclude that the amendment as applied to Carlton’s 1986 transactions is consistent with the Due Process Clause.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Section 2057 was repealed for estates of decedents who died after December 19, 1989. See Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, § 7304(a), 103 Stat. 2352.
Section 2057(e) defined “employer securities” by reference to §409(0 of the Code, which in turn defined the term generally as “common stock issued by the employer (or by a corporation which is a member of the same controlled group) which is readily tradable on an established securities market.” 26 U. S. C. §409(0(1) (1982 ed., Supp. IV).
The amendment also required that employer securities qualifying for the deduction must, after the sale, be allocated to participants or held for future allocation in accordance with certain rules.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A jury in Baltimore City Criminal Court convicted petitioners of violating Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 123 (1967 Repl. Vol.), which prohibits “acting in a disorderly manner to the disturbance of the public peace, upon any public street ... in any [Maryland] city . . .” The prosecution arose out of a demonstration protesting the Vietnam war which was staged between 3 and shortly after 5 o’clock on the afternoon of March 28, 1966, in front of a United States Army recruiting station located on a downtown Baltimore street. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals rejected petitioners’ contention that their conduct was constitutionally protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and affirmed their convictions. 3 Md. App. 626, 240 A. 2d 623 (1968). The Court of Appeals of Maryland denied certiorari in an unreported order. We granted certiorari, 396 U. S. 816 (1969). We reverse.
The trial judge instructed the jury that there were alternative grounds upon which petitioners might be found guilty of violating § 123. The judge charged, first, that a guilty verdict might be returned if the jury found that petitioners had engaged in “the doing or saying or both of that which offends, disturbs, incites or tends to incite a number of people gathered in the same area.” The judge also told the jury that “[a] refusal to obey a policeman’s command to move on when not to do so may endanger the public peace, may amount to disorderly conduct.” So instructed, the jury returned a general verdict of guilty against each of the petitioners.
Since petitioners argue that their conduct was constitutionally protected, we have examined the record for ourselves. When “a claim of constitutionally protected right is involved, it 'remains our duty ... to make an independent examination of the whole record/ ” Cox v. Louisiana (I), 379 U. S. 536, 545 n. 8 (1965). We shall discuss first the factual situation that existed until shortly before 5 o’clock on the afternoon of the demonstration, since the pattern of events changed after that time. There is general agreement regarding the nature of the events during the initial period.
Baltimore law enforcement authorities had advance notice of the demonstration, and a dozen or more police officers and some United States marshals were on hand when approximately 15 protesters began peacefully to march in a circle on the sidewalk in front of the station. The marchers carried or wore signs bearing such legends as: "Peasant Emancipation, Not Escalation,” “Make Love not War,” “Stop in the Name of Love," and “Why are We in Viet Nam?” The number of protesters increased to between 30 and 40 before the demonstration ended. A crowd of onlookers gathered nearby and across the street. From time to time some of the petitioners and other marchers left the circle and distributed leaflets among and talked to persons in the crowd. The lieutenant in charge of the police detail testified that he “overheard” some of the marchers debate with members of the crowd about “the Viet Cong situation,” and that a few in the crowd resented the protest; “[o]ne particular one objected very much to receiving the circular.” However, the lieutenant did not think that the situation constituted a disturbance of the peace. He testified that “[a]s long as the peace was not disturbed I wasn’t doing anything about it.”
Clearly the wording of the placards was not within that small class of “fighting words” that, under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 574 (1942), are “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace,” nor is there any evidence that the demonstrators’ remarks to the crowd constituted “fighting words.” Any shock effect caused by the placards, remarks, and peaceful marching must be attributed to the content of the ideas being expressed, or to the onlookers’ dislike of demonstrations as a means of expressing dissent. But “[i]t is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers,” Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592 (1969); see also Cox v. Louisiana (I), supra; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (1963); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949), or simply because bystanders object to peaceful and orderly demonstrations. Plainly nothing that occurred during this period could constitutionally be the ground for conviction under § 123. Indeed, the State makes no claim that § 123 was violated then.
We turn now to the events that occurred shortly before and after 5 o’clock. The petitioners had left the marchers after half past 3 to enter the recruiting station. There they had attempted to persuade the sergeant in charge to permit them to display their antiwar materials in the station or in its window fronting on the sidewalk. The sergeant had told them that Army regulations forbade him to grant such permission. The six thereupon staged a sit-in on chairs and a couch in the station. A few minutes before 5 o’clock the sergeant asked them to leave, as he wanted to close the station for the day. When petitioners refused, the sergeant called on United States marshals who were present in the station to remove them. After deputizing several police officers to help, the marshals undertook to eject the petitioners.
There is irreconcilable conflict in the evidence as to what next occurred. The prosecution’s witnesses testified that the marshals and the police officers “escorted” the petitioners outside, and that the petitioners thereupon sat or lay down, “blocking free passage of the sidewalk.” The police lieutenant in charge stated that he then took over and three times ordered the petitioners to get up and leave. He testified that when they remained sitting or lying down, he had each of them picked up bodily and removed to a patrol wagon. In sharp contrast, defense witnesses said that each petitioner was thrown bodily out the door of the station and landed on his back, that petitioners were not positioned so as to block the sidewalk completely, and that no police command was given to them to move away; on the contrary, that as some of them struggled to get to their feet, they were held down by the police officers until they were picked up and thrown into the patrol wagon. The evidence is clear, however, that while petitioners were on the sidewalk, they began to sing “We Shall Overcome” and that they were surrounded by other demonstrators carrying antiwar placards. Thus, petitioners remained obvious participants in the demonstration even after their expulsion from the recruiting station. A crowd of 50-150 people, including the demonstrators, was in the area during this period.
The reaction of the onlookers to these events was substantially the same as that to the earlier events of the afternoon. The police lieutenant added only that two uniformed marines in the crowd appeared angry and that a few other bystanders “were debating back and forth about Bomb Hanoi and different things and I had to be out there to protect these people because they wouldn’t leave.” Earlier too, however, some of the crowd had taken exception to the petitioners’ protest against the Vietnam war.
On this evidence, in light of the instructions given by the trial judge, the jury could have rested its verdict on any of a number of grounds. The jurors may have found that petitioners refused “to obey a policeman’s command to move on when not to do so [might have endangered] the public peace.” Or they may have relied on a finding that petitioners deliberately obstructed the sidewalk, thus offending, disturbing, and inciting the bystanders. Or the jurors may have credited petitioners’ testimony that they were thrown to the sidewalk by the police and held there, and yet still have found them guilty of violating § 123 because their anti-Vietnam protest amounted to “the doing or saying ... of that which offends, disturbs, incites or tends to incite a number of people gathered in the same area.” Thus, on this record, we find that petitioners may have been found guilty of violating § 123 simply because they advocated unpopular ideas. Since conviction on this ground would violate the Constitution, it is our duty to set aside petitioners’ convictions.
Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931), is the controlling authority. There the jury returned a general verdict of guilty against an appellant charged under a California statute making it an offense publicly to display a red flag (a) “as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government,” (b) “as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action,” or (c) “as an aid to propaganda that is and was of a seditious character.” Id., at 361. This Court held that clause (a) was unconstitutional as possibly punishing peaceful and orderly opposition to government by legal means and within constitutional limitations. The Court held that, even though the other two statutory grounds were severable and constitutional, the conviction had to be reversed, because the verdict “did not specify the ground upon which it rested. As there were three purposes set forth in the statute, and the jury were instructed that their verdict might be given with respect to any one of them, independently considered, it is impossible to say under which clause of the statute the conviction was obtained. If any one of these clauses, which the state court has held to be separable, was invalid, it cannot be determined upon this record that the appellant was not convicted under that clause. . . . [T]he necessary conclusion from the manner in which the case was sent to the jury is that, if any of the clauses in question is invalid under the Federal Constitution, the conviction cannot be upheld.” 283 U. S., at 368. See also Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 (1942); Terminiello v. Chicago, supra; Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957); Street v. New York, supra.
On this record, if the jury believed the State’s evidence, petitioners’ convictions could constitutionally have rested on a finding that they sat or lay across a public sidewalk with the intent of fully blocking passage along it, or that they refused to obey police commands to stop obstructing the sidewalk in this manner and move on. See, e. g., Cox v. Louisiana (I), supra, at 554-555; Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87, 99-91 (1965). It is impossible to say, however, that either of these grounds was the basis for the verdict. On the contrary, so far as we can tell, it is equally likely that the verdict resulted “merely because [petitioners’ views about Vietnam were] themselves offensive to some of their hearers.” Street v. New York, supra, at 592. Thus, since petitioners’ convictions may have rested on an unconstitutional ground, they must be set aside.
The judgment of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The trial in the Criminal Court was de novo upon appeal from a conviction in the Municipal Court of Baltimore. The Criminal Court judge sentenced each petitioner to 60 days in jail and a $50 fine.
The statute was amended in 1968 but without change in the operative language involved in this case. See Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 123 (c) (Supp. 1969).
Both elements of the instruction were based on the Maryland Court of Appeals’ construction of § 123 in Drews v. Maryland, 224 Md. 186, 192, 167 A. 2d 341, 343-344 (1961), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 378 U. S. 547 (1964), reaffirmed on remand, 236 Md. 349, 204 A. 2d 64 (1964), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 381 U. S. 421 (1965). The instruction was “that disorderly conduct is the doing or saying or both of that which offends, disturbs, incites or tends to incite a number of people gathered in the same area. It is conduct of such nature as to affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness it and who may be disturbed or provoked to resentment because of it. A refusal to obey a policeman’s command to move on when not to do so may endanger the public peace, may amount to disorderly conduct.”
The trial judge refused to grant petitioners’ request that the jury be charged to disregard any anger of onlookers that arose from their disagreement with petitioners’ expressed views about Vietnam. For example, the judge refused to instruct the jury that “if the only threat of public disturbance arising from the actions of these defendants was a threat that arose from the anger of others who were made angry by their disagreement with the defendants’ expressed views concerning Viet Nam, or American involvement in Viet Nam, you must acquit these defendants. And if you have a reasonable doubt whether the anger of those other persons was occasioned by their disagreement with defendants’ views on Viet Nam, rather than by the conduct of the defendants in sitting or staying on the street, you must acquit these defendants.”
Petitioners’ conduct in the station is not at issue in this case, since the State did not prosecute them for their conduct in that place.
The local police officers were deputized as marshals because their local police powers did not extend to the federally operated recruiting station.
The defense evidence indicated that petitioners were on the sidewalk after their removal from the recruiting station for only five minutes. A prosecution witness testified that they were there for 15 or 20 minutes.
Maryland states in its brief, at 41-42, that “[obstructing the sidewalk had the legal effect under these circumstances of not only constituting a violation of ... § 123 . . . but also of Article 27, § 121 of the Maryland Code, obstructing free passage.” Had the State wished to ensure a jury finding on the obstruction question, it could have prosecuted petitioners under § 121, which specifically punishes “[a]ny person who shall wilfully obstruct or hinder the free passage of persons passing along or by any public street or highway . . .
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against six of the Nation’s largest title insurance companies, alleging horizontal price fixing in their fees for title searches and title examinations. One company settled by consent decree, while five other firms continue to contest the matter. The Commission charged the title companies with violating § 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719, 15 U. S. C. § 45(a)(1), which prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce.” One of the principal defenses the companies assert is state-action immunity from antitrust prosecution, as contemplated in the line of cases beginning with Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943). The Commission rejected this defense, In re Ticor Title Ins. Co., 112 F. T. C. 344 (1989), and the firms sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Ruling that state-action immunity was available under the state regulatory schemes in question, the Court of Appeals reversed. 922 F. 2d 1122 (1991). We granted certiorari. 502 U. S. 806 (1991).
J-H
Title insurance is the business of insuring the record title of real property for persons with some interest in the estate, including owners, occupiers, and lenders. A title insurance policy insures against certain losses or damages sustained by reason of a defect in title not shown on the policy or title report to which it refers. Before issuing a title insurance policy, the insurance company or one of its agents performs a title search and examination. The search produces a chronological list of the public documents in the chain of title to the real property. The examination is a critical analysis or interpretation of the condition of title revealed by the documents disclosed through this search.
The title search and examination are major components of the insurance company’s services. There are certain variances from State to State and from policy to policy, but a brief summary of the functions performed by the title companies can be given. The insurance companies exclude from coverage defects uncovered during the search; that is, the insurers conduct searches in order to inform the insured and to reduce their own liability by identifying and excluding known risks. The insured is protected from some losses resulting from title defects not discoverable from a search of the public records, such as forgery, missing heirs, previous marriages, impersonation, or confusion in names. They are protected also against errors or mistakes in the search and examination. Negligence need not be proved in order to recover. Title insurance also includes the obligation to defend in the event that an insured is sued by reason of some defect within the scope of the policy’s guarantee.
The title insurance industry earned $1.35 billion in gross revenues in 1982, and respondents accounted for 57 percent of that amount. Four of respondents are the nation’s largest title insurance companies: Ticor Title Insurance Co., with 16.5 percent of the market; Chicago Title Insurance Co., with 12.8 percent; Lawyers Title Insurance Co., with 12 percent; and SAFECO Title Insurance Co. (now operating under the name Security Union Title Insurance Co.), with 10.3 percent. Stewart Title Guarantee Co., with 5.4 percent of the market, is the country’s eighth largest title insurer, with a strong position in the West and Southwest. App. to Pet. for Cert. 145a.
The Commission issued an administrative complaint in 1985. Horizontal price fixing was alleged in these terms:
“ ‘Respondents have agreed on the prices to be charged for title search and examination services or settlement services through rating bureaus in various states. Examples of states in which one or more of the respondents have fixed prices with other respondents or other competitors for all or part of their search and examination services or settlement services are Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Wyoming.’” 112 F. T. C., at 346.
The Commission did not challenge the insurers’ practice of setting uniform rates for insurance against the risk of loss from defective titles, but only the practice of setting uniform rates for the title search, examination, and settlement, aspects of the business which, the Commission alleges, do not involve insurance.
Before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), respondents defended against liability on three related grounds. First, they maintained that the challenged conduct is exempt from antitrust scrutiny under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 34, 15 U. S. C. § 1012(b), which confers antitrust immunity over the “business of insurance” to the extent regulated by state law. Second, they argued that their collective ratemaking activities are exempt under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which places certain “[j]oint efforts to influence public officials” beyond the reach of the antitrust laws. Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U. S. 657, 670 (1965); Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127, 136 (1961). Third, respondents contended their activities are entitled to state-action immunity, which permits anticompetitive conduct if authorized and supervised by state officials. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97 (1980); Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943). App. to Pet. for Cert. 218a. As to one State, Ohio, respondents contended that the rates for title search, examination, and settlement had not been set by a rating bureau.
Title insurance company rates and practices in 13 States were the subject of the initial complaint. Before the matter was decided by the ALJ, the Commission declined to pursue its complaint with regard to fees in five of these States: Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Wyoming. Upon the recommendation of the ALJ, the Commission did not pursue its complaint with regard to fees in two additional States, Idaho and Ohio. This left six States in which the Commission found antitrust violations, but in two of these States, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the Commission conceded the issue on which certiorari was sought here, so the regulatory regimes in these two States are not before us. Four States remain in which violations were alleged: Connecticut, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Montana.
The ALJ held that the rates for search and examination services had been fixed in these four States. For reasons we need not pause to examine, the ALJ rejected the McCarran-Ferguson and Noerr-Pennington defenses. The ALJ then turned his attention to the question of state-action immunity.' A summary of the ALJ’s extensive findings on this point is necessary for a full understanding of the decisions reached at each level of the proceedings in the case.
Rating bureaus are private entities organized by title insurance companies to establish uniform rates for their members. The ALJ found no evidence that the collective setting of title insurance rates through rating bureaus is a way of pooling risk information. Indeed, he found no evidence that any title insurer sets rates according to actuarial loss experience. Instead, the ALJ found that the usual practice is for rating bureaus to set rates according to profitability studies that focus on the costs of conducting searches and examinations. Uniform rates are set notwithstanding differences in efficiencies and costs among individual members. App. to Pet. for Cert. 183a-184a.
The ALJ described the regulatory regimes for title insurance rates in the four States still at issue. In each one, the title insurance rating bureau was licensed by the State and authorized to establish joint rates for its members. Each of the four States used what has come to be called a “negative option” system to approve rate filings by the bureaus. Under a negative option system, the rating bureau filed rates for title searches and title examinations with the state insurance office. The rates became effective unless the State rejected them within a specified period, such as 30 days. Although the negative option system provided a theoretical mechanism for substantive review, the ALJ determined, after making detailed findings regarding the operation of each regulatory regime, that the rate filings were subject to minimal scrutiny by state regulators.
In Connecticut the State Insurance Department has the authority to audit the rating bureau and hold hearings regarding rates, but it has not done so. The Connecticut rating bureau filed only two major rate increases, in 1966 and in 1981. The circumstances behind the 1966 rate increase are somewhat obscure. The ALJ found that the Insurance Department asked the rating bureau to submit additional information justifying the increase, and later approved the rate increase although there is no evidence the additional information was provided. In 1981 the Connecticut rating bureau filed for a 20 percent rate increase. The factual background for this rate increase is better developed though the testimony was somewhat inconsistent. A state insurance official testified that he reviewed the rate increase with care and discussed various components of the increase with the rating bureau. The same official testified, however, that he lacked the authority to question certain expense data he considered quite high. Id., at 189a-195a.
In Wisconsin the State Insurance Commissioner is required to examine the rating bureau at regular intervals and authorized to reject rates through a process of hearings. Neither has been done. The Wisconsin rating bureau made major rate filings in 1971, 1981, and 1982. The 1971 rate filing was approved in 1971 although supporting justification, which had been requested by the State Insurance Commissioner, was not provided until 1978. The 1981 rate filing requested an 11 percent rate increase. The increase was approved after the office of the Insurance Commissioner checked the supporting data for accuracy. No one in the agency inquired into insurer expenses, though an official testified that substantive scrutiny would not be possible without that inquiry. The 1982 rate increase received but a cursory reading at the office of the Insurance Commissioner. The supporting materials were not checked for accuracy, though in the absence of an objection by the agency, the rate increase went into effect. Id., at 196a-200a.
In Arizona the Insurance Director was required to examine the rating bureau at least once every five years. It was not done. In 1980 the State Insurance. Department announced a comprehensive investigation of the rating bureau. It was not conducted. The rating bureau spent most of its time justifying its escrow rates. Following conclusion in 1981 of a federal civil suit challenging the joint fixing of escrow rates, the rating bureau went out of business without having made any major rate filings, though it had proposed minor rate adjustments. Id., at 200a-205a.
In Montana the rating bureau made its only major rate filing in 1983. In connection with it, a representative of the rating bureau met with officials of the State Insurance Department. He was told that the filed rates could go into immediate effect though further profit data would have to be provided. The ALJ found no evidence that the additional data were furnished. Id., at 211a-214a.
To complete the background, the ALJ observed that none of the rating bureaus are now active. The respondents abandoned them between 1981 and 1985 in response to numerous private treble-damages suits, so by the time the Commission filed its formal complaint in 1985, the rating bureaus had been dismantled. Id., at 195a, 200a, 205a, 208a. The ALJ held that the case is not moot, though, because nothing would preclude respondents from resuming the conduct challenged by the Commission. Id., at 246a-247a. See United States v. W T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632-633 (1953).
These factual determinations established, the ALJ addressed the two-part test that must be satisfied for state-action immunity under the antitrust laws, the test we set out in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97 (1980). A state law or regulatory scheme cannot be the basis for antitrust immunity unless, first, the State has articulated a clear and affirmative policy to allow the anticompetitive conduct, and second, the State provides active supervision of anticompetitive conduct undertaken by private actors. Id., at 105. The Commission having conceded that the first part of the test was satisfied in the four States still at issue, the immunity question, beginning with the hearings before the ALJ and in all later proceedings, has turned upon the proper interpretation and application of MidcaVs active supervision requirement. The ALJ found the active supervision test was met in Arizona and Montana but not in Connecticut or Wisconsin. App. to Pet. for Cert. 248a.
On review of the ALJ’s decision, the Commission held that none of the four States had conducted sufficient supervision, so that the title companies were not entitled to immunity in any of those jurisdictions. Id., at 47a. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with the Commission, adopting the approach of the First Circuit in New England Motor Rate Bureau, Inc. v. FTC, 908 F. 2d 1064 (1990), which had held that the existence of a state regulatory program, if staffed, funded, and empowered by law, satisfied the requirement of active supervision. Id., at 1071. Under this standard, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the active state supervision requirement was met in all four States and held that the respondents’ conduct was entitled to state-action immunity in each of them. 922 F. 2d, at 1140.
We granted certiorari to consider two questions: First, whether the Third Circuit was correct in its statement of the law and in its application of law to fact, and second, whether the Third Circuit exceeded its authority by departing from the factual findings entered by the ALJ and adopted by the Commission. Before this Court, the parties have confined their briefing on the first of these questions to the regulatory regimes of Wisconsin and Montana, and focused on the regulatory regimes of Connecticut and Arizona in briefing on the second question. We now reverse the Court of Appeals under the first question and remand for further proceedings under the second.
II
The preservation of the free market and of a system of free enterprise without price fixing or cartels is essential to economic freedom. United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U. S. 596, 610 (1972). A national policy of such a pervasive and fundamental character is an essential part of the economic and legal system within which the separate States administer their own laws for the protection and advancement of their people. Continued enforcement of the national antitrust policy grants the States more freedom, not less, in deciding whether to subject discrete parts of the economy to additional regulations and controls. Against this background, in Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), we upheld a state-supervised, market sharing scheme against a Sherman Act challenge. We announced the doctrine that federal antitrust laws are subject to supersession by state regulatory programs. Our decision was grounded in principles of federalism. Id., at 350-352.
The principle of freedom of action for the States, adopted to foster and preserve the federal system, explains the later evolution and application of the Parker doctrine in our decisions in Midcal, supra, and Patrick v. Burget, 486 U. S. 94 (1988). In Midcal we invalidated a California statute forbidding licensees in the wine trade to sell below prices set by the producer. There we announced the two-part test applicable to instances where private parties participate in a price-fixing regime. “First, the challenged restraint must be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy; second, the policy must be actively supervised by the State itself.” 445 U. S., at 105 (internal quotation marks omitted). Midcal confirms that while a State may not confer antitrust immunity on private persons by fiat, it may displace competition with active state supervision if the . displacement is both intended by the State and implemented in its specific details. Actual state involvement, not deference to private price-fixing arrangements under the general auspices of state law, is the precondition for immunity from federal law. Immunity is conferred out of respect for ongoing regulation by the State, not out of respect for the economics of price restraint. In Midcal we found that the intent to restrain prices was expressed with sufficient precision so that the first part of the test was met, but that the absence of state participation in the mechanics of the price posting was so apparent that the requirement of active supervision had not been met. Ibid.
The rationale was further elaborated in Patrick v. Burget. In Patrick it had been alleged that private physicians participated in the State’s peer review system in order to injure or destroy competition by denying hospital privileges to a physician who had begun a competing clinic. We referred to the purpose of preserving the State’s own administrative policies, as distinct from allowing private parties to foreclose competition, in the following passage:
“The active supervision requirement stems from the recognition that where a private party is engaging in the anticompetitive activity, there is a real danger that he is acting to further his own interests, rather than the governmental interests of the State. . . . The requirement is. designed to ensure that the state-action doctrine will shelter only the particular anticompetitive acts of private parties that, in the judgment of the State, actually further state regulatory policies. To accomplish this purpose, the active supervision requirement mandates that the State exercise ultimate control over the challenged anticompetitive conduct. . . . The mere presence of some state involvement or monitoring does not suffice. . . . The active supervision prong of the Midcal test requires that state officials have and exercise power to review particular anticompetitive acts of private parties and disapprove those that fail to accord with state policy. Absent such a program of supervision, there is no realistic assurance that a private party’s anticompeti-tive conduct promotes state policy, rather than merely the party’s individual interests.” 486 U. S., at 100-101 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because the particular anticompetitive conduct at issue in Patrick had not been supervised by governmental actors, we decided that the actions of the peer review committee were not entitled to state-action immunity. Id., at 106.
Our decisions make clear that the purpose of the active supervision inquiry is not to determine whether the State has met some normative standard, such as efficiency, in its regulatory practices. Its purpose is to determine whether the State has exercised sufficient independent judgment and control so that the details of the rates or prices have been established as a product of deliberate state intervention, not simply by agreement among private parties. Much as in causation inquiries, the analysis asks whether the State has played a substantial role in determining the specifics of the economic policy. The question is not how well state regulation works but whether the anticompetitive scheme is the State’s own.
Although the point bears but brief mention, we observe that our prior cases considered state-action immunity against actions brought under the Sherman Act, and this ease arises under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission has argued at other times that state-action immunity does not apply to Commission action under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U. S. C. § 45. See U. S. Bureau of Consumer Protection, Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission on Prescription Drug Price Disclosures, Chs. VI(B) and (C) (1975); see also Note, The State Action Exemption and Antitrust Enforcement under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 715 (1976). A leading treatise has expressed its skepticism of this view. See 1 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law ¶ 218 (1978). We need not determine whether the antitrust statutes can be distinguished on this basis, because the Commission does not assert any superior pre-emption authority in the instant matter. We apply our prior cases to the one before us.
Respondents contend that principles of federalism justify a broad interpretation of state-action immunity, but there is a powerful refutation of their viewpoint in the briefs that were filed in this case. The State of Wisconsin, joined by Montana and 34 other States, has filed a brief as amici curiae on the precise point. These States deny that respondents’ broad immunity rule would serve the States’ best interests. We are in agreement with the amici submission.
If the States must act in the shadow of state-action immunity whenever they enter the realm of economic regulation, then our doctrine will impede their freedom of action, not advance it. The fact of the matter is that the States regulate their economies in many ways not inconsistent with the antitrust laws. For example, Oregon may provide for peer review by its physicians without approving anticompetitive conduct by them. See Patrick, 486 U. S., at 105. Or Michigan may regulate its public utilities without authorizing monopolization in the market for electric light bulbs. See Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co., 428 U. S. 579, 596 (1976). So we have held that state-action immunity is disfavored, much as are repeals by implication. Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U. S. 389, 398-399 (1978). By adhering in most cases to fundamental and accepted assumptions about the benefits of competition within the framework of the antitrust laws, we increase the States’ regulatory flexibility.
States must accept political responsibility for actions they intend to undertake. It is quite a different matter, however, for federal law to compel a result that the States do not intend but for which they are held to account. Federalism serves to assign political responsibility, not to obscure it. Neither federalism nor political responsibility is well served by a rule that essential national policies are displaced by state regulations intended to achieve more limited ends. For States which do choose to displace the free market with regulation, our insistence on real compliance with both parts of the Midcal test will serve to make clear that the State is responsible for the price fixing it has sanctioned and undertaken to control.
Respondents contend that these concerns are better addressed by the requirement that the States articulate a clear policy to displace the antitrust laws with their own forms of economic regulation. This contention misapprehends the close relation between Midcal’s two elements. Both are directed at ensuring that particular anticompetitive mechanisms operate because of a deliberate and intended state policy. See Patrick, supra, at 100. In the usual case, Midcal’s requirement that the State articulate a clear policy shows little more than that the State has not acted through inadvertence; it cannot alone ensure, as required by our precedents, that particular anticompetitive conduct has been approved by the State. It seems plain, moreover, in light of the amici curiae brief to which we have referred, that sole reliance on the requirement of clear articulation will not allow the regulatory flexibility that these States deem necessary. For States whose object it is to benefit their citizens through regulation, a broad doctrine of state-action immunity may serve as nothing more than an attractive nuisance in the economic sphere. To oppose these pressures, sole reliance on the requirement of clear articulation could become a rather meaningless formal constraint.
HH HH M
In the case before us, the Court of Appeals relied upon a formulation of the active supervision requirement articulated by the First Circuit:
“‘Where . . . the state’s program is in place, is staffed and funded, grants to the state officials ample power and the duty to regulate pursuant to declared standards of state policy, is enforceable in the state’s courts, and demonstrates some basic level of activity directed towards seeing that the private actors carry out the state’s policy and not simply their own policy, more need not be established.’” 922 F. 2d, at 1136, quoting New England Motor Rate Bureau, Inc. v. FTC, 908 F. 2d, at 1071.
Based on this standard, the Third Circuit ruled that the active supervision requirement was met in all four States, and held that the respondents’ conduct was entitled to state-action immunity from antitrust liability. 922 F. 2d, at 1140.
While in theory the standard articulated by the First Circuit might be applied in a. manner consistent with our precedents, it seems to us insufficient to establish the requisite level of active supervision. The criteria set forth by the First Circuit may have some relevance as the beginning point of the active state supervision inquiry, but the analysis cannot end there. Where prices or rates are set as an initial matter by private parties, subject only to a veto if the State chooses to exercise it, the party claiming the immunity must show that state officials have undertaken the necessary steps to determine the specifics of the price-fixing or ratesetting scheme. The mere potential for state supervision is not an adequate substitute for a decision by the State. Under these standards, we must conclude that there was no active supervision in either Wisconsin or Montana.
Respondents point out that in Wisconsin and Montana the rating bureaus filed rates with state agencies and that in both States the so-called negative option rule prevailed. The rates became effective unless they were rejected within a set time. It is said that as a matter of law in those States inaction signified substantive approval. This proposition cannot be reconciled, however, with the detailed findings, entered by the ALJ and adopted by the Commission, which demonstrate that the potential for state supervision was not realized in fact. The ALJ found, and the Commission agreed, that at most the rate filings were checked for mathematical accuracy. Some were unchecked altogether. In Montana, a rate filing became effective despite the failure of the rating bureau to provide additional requested information. In Wisconsin, additional information was provided after a lapse of seven years, during which time the rate filing remained in effect. These findings are fatal to respondents’ attempts to portray the state regulatory regimes as providing the necessary component of active supervision. The findings demonstrate that, whatever the potential for state regulatory review in Wisconsin and Montana, active state supervision did not occur. In the absence of active supervision in fact, there can be no state-action immunity for what were otherwise private price-fixing arrangements. And as in Patrick, the availability of state judicial review could not fill the void. Because of the state agencies’ limited role and participation, state judicial review was likewise limited. See Patrick, 486 U. S., at 103-105.
Our decision in Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U. S. 48 (1985), though it too involved a negative option regime, is not to the contrary. The question there was whether the first part of the Midcal test was met, the Government’s contention being that a pricing policy is not an articulated one unless the practice is compelled. We rejected that assertion and undertook no real examination of the active supervision aspect of the case, for the Government conceded that the second part of the test had been met. Id., at 62, 66. The concession was against the background of a District Court determination that, although submitted rates could go into effect without further state activity, the State had ordered and held ratemaking hearings on a consistent basis, using the industry submissions as the beginning point. See United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 471, 476-477 (ND Ga. 1979). In the case before us, of course, the Commission concedes the first part of the Midcal requirement and litigates the second; and there is no finding of substantial state participation in the ratesetting scheme.
This case involves horizontal price fixing under a vague imprimatur in form and agency inaction in fact. No antitrust offense is more pernicious than price fixing. FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn., 493 U. S. 411, 434, n. 16 (1990). In this context, we decline to formulate a rule that would lead to a finding of active state supervision where in fact there was none. Our decision should be read in light of the gravity of the antitrust offense, the involvement of private actors throughout, and the clear absence of state supervision. We do not imply that some particular form of state or local regulation is required to achieve ends other than the establishment of uniform prices. Cf. Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U. S. 365 (1991) (city billboard zoning ordinance entitled to state-action immunity). We do not have before us a case in which governmental actors made unilateral decisions without participation by private actors. Cf. Fisher v. Berkeley, 475 U. S. 260 (1986) (private actors not liable without private action). And we do not here call into question a regulatory regime in which sampling techniques or a specified rate of return allow state regulators to provide comprehensive supervision without complete control, or in which there was an infrequent lapse of state supervision. Cf. 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U. S. 385, 344, n. 6 (1987) (a statute specifying the margin between wholesale and retail prices may satisfy the active supervision requirement). In the circumstances of this case, however, we conclude that the acts of respondents in the States of Montana and Wisconsin are not immune from antitrust liability.
>
In granting certiorari we undertook to review the further contention by the Commission that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in disregarding the Commission’s findings as to the extent of state supervision. The parties have focused their briefing on this question on the regulatory schemes of Connecticut and Arizona. We think the Court of Appeals should have the opportunity to reexamine its determinations with respect to these latter two States in light of the views we have expressed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a partnership income tax case brought here by the United States on a petition for writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Respondents, physicians and partners in a medical partnership, filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of California seeking the refund of income taxes previously paid pursuant to a deficiency assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The case was heard on an agreed statement of facts and the District Court ruled in respondents’ favor. 295 F. Supp. 1289 (1968). The Government appealed to the Ninth Circuit and that court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. 450 F. 2d 109 (1971). We agreed to hear this case to consider whether, as the Government contends, the decision below is in conflict with precedents of this Court. 405 U. S. 1039 (1972). Because we find that the decision is incompatible with basic principles of income taxation as developed in our prior cases, we reverse.
I
Respondents, each of whom is a physician, are partners in a limited partnership known as Permanente Medical Group, which was organized in California in 1949. Associated with the partnership are over 200 partner physicians, as well as numerous nonpartner physicians and other employees. In 1959, Permanente entered into an agreement with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., a nonprofit corporation providing prepaid medical care and hospital services to its dues-paying members.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Permanente agreed to supply medical services for the 390,000 member-families, or about 900,000 individuals, in Kaiser’s Northern California Region which covers primarily the San Francisco Bay area. In exchange for those services, Kaiser agreed to pay the partnership a “base compensation” composed of two elements. First, Kaiser undertook to pay directly to the partnership a sum each month computed on the basis of the total number of members enrolled in the health program. That number was multiplied by a stated fee, which originally was set at a little over $2.60. The second item of compensation — and the one that has occasioned the present dispute — called for the creation of a program, funded entirely by Kaiser, to pay retirement benefits to Permanente’s partner and non-partner physicians.
The pertinent compensation provision of the agreement did not itself establish the details of the retirement program; it simply obligated Kaiser to make contributions to such a program in the event that the parties might thereafter agree to adopt one. As might be expected, a separate trust agreement establishing the contemplated plan soon was executed by Permanente, Kaiser, and the Bank of America Trust and Sayings Association, acting as trustee. Under this agreement Kaiser agreed to make payments to the trust at a predetermined rate, initially pegged at 12 cents per health plan member per month. Additionally, Kaiser made a flat payment of $200,000 to start the fund and agreed that its pro rata payment obligation would be retroactive to the date of the signing of the medical service agreement.
The beneficiaries of the trust were all partner and nonpartner physicians who had completed at least two years of continuous service with the partnership and who elected to participate. The trust maintained a separate tentative account for each beneficiary. As periodic payments were received from Kaiser, the funds were allocated among these accounts pursuant to a complicated formula designed to take into consideration on a relative basis each participant's compensation level, length of service, and age. No physician was eligible to receive the amounts in his tentative account prior to retirement, and retirement established entitlement only if the participant had rendered at least 15 years of continuous service or 10 years of continuous service and had attained age 65. Prior to such time, however, the trust agreement explicitly provided that no interest in any tentative account was to be regarded as having vested in any particular beneficiary. The agreement also provided for the forfeiture of any physician's interest and its redistribution among the remaining participants if he were to terminate his relationship with Permanente prior to retirement. A similar forfeiture and redistribution also would occur if, after retirement, a physician were to render professional services for any hospital or health plan other than one operated by Kaiser. The trust agreement further stipulated that a retired physician’s right to receive benefits would cease if he were to refuse any reasonable request to render consultative services to any Kaiser-operated health plan.
The agreement provided that the plan would continue irrespective either of changes in the partnership’s personnel or of alterations in its organizational structure. The plan would survive any reorganization of the partnership so long as at least 50% of the plan’s participants remained associated with the reorganized entity. In the event of dissolution or of a nonqualifying reorganization, all of the amounts in the trust were to be divided among the participants entitled thereto in amounts governed by each participant’s tentative account. Under no circumstances, however, could payments from Kaiser to the trust be recouped by Kaiser: once compensation was paid into the trust it was thereafter committed exclusively to the benefit of Permanente’s participating physicians.
Upon the retirement of any partner or eligible non-partner physician, if he had satisfied each of the requirements for participation, the amount that had accumulated in his tentative account over the years would be applied to the purchase of a retirement income contract. While the program thus provided obvious benefits to Permanente’s physicans, it also served Kaiser’s interests. By providing attractive deferred benefits for Permanente’s staff of professionals, the retirement plan was designed to “create an incentive” for physicians to remain with Permanente and thus “insure” that Kaiser would have a “stable and reliable group of physicians.”
During the years from the plan’s inception until its discontinuance in 1963, Kaiser paid a total of more than $2,000,000 into the trust. Permanente, however, did not report these payments as income in its partnership returns. Nor did the individual partners include these payments in the computations of their distributive shares of the partnership’s taxable income. The Commissioner assessed deficiencies against each partner-respondent for his distributive share of the amount paid by Kaiser. Respondents, after paying the assessments under protest, filed these consolidated suits for refund.
The Commissioner premised his assessment on the conclusion that Kaiser’s payments to the trust constituted a form of compensation to the partnership for the services it rendered and therefore was income to the partnership. And, notwithstanding the deflection of those payments to the retirement trust and their current unavailability to the partners, the partners were still taxable on their distributive shares of that compensation. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals disagreed. They held that the payments to the fund were not income to the partnership because it did not receive them and never had a “right to receive” them. 295 F. Supp., at 1292-1294; 450 F. 2d, at 114-115. They reasoned that the partnership, as an entity, should be disregarded and that each partner should be treated simply as a potential beneficiary of his tentative share of the retirement fund. Viewed in this light, no presently taxable income could be attributed to these cash basis taxpayers because of the contingent and forfeitable nature of the fund allocations. 295 F. Supp., at 1294-1296 ; 450 F. 2d, at 112.
We hold that the courts below erred and that respondents were properly taxable on the partnership’s retirement fund income. This conclusion rests on two familiar principles of income taxation, first, that income is taxed to the party who earns it and that liability may not be avoided through an anticipatory assignment of that income, and, second, that partners are taxable on their distributive or proportionate shares of current partnership income irrespective of whether that income is actually distributed to them. The ensuing discussion is simply an application of those principles to the facts of the present case.
II
Section 703 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, insofar as pertinent here, prescribes that “[t]he taxable income of a partnership shall be computed in the same manner as in the case of an individual.” 26 U. S. C. §703 (a). Thus, while the partnership itself pays no taxes, 26 U. S. C. § 701, it must report the income it generates and such income must be calculated in largely the same manner as an individual computes his personal income. For this purpose, then, the partnership is regarded as an independently recognizable entity apart from the aggregate of its partners. Once its income is ascertained and reported, its existence may be disregarded since each partner must pay a tax on a portion of the total income as if the partnership were merely an agent or conduit through which the income passed.
In determining any partner’s income, it is first necessary to compute the gross income of the partnership. One of the major sources of gross income, as defined in § 61 (a)(1) of the Code, is “ [compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items.” 26 U. S. C. §61 (a)(1). There can be no question that Kaiser’s payments to the retirement trust were compensation for services rendered by the partnership under the medical service agreement. These payments constituted an integral part of the employment arrangement. The agreement itself called for two forms of “base compensation” to be paid in exchange for services rendered— direct per-member, per-month payments to the partnership and other, similarly computed, payments to the trust. Nor was the receipt of these payments contingent upon any condition other than continuation of the contractual relationship and the performance of the prescribed medical services. Payments to the trust, much like the direct payments to the partnership, were not forfeitable by the partnership or recoverable by Kaiser upon the happening of any contingency.
Yet the courts below, focusing on the fact that the retirement fund payments were never actually received by the partnership but were contributed directly to the trust, found that the payments were not includable as income in the partnership’s returns. The view of tax accountability upon which this conclusion rests is incompatible with a foundational rule, which this Court has described as “the-first principle of income taxation: that income must be taxed to him who earns it.” Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U. S. 733, 739-740 (1949). The entity earning the income — whether a partnership or an individual taxpayer — cannot avoid taxation by entering into a contractual arrangement whereby that income is diverted to some other person or entity. Such arrangements, known to the tax law as “anticipatory assignments of income,” have frequently been held ineffective as means of avoiding tax liability. The seminal precedent, written over 40 years ago, is Mr. Justice Holmes’ opinion for a unanimous Court in Lucas v. Earl, 281 U. S. 111 (1930). There the taxpayer entered into a contract with his wife whereby she became entitled to one-half of any income he might earn in the future. On the belief that a taxpayer was accountable only for income actually received by him, the husband thereafter reported only half of his income. The Court, unwilling to accept that a reasonable construction of the tax laws permitted such easy deflection of income tax liability, held that the taxpayer was responsible for the entire amount of his income.
The basis for the Court’s ruling is explicit and controls the case before us today:
“[T]his case is not to be decided by attenuated subtleties. It turns on the import and reasonable construction of the taxing act. There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them and provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skilfully devised to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it. That seems to us the import of the statute before us and we think that no distinction can be taken according to the motives leading to the arrangement by which the fruits are attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.” Id., at 114-115.
The principle of Lacas v. Earl, that he who earns income may not avoid taxation through anticipatory arrangements no matter how clever or subtle, has been repeatedly invoked by this Court and stands today as a cornerstone of our graduated income tax system. See, e. g., Commissioner v. Harmon, 323 U. S. 44 (1944); United States v. Joliet & Chicago R. Co., 315 U. S. 44 (1942); Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U. S. 122 (1940); Burnet v. Leininger, 285 U. S. 136 (1932). And, of course, that principle applies with equal force in assessing partnership income.
Permanente’s agreement with Kaiser, whereby a portion of the partnership compensation was deflected to the retirement fund, is certainly within the ambit of Lucas v. Earl. The partnership earned the income and, as a result of arm’s-length bargaining with Kaiser, was responsible for its diversion into the trust fund. The Court of Appeals found the Lucas principle inapplicable because Permanente “never had the right itself to receive the payments made into the trust as current income.” 450 F. 2d, at 114. In support of this assertion, the court relied on language in the agreed statement of facts stipulating that “[t]he payments . . . were paid solely to fund the retirement plan, and were not otherwise available to [Permanente] . . . .” Ibid. Emphasizing that the fund was created to serve Kaiser’s interest in a stable source of qualified, experienced physicians, the court found that Permanente could not have received that income except in the form in which it was received.
The court’s reasoning seems to be that, before the partnership could be found to have received income, there must be proof that “Permanente agreed to accept less direct compensation from Kaiser in exchange for the retirement plan payments.” Id., at 114-115. Apart from the inherent difficulty of adducing such evidence, we know of no authority imposing this burden upon the Government. Nor do we believe that the guiding principle of Lucas v. Earl may be so easily circumvented. Kaiser’s motives for making payments are irrelevant to the determination whether those amounts may fairly be viewed as compensation for services rendered. Neither does Kaiser’s apparent insistence upon payment to the trust deprive the agreed contributions of their character as compensation. The Government need not prove that the taxpayer had complete and unrestricted power to designate the manner and form in which his income is received. We may assume, especially in view of the relatively unfavorable tax status of self-employed persons with respect to the tax treatment of retirement plans, that many partnerships would eagerly accept conditions similar to those prescribed by this trust in consideration for tax-deferral benefits of the sort suggested here. We think it clear, however, that the tax laws permit no such easy road to tax avoidance or deferment. Despite the novelty and ingenuity of this arrangement, Permanente's “base compensation” in the form of payments to a retirement fund was income to the partnership and should have been reported as such.
III
Since the retirement fund payments should have been reported as income to the partnership, along with other income received from Kaiser, the individual partners should have included their shares of that income in their individual returns. 26 U. S. C. §§ 61 (a)(13), 702, 704. For it is axiomatic that each partner must pay taxes on his distributive share of the partnership's income without regard to whether that amount is actually distributed to him. Heiner v. Mellon, 304 U. S. 271 (1938), decided under a predecessor to the current partnership provisions of the Code, articulates the salient proposition. After concluding that “distributive” share means the “proportionate” share as determined by the partnership agreement, id., at 280, the Court stated:
“The tax is thus imposed upon the partner’s proportionate share of the net income of the partnership, and the fact that it may not be currently distributable, whether by agreement of the parties or by operation of law, is not material.” Id., at 281.
New principles of partnership taxation are more firmly established than that no matter the reason for nondistri-bution each partner must pay taxes on his distributive share. Treas. Reg. § 1.702-1, 26 CFR § 1.702-1 (1972). See, e. g., Hulbert v. Commissioner, 227 F. 2d 399 (CA7 1955); Bell v. Commissioner, 219 F. 2d 442 (CA5 1955); Stewart v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 451 (SDNY 1967); Freudmann v. Commissioner, 10 T. C. 775 (1948); S. Surrey & W. Warren, Federal Income Taxation 1115 (1960) ; 6 J. Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation §§ 35.01, 35.22 (1968); A. Willis, On Partnership Taxation § 5.01 (1971).
The courts below reasoned to the contrary, holding that the partners here were not properly taxable on the amounts contributed to the retirement fund. This view, apparently, was based on the assumption that each partner’s distributive share prior to retirement was too contingent and unascertainable to constitute presently recognizable income. It is true that no partner knew with certainty exactly how much he would ultimately receive or whether he would in fact be entitled to receive anything. But the existence of conditions upon the actual receipt by a partner of income fully earned by the partnership is irrelevant in determining the amount of tax due from him. The fact that the courts below placed such emphasis on this factor suggests the basic misapprehension under which they labored in this case. Rather than being viewed as responsible contributors to the partnership’s total income, respondent-partners were seen only as contingent beneficiaries of the trust. In some measure, this misplaced focus on the considerations of uncertainty and forfeitability may be a consequence of the erroneous manner in which the Commissioner originally assessed the partners’ deficiencies. The Commissioner divided Kaiser’s trust fund payments into two categories: (1) payments earmarked for the tentative accounts of nonpartner physicians; and (2) those allotted to partner physicians. The payments to the trust for the former category of nonpartner physicians were correctly counted as income to the partners in accord with the distributive-share formula as established in the partnership agreement. The latter payments to the tentative accounts of the individual partners, however, were improperly allocated to each partner pursuant to the complex formula in the retirement plan itself, just as if that agreement operated as an amendment to the partnership agreement. 295 F. Supp., at 1292.
The Solicitor General, alluding to this miscomputation during oral argument, suggested that this error “may be what threw the court below off the track.” It should be clear that the contingent and unascertainable nature of each partner's share under the retirement trust is irrelevant to the computation of his distributive share. The partnership had received as income a definite sum which was not subject to diminution or forfeiture. Only its ultimate disposition among the employees and partners remained uncertain. For purposes of income tax computation it made no difference that some partners might have elected not to participate in the retirement program or that, for any number of reasons, they might not ultimately receive any of the trust's benefits. Indeed, as the Government suggests, the result would be quite the same if the “potential beneficiaries included no partners at all, but were children, relatives, or other objects of the partnership's largesse.” The sole operative consideration is that the income had been received by the partnership, not what disposition might have been effected once the funds were received.
IV
In summary, we find this case controlled by familiar and long-settled principles of income and partnership taxation. There being no doubt about the character of the payments as compensation, or about their actual receipt, the partnership was obligated to report them as income presently received. Likewise, each partner was responsible for his distributive share of that income. We, therefore, reverse the judgments and remand the case with directions that judgments be entered for the United States.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Technically, the married respondents’ spouses are also parties because they filed joint income tax returns for the years in question here. Any reference to respondents in this opinion, however, refers only to the partner physicians.
The pertinent portion of the Kaiser-Permanente medical service contract states:
“Article H
“Base Compensation to Medical Group
“As base compensation to [Permanente] for Medical Services to be provided by [Permanente] hereunder, [Kaiser] shall pay to [Permanente] the amounts specified in this Article H.
“Section Provision for Savings and Retirement Program for Physicians.
“In the event that [Permanente] establishes a savings and retirement plan or other deferred compensation plan approved by [Kaiser], [Kaiser] will pay, in addition to all other sums payable by [Kaiser] under this Agreement, the contributions required under such plan to the extent that such contributions exceed amounts, if any, contributed by Physicians
The trust agreement states:
“The tentative accounts and suspended tentative accounts provided for Participants hereunder are solely for the purpose of facilitating record keeping and necessary computations, and confer no rights in the trust fund upon the individuals for whom they are established. . . .”
If, however, termination were occasioned by death or permanent disability, the trust agreement provided for receipt of such amounts as had accumulated in that physician’s tentative account. Additionally, if, after his termination for reasons of disability prior to retirement, a physician should reassociate with some affiliated medical group his rights as a participant would not be forfeited.
The agreed statement of facts filed by the parties in the District Court states:
“The primary purpose of the retirement plan was to create an incentive for physicians to remain with [Permanente] . . . and thus to insure [Kaiser] that it would have a stable and reliable group of physicians providing medical services to its members with a minimum, of turn-over. . . .”
The Court of Appeals purported not to decide, as the District Court had, whether the partnership should be viewed as an “entity” or as a “conduit.” 450 F. 2d 109, 113 n. 5, and 115. Yet, its analysis indicates that it found it proper to disregard the partnership as a separate entity. After explaining its view that Permanente never had a right to receive the payments, the Court of Appeals stated: “When the transaction is viewed in this light, the partnership becomes a mere agent contracting on behalf of its members for payments to the trust for their ultimate benefit, rather than a principal which itself realizes taxable income.” Id., at 115 (emphasis supplied).
Each respondent reported his income for the years in question on the cash basis. The partnership reported its taxable receipts under the accrual method.
There has been a great deal of discussion in the briefs and in the lower court opinions with respect to whether a partnership is to be viewed as an “entity” or as a “conduit.” We find ourselves in agreement with the Solicitor General's remark during oral argument when he suggested that “[i]t seems odd that we should still be discussing such things in 1972.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 14. The legislative history indicates, and the commentators agree, that partnerships are entities for purposes of calculating and filing informational returns but that they are conduits through which the taxpaying obligation passes to the individual partners in accord with their distributive shares. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 65-66 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 89-90 (1954); 6 J. Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 35.01 (1968); S. Surrey & W. Warren, Federal Income Taxation 1115-1116 (1960); Jackson, Johnson, Surrey, Tenen & Warren, The Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Partnerships, 54 Col. L. Rev. 1183 (1954).
The agreed statement of facts states that the contracting parties were “separate organizations independently contracting with one another at arms’ length.”
See n. 5, supra.
Respondents do not contend that such payments were gifts or some other type of nontaxable contribution. See Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U. S. 243 (1956); Bingler v. Johnson, 394 U. S. 741 (1969).
Disparities have long existed between the tax treatment of pension plans for corporate employees and the treatment of similar plans for the self-employed and for members of partnerships. S. Surrey & W. Warren, supra, n. 8, at 598-599. In 1962, Congress endeavored to ameliorate these differences by enacting corrective legislation, Pub. L. 87-792, 76 Stat. 809. While that legislation, commonly known as H. R. 10 or the Jenkins-Keogh Bill, provided some relief, it fell far short of affording a parity of treatment for professionals and other self-employed individuals. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 404. For a detailed review of the intricate provisions of the applicable statute and for a close comparison of the present differences, see Grayck, Tax Qualified Retirement Plans for Professional Practitioners: A Comparison of the Self-Employed Individuals Tax Requirement Act of 1962 and the Professional Association, 63 Col. L. Rev. 415 (1963); Note, Federal Tax Policy and Retirement Benefits — A New Approach, 59 Geo. L. J. 1299 (1971); Note, Tax Parity for Self-Employed Retirement Plans, 58 Va. L. Rev. 338 (1972).
Respondents contend in this Court that this case is controlled by Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, 405 U. S. 394 (1972), decided last Term. We held there that the Commissioner could not properly allocate income to one of a controlled group of corporations under 26 U. S. C. § 482 where that corporation could not have received that income as a matter of law. The “assignment-of-ineome doctrine” could have no application in that peculiar circumstance because the taxpayer had no legal right to receive the income in question. Id., at 403-404. In essence, that case involved a deflection of income imposed by law, not an assignment arrived at by the consensual agreement of two parties acting at arm’s length as we have in the present case. See n. 5, supra.
Revenue Act of 1918, §218 (a), 40 Stat. 1070:
“There shall be included in computing the net income of each partner his distributive share, whether distributed or not, of the net income of the partnership for the taxable year . . . .”
Other predecessor statutes -contained similar explicit indications that a partner’s distributive share was to be computed without reference to actual distribution. See Income Tax Act of 1913, § II D, 38 Stat. 169 (“whether divided or otherwise”); Revenue Act of 1938, § 182, 52 Stat. 521 (“whether or not distribution is made to hira”). Nothing in the legislative history suggests that any substantive change was intended by the deletion of this phrase from the 1954 Code revisions. See H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 65 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 89 (1954).
The regulation states as follows :
“Each partner is required to take into account separately in his return his distributive share, whether or not distributed, of each class or item of partnership income . . . .”
These amounts would be divided equally among the partners pursuant to the partnership agreement’s stipulation that all income above each partner’s drawing account “shall be distributed equally.”
Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-14. As the Solicitor General has also pointed out, the parties have, by stipulation in their agreed statement of facts, foreseen that recomputations might be necessary in light of the ultimate resolution of this controversy and have taken precautions to assure that any necessary reallocations may be handled expeditiously. Agreed Statement of Facts ¶24, App. 87-88.
Brief for United States 21. For this reason, the cases relied on by the Court of Appeals, 450 F. 2d, at 113, which have held that payments made into deferred compensation programs having contingent and forfeitable features are not taxable until received, are inapposite. Schaefer v. Bowers, 50 F. 2d 689 (CA2 1931); Perkins v. Commissioner, 8 T. C. 1051 (1947); Robertson v. Commissioner, 6 T. C. 1060 (1946). Indeed, the Government notes, possibly as a consequence of these cases, that the Commissioner has not sought to tax the nonpartner physicians on their contingent accounts under the retirement plan. Brief for United States 21.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In New Jersey, workers engaged in an economic strike are eligible for public assistance through state welfare programs. Employers whose plants were struck instituted this suit for injunctive and declaratory relief against such eligibility. Before the .case was tried, the labor dispute- was settled and the strike came to an end. The question presented is whether a “case” or “controversy” still exists, within the meaning of Art. Ill, § 2, of the • Constitution, and of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201-2202.
I
A collective-bargaining agreement between petitioners Super Tire Engineering Company and Supercap Corporation, affiliated New Jersey corporations, and Teamsters Local Union No. 676, the certified collective-bargaining representative for the two corporations’ production and maintenance employees, expired on May 14, 1971. Because ¿ new agreement had not as yet been reached, the employees promptly went out on strike. Some four weeks later, with the strike continuing, the two corporations, and their president and chief executive officer, filed the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of- New Jersey against various New Jersey officials.
The complaint alleged that many of the striking employees had received and would continue to receive pub-lie assistance through two New Jersey public welfare programs, pursuant to regulations issued and administered by the named defendants. The petitioners sought a declaration that these interpretive regulations, according benefits, to striking workers, were null and void because they constituted an interference with the federal labor policy of free collective bargaining expressed in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 141 et seq., and with other federal policy pronounced in provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935, viz., 42 U. S. C. §§ 602 (a)(8)(C), ¿06 (e)(1), and 607 (b)(1)(B)'. The petitioners also sought injunctive relief against the New Jersey welfare administrators’ making public, funds available to labor union members engaged in the strike.
With their complaint, the petitioners filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The supporting affidavit by the individual petitioner recited the expiration of .the collective-bargaining agreement, the failure of the parties to reach a new agreement, the commencement and continuation of the strike, the application by many of the strikers for state welfare benefits, and their receipt of such benefits from the beginning of the strike to the date of the affidavit. The affiant further stated that the availability of these benefits interfered with and infringed upon free collective bargaining as guaranteed by Congress and “hardened the resolve of the said strikers to remain out of work in support of their bargaining demands,” App. 32, and, in addition, that
“the current strike will undoubtedly be of longer duration than would have otherwise been the case; that the impact of the grant of welfare benefits and public assistance to the strikers involved has resulted in the State of New Jersey subsidizing one party to the current labor dispute; and that such subsidization by the State has resulted in upsetting the economic balance between employer and employees otherwise obtained in such a labor dispute.” Ibid.
At the hearing held on June 24- on the motion for preliminary injunction, the union, now a respondent here, was permitted to intervene. App. 37. Counsel for the union contended that “this entire matter . . . has been mooted” because “these employees voted to return to work and are scheduled to return to work tomorrow morning.” App. 39. The District Court, nonetheless, proceeded to the merits of the dispute and, on the basis of the holding in ITT Lamp Division v. Minter, 435 F. 2d 989 (CA1 1970), cert. denied, 402 U. S. 933 (1971), ruled that the appropriate forum for the petitioners’ claim was the Congress, and that the New Jersey practice of according aid to striking workers was not violative of thé Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint. App. 45-46. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, by a divided vote, did not reach the merits but remanded the case.with instructions to vacate and dismiss for mootness. 469 F. 2d 911, 922 (1972). We granted certiorari to consider the mootness issue. 414 U. S. 817 (1973).
n
The respondent union invites us to conclude that this controversy between the petitioners and the State became moot when the particular economic strike terminated upon the execution of the new collective-bargaining agreement and the return of the strikers to work in late June. That conclusion, however, is appropriate with respect to only one aspect of the lawsuit, that is, the request for injunctive relief made in the context of official state action during the pendency of the strike.
The petitioners here have sought, from the very beginning,, declaratory relief as well as an injunction. Clearly, the District Court had “the duty to decide the appropriateness and the merits of the declaratory request irrespective of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of the injunction.” Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 254 (1967); Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 166 (1973); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 468-A69 (1974). Thus, even though the case for an injunction dissolved with the subsequent settlement of the strike and the strikers’ return to wofk, the parties to the principal controversy, that is, the corporate petitioners and the New Jersey officials, may still retain sufficient interests and injury as. to justify the award of declaratory relief! The question is “whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having advérse legal interests, of sufficiént immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941), And ' since this case involves governmental action, we must ponder the broader consideration whether the short-term, nature of that action makes the issues presented here “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” so that peti-. tioners are adversely affected by government “without a chance of redress.” Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).
' A. We hold that the facts here provide full and complete satisfaction of the. requirement of the Constitution's Art. Ill, § 2, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, that a case or controversy exist between the parties. Unlike the situations that prevailed in Oil Workers Unions v. Missouri, 361 U. S. 363 (1960), on which the Court of Appeals' majority chiefly relied, and. in Harris v. Battle, 348 U. S. 803 (1954), the challenged governmental activity in the present, case is not contingent, has not' evaporated or disappeared, and,- by' its continuing and brooding presence, casts what may well, be a substantial adverse effect on the interests of the petitioning parties.
In both Harris and Oil Workers k state statute authorized the Governor to take immediate possession of a public utility in the event of a strike or work stoppage that interfered with the public interest. The seizure was not automatic for every public utility labor dispute. It took effect only upon the exercise of the Governor’s discretion. In each case the Court held the controversy to be moot because both the seizure and the strike had terminated prior to the time the case reached this. Court, The governmental action challenged was the authority to seize the !public utility, and it was clear that a seizure would not recur except in circumstances where (a) there was another strike or' stoppage, and (b) in the judgment of'the Governor, the public interest required it. The question was thus posed in a situation where the threat of governmental action was two steps removed from reality. "This made the recurrence of a seizure so remote and speculative that there, was no tangible prejudice to the existing interests of the parties and, therefore, there was a “want of a subject matter” on which any judgment' of this Court could operate. Oil Workers, 361 U. S., at 371. This was particularly apparent in Oil Workers because, although the union had sought both declaratory and injunctive relief,, the decision the Court was asked'to review “upheld only the validity of an injunction, an injunction that expired by its own terms more than three years ago.” Ibid.
The present case has a decidedly different .posture. As in Harris and Oil Workers, the strike here was settled before the litigation reached this’ Court. But, unlike those cases, thq challenged governmental action has not ceased. The . New, Jersey governmental action does not rest on the distant contingencies of another strike and the discretionary act of an official. Rather, New Jersey has declared positively that able-bodied striking workers who are engaged, .individually and collectively, in an economic dispute with their employer are eligible for economic benefits. This policy is fixed and definite. It is not contingent upon executive discretion. Employees know that if they go out on strike, public funds are available. The petitioners’ claim is that this eligibility affects the collective-bargaining relationship, both in the context of a live labor dispute when a collective-bargaining agreement is in process of formulation, and in the ongoing collective relationship, so that the economic balance between labor and management, carefully formulated and preserved by Congress in the federal labor statutes, is altered by the State’s beneficent policy toward strikers. It cannot be doubted that the availability of state welfare assistance for striking workers in New Jersey pervades every work stoppage, affects every existing collective-bargaining agreement, • and is a factor lurking in the background of every incipient labor contract. The question, of course, is whether Congress, explicitly or implicitly, has ruled out such assistance in its calculus of laws regulating labor-management disputes. In this sense petitioners allege a colorable claim of injury from an extant and fixed policy directive of the State of New Jersey. That claim deserves a hearing.
The decision in- Bus Employees v. Missouri, 374 U. S. 74 (1963), is not to the contrary. .In that case the Court adjudicated the merits of the same statutory scheme that had been challenged earlier in Oil Workers. It reached the merits even though the Governor had terminated the seizure of the public utility. His executive order, however, recited that the labor dispute “remains unresolved.” The Court’s rationale was that, since the labor dispute had not ended, “[tjhere thus exists in the present case not merely the speculative possibility of invocation of the King-Thompson Act in some future labor dispute, but the presence of an existing unresolved dispute which continues subject to all the provisions of the Act. Cf. Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U. S. 498, 514-516; United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632.” 374 U. S., at 78. The existence of the strike was important in that it rendered concrete the likelihood of state action prejudicial to the interests of the union. It was the remoteness of the threat of state action that convinced the Court in Oil Workers to hold that case moot. In the case now before us, the state action is not at all contingent. Under the petitioners’ view of the case, it is immediately and directly injurious to thé corporate petitioners’ economic positions. Pidiere such state action or its imminence adversely affects the status of private parties, the courts should be available to render appropriate relief and judgments affecting the parties’ rights and interests:
B. If we were to condition our review on the existence of an economic strike, this case most certainly would be of the type presenting an issue “capable-of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S., at 515; Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett, 475 F. 2d 449 (CA1), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 858 and 879 (1973); ITT Lamp Division v. Minter, 435 F. 2d, at 991. To require the presence of an active and live labor dispute would tax the litigant too much by arbitrarily slighting claims of adverse injury from concrete governmental action (of the immediate threat thereof). It is sufficient, therefore, that the litigant show the existence of an immediate and definite governmental action or policy that has adversely affected and continues to affect a present interest. Otherwise, a state policy affecting a collective-bargaining arrangement, except one involving a fine or other penalty, could be adjudicated only rarely, and the. purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act would be frustrated.
Certainly, the pregnant appellants in Roe v. Wade, supra, and in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973), had long since outlasted their pregnancies by the time their cases reached this Court. Yet we h'ad no difficulty in rejecting suggestions of' mootness. 410 U. S., at. 125 and 187. Similar and consistent results were reached in Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 737 n, 8 (1974); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752, 756 n. 5 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); and Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969), cases concerning various challenges to state election laws. The important ingredient' in these cases was governmental action directly affecting, and continuing to affect, the behavior of citizens in our society.
The issues here are no different. Economic' strikes are of comparatively short duration. There are exceptions, of course; See, for example, Local 888, UAW v. NLRB, 112 U. S. App. D. C. 107, 300 F. 2d 699, cert. denied sub nom. Kohler Co. v. Local 888, UAW, 370 U. S. 911 (1962)., But the great majority of economic strikes do not last long enough for complete judicial review of the controversies they engender. U. S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Analysis of Work Stoppages 1971, TableA 3, p. 16 (1973). A strike that lasts six weeks, as this'one did, may seem long, but its termination, like pregnancy at nine months and elections spaced at year-long or biennial intervals, should not preclude challenge to state policies that-have had their impact and that continue in force, unabated and unreviewed. The judiciary must not close the door to the resolution of the important* questions these concrete ■disputes present. '
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the controversy.
Zi * so ordered¡
Super Tire Engineering Company is engaged in the business of truck tire sales and service and the manufacture-and sale of industrial polyurethane tires and wheels. Supercap Corporation is engaged in the business of truck tire recapping and repairing.
The named defendants were Lloyd W. McCorkle, Commissioner of the Department of Institutions and Agencies of the State of New Jersey; Irving J. Engelman, Director of the Division of Public Welfare of the Department of Institutions and .Agencies of the State of New Jersey; Fred L. Streng, Director of the Camden County, New Jersey, Welfare Board; and Juanita E. Dicks, Welfare Director of the Municipal Welfare Department of the City of Camden, New Jersey.
The General Public Assistance Law, N. J.' Stat. Ann. •§ 44:8-107 et seq. (Supp. 1973-1974), a state program, and the Assistance for Dependent Children Law (ADC), N. J. Stat. Ann. §44:10-1 et seq. (Supp. 1973-1974), a federal-state program created by § 402 of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 602.
Effective June 30, 1971, New Jersey elected no longer to participate in the unemployed parent segment of the AEDC program, and enacted, in its place, the Assistance to Families of the- Working Poor program, N. J. Stat. Ann. §44:13-1 et seq. (Supp. 1973-1974).
The Regulations (M. A. 1.006/revised Mar. 1957), issued by the New. Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies under the General Public Assistance Law, provided in pertinent part:
“A. Citation of Statute and Constitution
“Chapter 156, P. L. 1947 (R. S. 44:8-108) defines reimbursable public assistance as ‘assistance rendered to needy persons not otherwise provided for under the laws of this State, where such persons are willing to work but are unable to secure employment due either to physical disability or inability to find employment.’
“The Constitution of New Jersey 1947, Article I, paragraph 19, guarantees that ‘Persons in private employment shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively.’
“B. Interpretation and Policy
“It may be inferred from the quoted section of the statute that persons unwilling to work are ineligible for public assistance. However, for purposes of public administration, the phrase ‘unwilling to work’ must be defined as objectively as possible.
“. . . The Constitutional guarantee of the ‘right to organize and bargain colleetivély’ implies the right of the individual to participate in a bona -fide labor dispute as between.the employer and the' collective bargaining unit by which the individual is represented. Moreover, a ‘strike,’ when lawfully authorized and conducted, is recognized as an inherent and lawful element of the process of bargaining collectively and of .resolving labor disputes. Accordingly, when an individual is participating in a lawful ‘strike,’ he may not be considered merely because of. such participation, as refusing to work without just cause.
“C. Regulations
“Based on the foregoing statement of interpretation and' policy, the following regulations are established:
“4. No individual shall be presumed to be unwilling to work, or to be wrongfully refusing to accept suitable employment, merely because he is participating in a lawful labor dispute.
“5. An individual who is participating in a lawful labor.dispute, and who is 'needy, has the same right to apply far public assistance, for himself and his dependents, as any other individual who is needy.
“6. In the ease "of an applicant for public assistance who is participating iñ a lawful labor dispute, there shall be an investigation of need and other conditions of eligibility, and an evaluation of income, and resources, in the same way and to the same extent as in all other cases. In such instances, 'strike benefits’ or other payments available to the individual from the labor union or other source; shall be considered a resource and shJUL be determined and accounted for.”
. The record is not clear as to the eligibility of strikers under. New Jersey’s newly enacted program 'of Assistance to Families of' the Working Poor. Petitioners state that striking workers are eligible for benefits under that program. Brief for Petitioners 4 n. 1. The respondents concede this, as “a matter of administrative application.-” Tr. of Oral Arg.. 46.
The complaint also alleged that the inclusion of -striking workers in these programs was contrary to. New Jersey law. .
All the strikers returned to work by Monday, June 28, 1971, and normal operations at the corporate petitioners’ plants were then resumed.
-Although the threat of seizure'in Oil Workers constituted a far more severe form of governmental- action, going as it did to cripple any strike, the features of that .action were inexorably contingent, serving to make it more remote and speculative.
It 'may not 'appropriately be argued that there is an element of discretion present here, in the making of the determination of individual “need" for welfare benefits. That determination has no measurable effect on th? rights of the corporate petitioners. Instead, it is the basic eligibility for- assistance that allegedly prejudices those petitioners’ economic position.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On Feb. 27, 1946, the Price Administrator filed a petition, in the District Court for the District of Columbia, to institute criminal contempt proceedings against appel-lee. The petition charged appellee with having made numerous sales of used cars at over-ceiling prices in violation of an injunction previously issued by the District Court. A rule to show cause was issued, but was dismissed on motion of the appellee, on the ground that he was entitled to immunity under § 202 (g) of the Emergency Price Control Act from prosecution for the transactions upon which the petition was founded. 68 F. Supp. 53.
The Government brought this appeal, under the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act, to review the decision of the District Court. The main issue is the same as that presented in the companion case, Shapiro v. United States, ante, p. 1, but two additional minor questions are raised:
1. Appellee urges that the appeal was not properly taken by the United States because the Government was not a party to the proceedings in the District Court. The record shows, however, that the litigation was instituted in that court by a petition of the OPA District Enforcement Attorney on behalf of the Price Administrator. When the rule to show cause was issued, the court appointed the United States Attorney and the OPA District Enforcement Attorney as “attorneys to prosecute the criminal charges contained in the petition filed herein on behalf of the Court and of the United States.” See Rule 42 (b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 327 U. S. 865-66. Thus the United States was, in any relevant sense, a party to the proceedings, and the appeal was properly brought under the Criminal Appeals Act. See United, States v. Goldman, 277 U. S. 229, 235 (1928); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87, 115 et seq. (1925).
2. The Government mentions a further consideration, not involved in the Shapiro case. The record does not state that the appellee was sworn and produced the records under oath, a condition precedent to the attainment of immunity under a 1906 Amendment, 49 U. S. C. § 48, to the Compulsory Testimony Act of 1893. It is unnecessary to consider this contention both because it does not appear to have been duly raised in the court below, and because the grounds considered and the views set forth in our opinion in the Shapiro case suffice to dispose of this appeal.
The decision of the District Court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.
34 Stat. 1246, as amended by 56 Stat. 271, 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1946) § 682, and by § 238 of the Judicial Code as amended, 28 U. S. C. §345.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellants, Negroes living in Jackson, Mississippi, brought this civil rights action, 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, seeking temporary and permanent injunctions to enforce their constitutional rights to nonsegregated service in interstate and intrastate transportation, alleging that such rights had been denied them under color of state statutes, municipal ordinances, and state custom and usage. A three-judge District Court was convened, 28 U. S. C. § 2281, and, Circuit Judge Rives dissenting, abstained from further proceedings pending construction of the challenged laws by the state courts. 199 F. Supp. 595. Plaintiffs have appealed, 28 U. S. C. § 1253; N. A. A. C. P. v. Bennett, 360 U. S. 471. We denied a motion to stay the prosecution of a number of criminal cases pending disposition of this appeal. 368 U. S. 346.
Appellants lack standing to enjoin criminal prosecutions under Mississippi’s breach-of-peace statutes, since they do not allege that they , have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution under them. They cannot represent a class of whom they are not a part. McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 235 U. S. 151, 162-163. But as passengers using the segregated transportation facilities they are aggrieved parties and have standing to enforce their rights to nonsegregated treatment. Mitchell v. United States, 313 U. S. 80, 93; Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U. S. 202.
We have settled beyond question that no State may require racial segregation of interstate or intrastate transportation facilities. Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373; Gayle v. Browder, 352 U. S. 903; Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454. The question is no longer open; it is foreclosed as a litigable issue. Section 2281 does not require a three-judge court when the claim that a statute is unconstitutional is wholly insubstantial, legally speaking nonexistent. Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30; Bell v. Waterfront Comm’n, 279 F. 2d 853, 857-858. We hold that three judges are similarly not required when, as here, prior decisions make frivolous any claim that a state statute on its face is not unconstitutional. Willis v. Walker, 136 F. Supp. 181; Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 138 F. Supp. 336; Kelley v. Board of Education, 139 F. Supp. 578. We denied leave to file petitions for mandamus in Bush, 351 U. S. 948, and from a similar ruling in Booker v. Tennessee Board of Education, 351 U. S. 948. The reasons for convening an extraordinary court are inapplicable in such cases, for the policy behind the three-judge requirement — that a single judge ought not to be empowered to invalidate a state statute under a federal claim — does not apply. The three-judge requirement is a technical one to be narrowly construed, Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 251. The statute comes into play only when an injunction is sought “upon the ground of the unconstitutionality” of a statute. There is no such ground when the constitutional issue presented is essentially fictitious.
This case is therefore not one “required ... to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and therefore cannot be brought here on direct appeal. However, we have jurisdiction to determine the authority of the court below and “to make such corrective order as may be appropriate to the enforcement of the limitations which that section imposes,” Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16, 18; Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292 U. S. 386, 392; Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 254. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for expeditious disposition, in light of this opinion, of the appellants’ claims of right to unsegregated transportation service.
Vacated and remanded.
The statutes in question are Miss. Code, 1942, Tit. 11, §§ 2351, 2351.5, 2351.7, and Tit. 28, §§ 7784, 7785, 7786, 7786-01, 7787, 7787.5.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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,
Acting as his own lawyer, the respondent Shirley Collins brought this habeas corpus case in a United States District Court seeking release from á Michigan state prison where he is serving a life sentence for murder. His petition alleges that while he was living in Chicago, Michigan officers forcibly seized, handcuffed, blackjacked and took him to Michigan. He claims that trial and conviction under such circumstances is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Federal Kidnaping Act, and that therefore his conviction is a nullity.
The District Court denied the writ without a hearing on the ground that the state court had power to try respondent “regardless of how presence was procured.” .The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, reversed and remanded the cause for hearing. 189 F. 2d 464. It held that the Federal Kidnaping Act had changed the rule declared in prior holdings of this Court, that a state could constitutionally try and convict a defendant after acquiring jurisdiction by force. To review this important question we granted certiorari. 342 U. S. 865.
We must first dispose of the state’s contention that the District Court should have denied relief on the ground that respondent had an available state remedy. This argument of the state is a little cloudy, apparently because of the state attorney general’s doubt that any state procedure used could possibly lead to "the granting of relief. There is no doubt that as a general rule federal courts should deny the writ to state prisoners if there is “available State corrective process.” 62 Stat. 967, 28 U. S. C. § 2254. As explained in Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 210, this general rule is not rigid and inflexible; district courts may deviate from it and grant relief in special circumstances. Whether such circumstances exist calls for a factual appraisal by the court in each special situation. Determination of this issue, like others, is largely left to the trial courts subject to appropriate review by the courts of appeals.
The trial court, pointing out that the Michigan Supreme Court had previously denied relief, apparently assumed that no further state corrective process was available and decided against respondent on the merits. Failure to discuss the availability of state relief may have been due to the fact that the state did not raise, the question; indeed the record shpws.no appearance of the state. The Court of Appeals did expressly consider the question of exhaustion of state remedies. It found the existence of “special circumstances” which required prompt federal ' intervention “in this case.” It would serve no useful purpose to review those special circumstances in detail. They are peculiar to this case, may never come up again, and a discussion of them could not give precision to the “special circumstances” rule. It is sufficient to say that there are sound arguments to support the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that prompt decision of the issues raised was desirable. We accept its findings in this respect.
This Court has never departed from the rule announced in Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 444, that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a “forcible abduction.” No persuasive reasons are now presented to justify overruling this line of cases. They rest on the sound basis that due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of crime after having been fairly apprized of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will.
Despite our prior, decisions, the Court of Appeals, relying on the Federal Kidnaping Act, held that respondent was entitled to the writ if he could prove the facts he alleged. The Court thought that to hold otherwise after the passage of the Kidnaping Act “would in practical effect lend encouragement to the commission of criminal acts by those sworn to enforce the law.” In considering whether the law of our prior cases has been changed by the Federal Kidnaping Act, we assume, without intimating that it is so, that the Michigan officers would have violated it if the facts are a? alleged. This Act prescribes in some detail the severe sanctions Congress wanted it to have. Persons who have violated it can be imprisoned for a term of years or for life; under some circumstances violators can be given the death sentence. We think the Act cannot fairly be construed so as to add to the list of sanctions detailed a sanction barring a state from prosecuting persons wrongfully brought to it by its officers. It may be that Congress could add such a. sanction. We cannot.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
We appointed counsel to represent respondent in this Court. 342 U. S. 892.
47 Stat. 326, as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 1201.
Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436; Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700. See also Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S. 537; In re Johnson, 167 U. S. 120.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State- court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. [Emphasis added.]
“An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.”
The Court said, “Petitioner originally filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan which was denied on June 22, 1949. He then filed a petition for a writ in this District, on the ground that the complaint in the state court action was defective and that a faulty warrant was issued for his arrest, claiming further that he was kidnapped by Michigan Police authorities in Chicago, Illinois, and brought to Michigan for trial. This petition was also denied.”
So far as the record shows, the state’s first objection to federal court consideration of this case was made after the Court of Appeals decided in respondent’s favor. A motion for rehearing then filed alleged that respondent had made several futile efforts to have his conviction reviewed. The motion also denied that the particular ground here relied on had previously been raised.
See cases cited, supra, n. 2.
Cf. Mahon v. Justice, supra, n. 3, 705.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, an Iowa corporation which publishes Look magazine, maintains no offices in Florida, but sells its magazines to two independent wholesale companies which distribute them to retailers in Florida. Respondent does employ two “circulation road men” whose job is to check retail outlets in a multi-state area which includes Florida. These two road men cover separate and mutually exclusive districts, and neither exercises any supervision over the other. Petitioner, a resident of Florida, brought suit against Respondent in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, for allegedly libelous matter printed in Look magazine. Respondent moved to dismiss or in lieu thereof to quash the return of service, made on an agent of one of the distributing wholesalers. Before the state court acted on this motion, Respondent removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See 28 U. S. C. (Supp. V) §§ 1332, 1441, 1446, 1447 (b). That court issued an additional summons which was served on Briardy, one of Respondent’s road men, “as a managing agent of [Respondent] transacting business for it in the State of Florida . . . See 28 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 1448; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 4(d)(3), (7); Fla. Stat. Ann., 1943, §47.17(5). On Petitioner’s motion, the original state court service was quashed. Respondent then moved the court “to dismiss this action or in lieu thereof to quash the return of purported or attempted service of the additional summons . . . .” The District Court, without passing upon the motion to quash the return of service, dismissed the action on the ground that it did “not have jurisdiction under Section 1391, sub-section C, New Title 28, United States Code” because Respondent “was not, at the time of the service of the summons, doing business in [the Southern District of Florida].” The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the same ground, 197 F. 2d 74, and we granted certiorari. 344 U. S. 853.
The only question in this case on the record before- us is whether the District Court correctly dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction.
Both courts below held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction, but they reached that conclusion by deciding that Respondent was not “doing business” in Florida within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 1391 (c). Section 1391 is a general venue statute. In a case where it applies, if its requirements are not satisfied, the District Court is not deprived of jurisdiction, although dismissal of the case might be justified if a timely objection to the venue were interposed. 28 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 1406. But even on the question of venue, § 1391 has no application to this case because this is a removed action. The venue of removed actions is governed by 28 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 1441 (a), and under that section venue was properly laid in the Southern District of Florida. Lee v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 260 U. S. 653; General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 260 U. S. 261, 270-279; Moss v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 157 F. 2d 1005. The pertinent provisions of the two statutes are set forth in the margin. Section 1391 (a) limits the district in which an action may be “brought.” Section 1391 (c) similarly limits the district in which a corporation may be “sued.” This action was not “brought” in the District Court, nor was Respondent “sued” there; the action was brought in a state court and removed to the District Court. Section 1441 (a) expressly provides that the proper venue of a removed action is “the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” The Southern District of Florida is the district embracing Dade County, the place where this action was pending. 28 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 89.
Therefore, the question whether Respondent was “doing business” in Florida within the meaning of § 1391 (c) is irrelevant, and the discussion of that question is beside the point. The District Court based its holding that it lacked jurisdiction on a statute which has no application to the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the same reasoning.
We express no opinion whether Respondent was “doing business” in Florida within the meaning of the due process requirements set out in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, because Respondent has not contended that the International Shoe test is not met. Nor do we decide whether the District Court acquired jurisdiction of the person of Respondent by proper service, because the lower courts did not pass on the question of service. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court to take jurisdiction of the action and determine whether the District Court acquired jurisdiction of Respondent by proper service.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, not having heard the argument, took no part in the consideration and disposition of this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See also 1 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 101; Charles W. Bunn, Jurisdiction and Practice of the Courts of the United States (5th ed., Charles Bunn, 1949), 146-148; Moore, Commentary on the United States Judicial Code, 199.
Ҥ 1391. Venue generally.
“(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded onlj on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.
“(c) A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Ҥ 1441. Actions removable generally.
“(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” (Emphasis supplied.)
“In the case now before the Court no question of due process is involved.” Brief for Respondent in Opposition to Writ of Certio-rari, p. 9. “All this has nothing to do with due process Brief for Respondent, p. 17.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Fortas are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted, the judgment vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration in light of In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr.. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
■This case presents the question whether a District Court may abstain from exercising its properly invoked diver-' sity jurisdiction in a state eminent domain case in which the exercise of that jurisdiction would not entail the possibility of a premature and perhaps unnecessary decision of a serious federal constitutional question, would not create the hazard of. unsettling some delicate balance in the area of federal-state relationships, and would not even require the District Court to guess at the resolution of uncertain and difficult issues of state law. We hold that in such circumstances a District Court cannot refuse to discharge the responsibility, imposed by Congress under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332 and 1441, to render prompt justice in cases where its diversity jurisdiction has been properly invoked.
The Board of County Commissioners of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, invoked the applicable eminent domain statutes of the State to appropriate certain property of respondents, citizens of Wisconsin, for the alleged purpose of improving and enlarging the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. The Board adopted the required resolution of taking, and thereafter petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for appointment of a Board of Viewers to assess damages for the taking. A Board of Viewers was convened and awarded the respondents $52,644 in compensation for their property. Both 'parties appealed this award to the Common Pleas Court pursuant to the state procedure, and that proceeding is now pending. Subsequent to the time when the County' obtained possession respondents learned that their property had been leased to Martin W. Wise, Inc., allegedly for its private business use. The applicable Pennsylvania substantive law is clear: “It is settled law in Pennsylvania that private property cannot be taken for a private use under the power of eminent domain.” Philadelphia Clay Co. v. York Clay Co., 241 Pa. 305, 308, 88 A. 487; see also Winger v. Aires, 371 Pa. 242, 89 A. 2d 521; Lance’s Appeal, 55 Pa. 16.
On the basis of this settled law respondents brought süit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that “at the time of thé taking the only definite plan and-purpose of the County with regard to .said land was that the same would be leased to defendant Martin W. Wise, Inc. for the benefit of the said lessée and for no public use,” and seeking a judgment of ouster against the County and Martin W. Wise, Inc., damages,' and, in the alternative, an injunction restraining the County, from proceeding further in the pending state court damage proceeding. The District Court, although recognizing that its diversity jurisdiction had been properly invoked, dismissed the suit on the ground .that it “should not interfere with the administration of the affairs of a political subdivision acting under color of State law in a .condemnation proceeding.” 154 F. Supp. 628, 629. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a challenge to the validity of a taking such as respondents make in this case may, and perhaps must, be brought in an independent suit different from the Board of Viewers proceeding to assess damages, and that such an independent. suit based on diversity of citizenship could therefore be maintained in the District Court. 256 F. 2d 241. We granted certiorari because of the important question presented as to whether the District Court had discretion to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case. 358 U. S. 872.
The doctrine of abstention,, under which a District Court may decline to exercise or postpone the exercise of its. jurisdiction, is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District'Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified under this, doctrine only" in the exceptional circumstances where the order-to-the parties to repair to. the state court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest. Since no exceptional circumstances justifying abstention appear in this case we think that the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the District Court should have adjudicated the respondents’ claim.
This Court has sanctioned a federal court’s postponement of the exercise of its jurisdiction in cases presenting a federal constitutional issue which might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a state court determination of pertinent state law. See, e. g., City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639; Government Employees Organizing Comm. v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364; Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States, 352 U. S. 220; Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242; Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U. S. 321; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368; American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450; Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101; Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, Inc., 316 U. S. 168; Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496. But there are no federal constitutional questions raised in this case.
This Court has also dpheld an abstention on grounds of comity with the States when the exercise of jurisdiction by. the federal court would disrupt a state administrative process, Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315; Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U. S. 176, interfere with the collection of state taxes, Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 392; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, or otherwise create needless friction by unnecessarily enjoining state officials from executing domestic policies, Alabama Public Service Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., 341 U. S. 341; Hawks v. Hamill, 288 U. S. 52. But adjudication of the issues in this case by the District Court woúld present no hazard of disrupting federal-state relations. The. respondents did not ask the District Court to apply paramount federal law to prohibit state, officials from carrying out state domestic policies, nor do they seek the obvious irritant to state-federal relations of an injunction against state officials. The only question for decision is the purely factual question whether the County expropriated the respondents! land for private rather than for public use. The District Court would simply be acting as would a court of the State in applying to the facts of this case the settled state policy that a County may not take a private citizen’s land under the State’s power of eminent domain except for public use.
It is true that a decision by the District Court returning the land to respondents on the ground that the taking was invalid would interfere' with the proceeding to assess damages now 'pending in the state court in the sense that the damage proceeding would be mooted since the County would no longer have the land. But this, interference, if properly called interference at all, cannot justify abstention since exactly the same suit to contest the validity of the taking could be brought in a state court different from the one in which the damage proceeding is no4 pending. It is perfectly clear under Pennsylvania law' that the respondents could have challenged the validity of the taking, on the ground that it was not for public purposes, in a suit brought in a Court of Common .Pleas independent of the damage"proceedings pending on appeal from the Board of Viewers. The Court of‘ Appeals’ opinion instructs us as to the state procedure which would have applied if respondent's had chosen the state forum: “These [Pennsylvania] authorities establish the propriety, if not the necessity, of testing the validity of a. condemnation in a proceeding in the Pennsylvania .courts independent of that in which compensation is awarded.” 256 F. 2d, at 243. Again the Court of Appeals stated: “the question involved before the federal court need not, and perhaps cannot, be raised in the pending state action . .. .” Ibid. We, of course, usually accept-state law as found by the Court of Appeals, see Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472; The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588, 596, and we have no hesitancy in doing so here where there is no indication that its conclusion as to the state law is not correct. The issues of validity and damage are triable separately not because federal jurisdiction has been invoked, but because they are triable separately under the Pennsylvania law. Respondents, it bears repetition, could have brought this very suit in a state court different from the one in which the damage proceeding is pending and an adjudication of that validity suit by the state court would have the same effect on the pending damage proceeding as will the federal court adjudication. Instead of bringing such a suit in the state court, respondents -exercised their right under 28 U. S. C. § 1332 to institute the equivalent suit in the District Court based on diversity of citizenship. Certainly considerations of comity are satisfied if the District Court acts toward the pending' state damage proceeding in the same manner as would a state court.
It is suggested, however, that abstention is justified on grounds of avoiding the hazard of friction in fechral-state relations any time a District Court is called on to adjudicate a case involving the State’s power of eminent domain, even though, as in this case, the District Court would simply be applying state law in the same manner as would a sti^te court. But the fact that a’ case concerns a ■ State’s power óf eminent domain no more justifies abstention than the fact that it involves any other issue related-'to sovereignty. Surely eminent domain is. no more mystically involved with “sovereign prerogative” than a State’s power to regulate fishing in its waters, Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, its power to regulate intrastate trucking rates, Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, 355 U. S. 534, a city’s power to issue certain bonds without a referendum, Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U. S. 228, its power to license motor vehicles, Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77, and a host of other governmental activities carried on by the States and their subdivisions which have been brought into question in the Federal District Courts despite suggestions that those courts should have stayed their hand pending prior state court determination of state law.
Furthermore, the federal courts have been adjudicating cases involving, issues of state eminent domain law for many years, without any' suggestion that there was entailed a hazard of friction, in federal-state relations. A host of cases, many in this Court, have approved the decision by a federal court-of precisely the same kind of-state eminent domain question which the District Court was asked to decide in this case. This Court approved such a decision as early as 1878, in Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403. There the petitioner, a private corporation authorized to utilize the State’s power of eminent domain, moved in a state' court to condemn respondent’s land’ Both parties appealed from an award.by Commissioners, as provided by the relevant state statute, to a state court for a trial de novo. . At this point, respondent'removed the case'to a federal court oh the'basis of diversity of citizenship. This Court, while recognizing that eminent domain is “an exercise by the State of its sovereign right . . . and with its exercise the United States . . . has no right to' interfere . . . /’ held that the removal was proper and that the federal court correctly adjudicated the issues involved. The Court concluded: “But notwithstanding the right is one that appertains to sovereignty, when the sovereign power attaches conditions to its exercise, the inquiry whether the conditions have been observed is a proper matter for judicial cognizance. If that inquiry take the form of a proceeding before the courts between parties, . . . there is a controversy' which,is subject to the ordinary incidents of a civil suit, and its determination derogates in no respect from the sovereignty of the State.” 98 U. S., at 406. This rationale was subsequently applied by this Court to uphold adjudication of state eminent domain proceedings involving suits between diverse parties in the federal courts even though the procedures available would not be the same as those provided by the state practice, Searl v. School District No. 2, 124 U. S. 197, and even though the case involved the power of the condemning authority to take the property, Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1, 17-23.
It is now settled practice for Federal District Courts to decide state condemnation proceedings in proper cases despite, challenges to the power of the condemning authority to take the property. This Court has approved of the practice many times. East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R. Co. v. Southern Telegraph Co., 112 U. S. 306; Clinton v. Missouri P. R. Co., 122 U. S. 469; Upshur County v. Rich, 135 U. S. 467, 475-477 (dictum); Martin’s Adm’r v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 683 (dictum); Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U. S. 239; Mason City and Fort Dodge R. Co. v. Boynton, 204 U. S. 570; Commissioners of Lafayette County v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 257 U. S. 547 (dictum); Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U. S. 439. Cf. Risty v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 270 U. S. 378. Trial of state eminent domain cases has become a common practice in the federal courts. Indeed, Rule 71A of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the Court in 1951, provides a detailed procedure for use in eminent domain cases in the Federal District Courts and specifically provides, in subsection (k)', “The practice as herein prescribed governs in actions involving the exercise of the power of eminent domain under the law of a state, provided that if the state law makes provision for trial of any issue by jury, or for trial of the issue of compensation by jury or commission or both, that provision shall be followed.” This Rule makes perfectly clear, as do the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules pertaining to it, that this Court, when it adopted the Rule, intended that state eminent domain cases, including those which raised questions of authority to take land, would be tried in the Federal District Courts if jurisdiction was properly invoked. This was confirmed by this Court's opinion in Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U. S. 574. Although holding that the respondent could not remove a state condemnation case to the Federal District Court on diversity grounds because he was the plaintiff in the state proceeding, the Court clearly recognized that the defendant in such a proceeding could remove in accordance with § 1441 and obtain a federal adjudication of the issues involved.
There is no suggestion that the state eminent domain proceedings tried in the federal courts, both before and after promulgation of the Rule 71A procedures, have resulted in misapplication of state law, inconvenience, or friction with the States. Rule 71A was adopted only after a thorough investigation of eminent domain practice in the federal courts, and its provision for trying state eminent domain cases in the District Courts necessarily reflects a'conclusion that this practice is unobjectionable.
Aside from the complete absence of any possibility that a District Court adjudication in this case would necessitate decision of a federal constitutional issue or conflict with state policy, the state law that the District Court was asked to apply, is clear and certain. All that was'necéssary for the District Court td dispose of this case was to determine whether, as a matter of fact, the respondents’ property was taken for the private use of Martin W. Wise, Inc. The propriety óf a federal adjudication in this case follows . a fortiori from the established principle that Federal District Courts should apply settled state law without abstaining from .the exercise of jurisdiction even though this course w.ould require decision of difficult federal constitutional questions. Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77; Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, 355 U. S. 534; Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385.
The, uhdesirability of a refusal to exercise jurisdiction in the absence of exceptional circumstances which clearly justify an abstention is demonstrated by the facts of this case. Respondents have consumed considerable time and expense in pursuing their claim that their property has been unlawfully taken. To order them out of the federal court would accomplish nothing except to require still another lawsuit, with added delay and expense for all parties. This would-be a particular hardship for the respondents, who, besides incurring, the added expense, would also suffer a further prolonged unlawful denial of the possession of their property if ultimately they prevail against the County and its lessee. It exacts a severe penalty from citizens for their attempt to exercise rights of access to the federal courts granted them by Congress to deny them “that promptness of decision which in all judicial actions is one of the elements of justice.” Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 513.
Two other contentions raised by the County can be disposed of quickly. The County argues that the Board of Viewers has established jurisdiction over the land in question and thus the rule applies that when one court has assumed jurisdiction over a res, no other court will undertake to enter a judgment which might be incompatible with the disposition ultimately to be made by the first court. The short answer to this contention is that the Board of Viewers under Pennsylvania law does not have in rem jurisdiction over property. This is apparent from the fact that an independent proceeding lies to question the validity of the taking of property which is the subject of a Board of Viewers’ proceeding. The “damage” proceeding is simply an in personam suit to determine what the State must pay for property it appropriates; it does not require or contemplate control of the res by the Board of Viewers.
The County also urges that a decision by the District Court holding the taking to be invalid would be barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2283. That section provides:
“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”'
The County’s theory is that a holding that the taking was invalid and an order reconveying the land to respondents would be res judicata on the parties in the Board of Viewers’ proceedings. Since the County would no longer have the land, that proceeding to determine/the compensation due for the taking of the land would be mooted. But it has been firmly established under the language of § 2283, which has, in substance, been in force since first enacted in § 5 of the Act of March 2, 1793, that a federal suit is not barred merely because a holding in the case might be res judicata on the same parties litigating the same issue in a. state court and thereby moot the state proceeding. Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226, settled the governing principle. In that case diversity jurisdiction had been invoked to adjudicate an alleged breach of contract. The defendant in the federal- court proceeding had initiated a suit in a state court to adjudicate the same issue. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal District Court should have issued a' requested injunction to stay the state court proceedings. This Court held that a statute similar to present § 2283 barred the injunction, but that the District Court could adjudicate the breach of contract issue even though its holding would be decisive of the state case.. The Court stated that “the rule ... has become generally established that where the action first brought is in personam and seeks only a personal judgment,' another action for the same cause in another jurisdiction .is not precluded.”, 260 U. S., at 230. Congress in enacting § 2283 expressed no intention to modify this firmly established principle. Thus there is no reason to expand the plain wording of § 2283 which bars only injunctions designed to stay state court proceedings. The respondents’ suit in the District Court was for a judgment of ouster. They abandoned the claim for an injunction against the state court and against the County. It follows that § 2283 would not bar the relief requested in the District Court.
Affirmed.
The prayer for injunctive relief-was expressly abandoned in'oral' argument before this Court.
The Court of Appeals’ conclusion as to the Pennsylvania law is amply supported .by Pennsylvania authorities. E. g., Spann v. Joint Boards of School Directors, 381 Pa. 338, 113 A. 2d 281; Pioneer Coal Co. v. Cherrytree & D. R. Co., 272 Pa. 43, 116 A. 45; Philadelphia Clay Co. v. York Clay Co., 241 Pa. 305, 88 A. 487. See also 14 Standard Pa. Practice, c. 71, §§ 230, 231, 233, 235.
The basis for federal court adjudication of state eminent domain proceedings was established even before this. In Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67; Union Bank v. Jolly’s Adm’rs, 18 How. 503; and Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170, this Court held that the federal courts would decide diversity cases even though they involved issues, such as thé validity of a will, which were peculiarly within the State’s competence to regulate. The principles were'clearly settled in Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10. That case concerned a suit “to annul [a will] ... as a muniment of title, and to limit the operation of the decree admitting it to probate.” 92 U. S., at 20. The case, originally brought- in a state court, -was removed to a federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. This Court upheld the removal on the ground that, although the State had authority to' establish the'substantive,law relevant to the validity of wills and the procedure by which wills were to be contested, if, under the scheme developed by the State, a controversy arose between citizens of different States, the federal courts would adjudicate that controversy. These principles were further articulated in Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529. This. Court has. often upheld federal court determinations of state law concerning wills, e. g., Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485; Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U. S. 73, even when the State itself claimed the decedent’s property by escheat, McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268.
E. g., Wabash R. Co. v. Duncan, 170 F. 2d 38; Franzen v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 278 F. 370; In re Bensel, 206 F. 369; Broadmoor Land Co. v. Curr, 142 F. 421; South Dakota Cent. R. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 141 F. 578; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. 10 Parcels of Real Estate Located in Madison County, Iowa, 159 F. Supp. 140; Williams Live Stock Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 285 F. 795; Deepwater R. Co. v. Western Pocahontas Coal & Lumber Co., 152 F. 824; Union Terminal R. Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 119 F. 209; Kirby v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 106 F. 551; Sugar Creek, P. B. & P. C. R. Co. v. McKell, 75 F. 34; Kansas City & T. R. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 F. 3; Mineral Range R. Co. v. Detroit & Lake Superior Copper Co., 25 F. 515; City of Chicago v. Hutchinson, 15 F. 129. Cf. Kaw Valley Drainage District v. Metropolitan Water Co., 186 F. 315; Fishblatt v. Atlantic City, 174 F. 196; Adams v. City of Woburn, 174 F. 192; Kansas City v. Hennegan, 152 F. 249. See also 7 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.) § 71A.11; 6 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3d ed.) § 27.8 [2].
Note to Subdivision fk), Notes to Rule 71A of Advisory Committee on Rules, printed at 28 U. S. C. A. Rule 71A (1958 Pocket Part).
See Notes to Rule 71A of Advisory Committee on Rules, note 8, supra; see also 7 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.) § 71A.120; 64 Yale L. J. 600.
The language of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 has been retained substantially unchanged from its original form in § 5 of the Act of March 2, 1793, 1 Stat. 334-335. For a discussion of its origin and history, see Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns a claim of age discrimination said to be in violation of § 15 (the federal employees' component) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as added by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, 88 Stat. 74, and amended, 29 U. S. C. § 633a.
I
Petitioner Charles Z. Stevens III is an employee of the United States Internal Revenue Service (Service). In August 1986, when he was 63 years of age, Stevens was accepted into the Service's Revenue Officer Training Program at Austin, Tex., and assumed probationary status as a civil service employee. On April 27, 1987, he was advised that his performance in the program was not satisfactory. He then requested a transfer out of the program and a demotion, rather than face separation from the Service. Believing that he had been the victim of age discrimination, Stevens on May 21 wrote his Congressman for assistance. See App. 8. That inquiry proved to be nonproductive.
In September 1987, petitioner attempted to invoke his agency's administrative procedure for resolving age discrimination complaints through an initial meeting with an Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor. This, however, was long after the expiration of the 30-day period prescribed for such an application by 29 CFR §§ 1613.511, 1613.512, and 1613.214(a)(1)(i) (1990). On October 19, petitioner filed a formal administrative complaint of age discrimination with the Department of the Treasury. App. 11. At the end of that complaint was the following statement: “This is also my notice of intention to sue in U. S. Civil District Court if the matter is not satisfactorily resolved.” Id., at 15. The complaint was rejected, it was said, because of the delay in seeking a meeting with the counselor and because there was no showing of good cause for not complying with the 30-day requirement. Id., at 16. This action was described by the Director of the Regional Complaints Center as “a final agency decision.” Id., at 19. On petitioner’s appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Office of Review and Appeals, the rejection for untimeliness was affirmed on March 30, 1988. Id., at 20.
On May 3, 1988, petitioner filed pro se his complaint against the Department of the Treasury and its Secretary in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Id., at 2. At an ensuing hearing, petitioner was represented by counsel. The defense moved to dismiss the action on the ground that petitioner had failed to establish any basis for tolling the 30-day period. Id., at 22. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-l. It noted: “[A]n employee who believes that he has been discriminated against because of age has two avenues of relief under the ADEA”: he either “may proceed directly to federal court and initiate an action no later than 180 days from the unlawful action and notify the EEOC within 30 days prior to commencing suit,” id., at A-3, citing 29 U. S. C. §633a(d), or he “may file an administrative complaint with the employing federal agency and appeal an adverse finding to the” EEOC, in which case he “may bring a federal civil action only after exhausting his administrative remedies,” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-3, citing 29 U. S. C. §633a(b). The court reasoned that the alternative administrative procedure, which petitioner had attempted, had not properly been invoked because of the untimeliness of Stevens’ complaint and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court therefore concluded that it was “without jurisdiction” to apply the ADEA “to the circumstances of Stevens’ demotion in April, 1987.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-3 to A-4.
Petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, that court disagreed with the District Court’s statement that the employee could go directly to federal court “no later than 180 days from the unlawful action.” It said that Stevens had to file a notice of intent to sue within 180 days of the allegedly discriminatory action but that he did not have to initiate his federal suit within that period. Id., at A-7. The court went on to say: “However, Stevens did not initiate the present action in federal court until May [3], 1988[;] therefore Stevens’ notice to the EEOC, of October 19, 1987 was not effective.” Ibid. The court concluded: “Although the district court did not state the applicable law correctly, ultimately the correct result was reached since Stevens failed to meet the requirements set forth in 29 U. S. C. 633a(d).” Id., at A-8. The District Court’s dismissal was affirmed. Judgt. order reported at 897 F. 2d 526 (1990).
We granted certiorari over respondents’ opposition because of what appeared to us to be a clear misreading by the lower courts of the applicable and important federal statute. 498 U. S. 957 (1990).
II
As the District Court noted in its opinion, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-3, § 15 of the ADEA provides two alternative routes for pursuing a claim of age discrimination. An individual may invoke the EEOC’s administrative process and then file a civil action in federal district court if he is not satisfied with his administrative remedies. See 29 U. S. C. §§633a(b) and (c). A federal employee complaining of age discrimination, however, does not have to seek relief from his employing agency or the EEOC at all. He can decide to present the merits of his claim to a federal court in the first instance. See §633a(d). Both routes to court are implicated in this case. We address the direct route first.
Section 15(d) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 633a(d), reads:
“When the individual has not filed a complaint concerning age discrimination with the Commission, no civil action may be commenced by any individual under this section until the individual has given the Commission not less than thirty days’ notice of an intent to file such action. Such notice shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred.” (Emphasis added.)
The District Court obviously misread this statute when it said that the federal employee “may proceed directly to federal court and initiate an action no later than 180 days from the unlawful action and notify the EEOC within 30 days prior to commencing suit.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-3 (emphasis added). The court thus imposed a requirement that the federal court action be instituted within the 180-day period and an additional requirement that the EEOC be notified within 30 days prior to the commencement of the suit. But the statute reads otherwise as to both requirements. It calls for a notice of not less than 30 days to the Commission of an intent to sue (not notification within 30 days), and it provides that the notice shall be filed with the Commission within 180 days of the alleged unlawful practice (not filed within 180 days of the notice). Clearly, petitioner Stevens met both requirements. The EEOC was notified on October 19, 1987, the 176th day after the alleged discriminatory action — petitioner’s transfer and demotion of April 27, 1987 — had occurred. And suit was not filed until May 3, 1988, a date more than 30 days after the notice was given.
The Court of Appeals corrected one of the District Court’s two errors:
“Contrary to what the district court stated, Stevens had to file a notice of intent to sue with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. Stevens did not have to initiate his federal action within 180 days of the alleged action, but merely give notice to the EEOC of his intention to initiate a civil action.” Id., at A-7.
But the Court of Appeals then added the sentence already noted: “However, Stevens did not initiate the present action in federal court until May 4, 1988[;] therefore Stevens’ notice to the EEOC, of October 19, 1987 was not effective.” This enigmatic sentence surely implies, even if it does not say so directly, that the court was not in disagreement with the District. Court’s second error — that the federal litigation had to be commenced within 30 days of the notice, instead of after 30 days from the notice. We note, at this point, that the District Court’s and Court of Appeals’ error in their reading of the statute has also been replicated by two other courts. See Castro v. United States, 775 F. 2d 399, 403 (CA1 1985); McKinney v. Dole, 246 U. S. App. D. C. 376, 387, 765 F. 2d 1129, 1140 (1985). The applicable regulations are positive as to the absence of such a “within 30 days” requirement under the ADEA, in marked contrast with the situation concerning the assertion of a Title VII claim. See 29 CFR §1613.514 (1990). Respondents concede all this, for they say that “the statute is clear.” Brief for Respondents 29.
There is no foundation that we can discern for any conclusion that the suit was not filed within the applicable period of limitations. The statute does not expressly impose any additional limitations period for a complaint of age discrimination. We therefore assume, as we have before, that Congress intended to impose an appropriate period borrowed either from a state statute or from an analogous federal one. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U. S. 143, 146-148 (1987). In this case, we need not decide which limitations period is applicable to a civil action under 29 U. S. C. §633a(c). Stevens filed his suit on May 3, 1988, only one year and six days after the allegedly discriminatory event of April 27, 1987. That, as respondents acknowledge, Brief for Respondents 30, “is well within whatever statute of limitations might apply to the action.”
HH WH
The Solicitor General, however, submits that the petition for certiorari should be dismissed as having been improvidently granted. Id., at 31. He rests this submission on the argument that petitioner did not properly present the merits of the timeliness issue to the Court of Appeals, and that this Court should not address that question for the first time. Id., at 8-9, 11-15. He made the same argument in his opposition to the petition for certiorari. Brief in Opposition 5-7. We rejected that argument in granting certiorari, and we reject it again now because the Court of Appeals, like the District Court before it, decided the substantive issue presented.
The District Court heard the case on the merits. Tr. 83-176. The Court of Appeals in its turn specifically referred to Stevens’ notice of intention to file a civil suit, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-7, and, as we have explained, answered the timeliness question incorrectly. We thus are satisfied that the issue is properly before us.
<
Answering the timeliness question in petitioner s favor, as we have, brings us to an issue involving the administrative route to federal court. Once petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint, was he required to exhaust his administrative remedies in order to file a civil action in district court? The Court of Appeals expressly stated its Circuit rule on exhaustion just eight days after it issued the opinion below. In White v. Frank, 895 F. 2d 243, 244 (CA5), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 890 (1990), the court said: “[A]n ADEA plaintiff who chooses to appeal the employer’s determination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . . . must await final action by that agency before filing an action in federal district court.” The exhaustion issue has divided the Circuits. Compare, e. g., Langford v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 839 F. 2d 1192, 1194-1195 (CA6 1988), with Purtill v. Harris, 658 F. 2d 134, 138 (CA3 1981), cert. denied, 462 U. S. 1131 (1983).
Although the issue is an important one, it is here that we encounter procedural difficulty. Respondents in direct contradiction of their position before the Court of Appeals, now fully agree with petitioner on the merits of the exhaustion issue. According to the Solicitor General, a federal employee who elects agency review of an age discrimination claim need not exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing a civil action. Respondents have thus abandoned the position that they took before the Court of Appeals when, in their brief there, they said:
“If an employee files an administrative claim with his agency, the employee must properly exhaust his administrative remedies like employees alleging other types of discrimination ....
“It is well established that a federal employee must timely exhaust any administrative remedies available to him before he can bring suit .... Therefore, Judge Bunton properly dismissed Mr. Stevens’ cause of action because Mr. Stevens did not meet the administrative requirements.” Brief for Appellees in No. 89-1432 (CA5), pp. 6-7.
Respondents, of course, acknowledge this, Tr. of Oral Arg. 17, and concede that they indeed “took a different position,” id., at 22. They candidly say that “we have reconsidered our position.” Id., at 33.
It is all well and good for respondents to rethink their position. Their choice, however, has meant that on the merits there is no one before us who stands in a position adverse to petitioner. Neither is there anyone before us who defends the results reached in those décided cases where Courts of Appeals have found an exhaustion requirement when administrative relief is sought before a court action is instituted. See, e. g., McGinty v. United States Department of the Army, 900 F. 2d 1114 (CA7 1990); Castro v. United States, 775 F. 2d 399 (CA1 1985); Purtill v. Harris, supra. Those cases stand in conflict with the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Langford v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra.
In each of these cited cases, the United States put forward the exhaustion requirement. We must assume, in view of the Solicitor General’s concession here, that the Government no longer will defend its earlier litigation position.
Under these circumstances we are disinclined to rule on the merits of the exhaustion issue. We feel that our only proper course is to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and to remand the case for further proceedings. On remand, the defense presumably (and it is a strong presumption) will submit to the Court of Appeals its altered positions — that there is no exhaustion issue at all in this case because petitioner did not institute his court action until after a final decision of the agency had been made — and, if that submission is not accepted by the court, that respondents now have withdrawn from the stance they took before the Court of Appeals on the merits. In either event, petitioner Stevens finally should gain his day in court and will not have all avei ues to relief completely blocked.
Meanwhile, to be sure, the rulings in McGinty, Castro, and Purtill, and any other ruling to the same effect will remain outstanding and in conflict with Langford. There is little or nothing, by way of disagreement or agreement with those cases, that this Court should do in the present litigation. The cases may be respectively challenged or supported by some future litigant in a way that will lead to a definitive resolution of the existing conflict in authority. If this does not come about, then, because of the Government’s change of mind and new position, any legal significance of the conflict may simply fade away with the passage of time.
Reversed and remanded.
The EEOC accepts a notice given to the employing agency as sufficient compliance with the statutory notice requirement. See Management Directive EEO-MD 107, ch. 12, pp. 12-2 and 12-3 (1987).
Indeed, when Stevens formally was advised of his right to sue, he was told: “[Y]ou MAY have up to six years after the right of action first accrued in which to file a civil action.” This was a reference to the general statute of limitations, 28 U. S. C. § 2401(a), for a civil action against the Government. See Brief for Respondents 30, n. 22.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This Court has held that once a State posits a judicially enforceable right of children to support from their natural fathers, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State from denying that same right to illegitimate children. Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S. 535 (1973). In this case we are required to determine the extent to which the right of illegitimate children recognized in Gomez may be circumscribed by a State’s interest in avoiding the prosecution of stale or fraudulent claims. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals, Thirteenth Supreme Judicial District, upheld against federal constitutional challenges the State’s one-year statute of limitation for suits to identify the natural fathers of illegitimate children. We noted probable jurisdiction. 451 U. S. 936. We begin by reviewing the history of the statute challenged by appellant.
I
Like all States, Texas imposes upon parents the primary responsibility for support of their legitimate children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. (Code) §§4.02, 12.04(3) (1975 and Supp. 1982). That duty extends beyond the dissolution of marriage, Code § 14.05, regardless of whether the parent has custody of the child, Hooten v. Hooten, 15 S. W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. 1929), and may be enforced on the child’s behalf in civil proceedings. Code § 14.05(a). Prior to our decision in Gomez, Texas recognized no enforceable duty on the part of a natural father to support his illegitimate children. See Home of the Holy Infancy v. Kaska, 397 S. W. 2d 208 (Tex. 1965); Lane v. Phillips, 69 Tex. 240, 6 S. W. 610 (1887); Bjorgo v. Bjorgo, 391 S. W. 2d 528 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965). A natural father could even assert illegitimacy as a defense to prosecution for criminal nonsupport. See Curtin v. State, 155 Tex. Crim. 625, 238 S. W. 2d 187 (1950).
Reviewing the Texas law in Gomez, we held that “a State may not invidiously discriminate against illegitimate children by denying them substantial benefits accorded children generally.” 409 U. S., at 538. “[O]nce a State posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural fathers,” we stated, “there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to a child simply because its natural father has not married its mother.” Ibid. Although we recognized that “the lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity . . . are not to be lightly brushed aside,” we concluded that they did not justify “an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination.” Ibid. Accordingly, we held Texas’ denial of support rights to illegitimate children to be a denial of equal protection of law.
In response to our decision in Gomez, the Texas Legislature considered legislation that would have provided illegitimate children with a cause of action to establish the paternity of their natural fathers and would have imposed upon those fathers the same duty of support owed to legitimate children. The legislature did not enact that legislation, however, choosing instead to establish a procedure by which natural fathers voluntarily could legitimate their illegitimate children and thereby take upon themselves the obligation of supporting those children. Texas Dept. of Human Resources v. Hernandez, 595 S. W. 2d 189, 191 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980). No provision was made for illegitimate children to seek support from fathers who fail to support them.
Not suprisingly, this legislation was found by Texas courts to be an inadequate response to Gomez. A panel of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals held that, because of Gomez, “[w]hen the Legislature later provided judicial relief against the father on behalf of a legitimate child for support, it necessarily provided the same relief on behalf of an illegitimate child.” In re R - V - M -, 530 S. W. 2d 921, 922-923 (1975). Only after this judicial recognition of a right to support did the Texas Legislature establish procedures for a paternity and support action on behalf of illegitimate children. Texas Dept. of Human Resources v. Hernandez, supra, at 191.
The rights of illegitimate children to obtain support from their biological fathers are now governed by Chapter 13 of Title 2 of the Code § 13.01 et seq. The Code recognizes that establishment of paternity is the necessary first step in all suits by illegitimate children for support from their natural fathers. See In re Miller, 605 S. W. 2d 332, 334 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980); Texas Dept. of Human Resources v. Delley, 581 S. W. 2d 519, 522 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979). Accordingly, Chapter 13 establishes procedures to be followed in judicial determinations of paternity and works in conjunction with other provisions of the Code to establish the duty of fathers to support their illegitimate children. See Code §§ 12.04, 14.05. Once paternity has been determined, Chapter 13 authorizes the court to order the defendant father “to make periodic payments or a lump-sum payment, or both, for the support of the child until he is 18 years of age,” Code § 14.05(a). See Code § 13.42(b).
Although it granted illegitimate children the opportunity to obtain support by establishing paternity, Texas was less than generous. It significantly truncated that opportunity by the statutory provision at issue in this case, § 13.01:
“A suit to establish the parent-child relationship between a child who is not the legitimate child of a man and the child’s natural father by proof of paternity must be brought before the child is one year old, or the suit is barred.”
Texas views this provision as part of the substantive right accorded illegitimate children, not simply as a procedural limitation on that right. Texas Dept. of Human Resources v. Hernandez, supra, at 192-193. Moreover, Texas courts have applied § 13.01 literally to mean that failure to bring suit on behalf of illegitimate children within the first year of their life “results in [their] being forever barred from the right to sue their natural father for child support, a limitation their legitimate counterparts do not share.” In re Miller, supra, at 334. Thus, in response to the constitutional requirements of Gomez, Texas has created a one-year window in its previously “impenetrable barrier,” through which an illegitimate child may establish paternity and obtain paternal support.
h — t HH
Appellant in this case is the mother of a child born out of wedlock in early 1977. In October 1978, she and the Texas Department of Human Resources, to which appellant had assigned the child’s support rights, brought suit on behalf of the child to establish that appellee was his natural father. Appellee answered by asserting that the action was barred by § 13.01 because the child was one year and seven months old when the suit was filed. The trial court agreed with ap-pellee and dismissed the suit.
The dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, and discretionary review was denied by the Texas Supreme Court upon a finding of no reversible error. The Court of Civil Appeals, relying upon its decision in Texas Dept, of Human Resources v. Hernandez, 595 S. W. 2d 189 (1980), held that the one-year limitation was not tolled during minority and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Hernandez decision in turn relied upon the constitutional analysis in Texas Dept, of Human Resources v. Chapman, 570 S. W. 2d 46 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978), where another division of the Court of Civil Appeals had found that “the legitimate state interest in precluding the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims” was rationally related to the one-year bar and therefore did not deny illegitimate children equal protection of the law. Id., at 49.
Appellant argues that the § 13.01 bar imposes a burden on illegitimate children that is not shared by legitimate children, and that the burden is not justified by the State’s interest in avoiding the prosecution of stale or fraudulent claims. In addition, appellant argues that §13.01 deprives illegitimate children of their right to support without due process of law. Because we agree with appellant’s first argument, we need not consider her second.
III
Our decision in Gomez held that “a State may not invidiously discriminate against illegitimate children by denying them substantial benefits accorded children generally.” 409 U. S., at 538. Specifically, we held that a State which grants an opportunity for legitimate children to obtain paternal support must also grant that opportunity to illegitimate children. If Gomez and the equal protection principles which underlie it are to have any meaning, it is clear that the support opportunity provided by the State to illegitimate children must be more than illusory. The period for asserting the right to support must be sufficiently long to permit those who normally have an interest in such children to bring an action on their behalf despite the difficult personal, family, and financial circumstances that often surround the birth of a child outside of wedlock. It would hardly satisfy the demands of equal protection and the holding of Gomez to remove an “impenetrable barrier” to support, only to replace it with an opportunity so truncated that few could utilize it effectively.
The fact that Texas must provide illegitimate children with a bona fide opportunity to obtain paternal support does not mean, however, that it must adopt procedures for illegitimate children that are coterminous with those accorded legitimate children. Paternal support suits on behalf of illegitimate children contain an element that such suits for legitimate children do not contain: proof of paternity. Such proof is often sketchy and strongly contested, frequently turning upon conflicting testimony from only two witnesses. Indeed, the problems of proving paternity have been recognized repeatedly by this Court. Parham v. Hughes, 441 U. S. 347, 357, 361 (1979); Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259, 269 (1978); Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 772 (1977); Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S., at 538.
Therefore, in support suits by illegitimate children more than in support suits by legitimate children, the State has an interest in preventing the prosecution of stale or fraudulent claims, and may impose greater restrictions on the former than it imposes on the latter. Such restrictions will survive equal protection scrutiny to the extent they are substantially related to a legitimate state interest. See Lalli v. Lalli, supra, at 265; Trimble v. Gordon, supra, at 767; Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 510 (1976). The State’s interest in avoiding the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims will justify those periods of limitation that are sufficiently long to present a real threat of loss or diminution of evidence, or an increased vulnerability to fraudulent claims.
The equal protection analysis in this case, therefore, focuses on two related requirements. First, the period for obtaining support granted by Texas to illegitimate children must be sufficiently long in duration to present a reasonable opportunity for those with an interest in such children to assert claims on their behalf. Second, any time limitation placed on that opportunity must be substantially related to the State’s interest in avoiding the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims. Applying these two requirements to the one-year right granted by Texas, we find a denial of equal protection.
By granting illegitimate children only one year in which to establish paternity, Texas has failed to provide them with an adequate opportunity to obtain support. Paternity suits in Texas “may be brought by any person with an interest in the child,” Code § 11.03, but during the child’s early years will often be brought by the mother. It requires little experience to appreciate the obstacles to such suits that confront unwed mothers during the child’s first year. Financial difficulties caused by childbirth expenses or a birth-related loss of income, continuing affection for the child’s father, a desire to avoid disapproval of family and community, or the emotional strain and confusion that often attend the birth of an illegitimate child all encumber a mother’s filing of a paternity suit within 12 months of birth. Even if the mother seeks public financial assistance and assigns the child’s support claim to the State, it is not improbable that 12 months would elapse without the filing of a claim. Several months could pass before a mother finds the need to seek such assistance, takes steps to obtain it, and is willing to join the State in litigation against the natural father. A sense of the inadequacy of this one-year period is accentuated by a realization that failure to file within 12 months “results in illegitimates being forever barred from the right to sue their natural father for child support,” In re Miller, 605 S. W. 2d, at 334, while legitimate children may seek such support at any time until the age of 18.
Moreover, this unrealistically short time limitation is not substantially related to the State’s interest in avoiding the prosecution of stale or fraudulent claims. In Gomez we recognized that the problems of proof in paternity suits “are not to be lightly brushed aside,” but held that such problems do not justify a complete denial of support rights to illegitimate children. 409 U. S., at 538. Neither do they justify a period of limitation which so restricts those rights as effectively to extinguish them. We can conceive of no evidence essential to paternity suits that invariably will be lost in only one year, nor is it evident that the passage of 12 months will appreciably increase the likelihood of fraudulent claims.
Accordingly, we conclude that the one-year period for establishing paternity denies illegitimate children in Texas the equal protection of law. The judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Since the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision in this ease, the Texas Legislature has amended § 13.01 to increase to four years the period for asserting paternity claims. 1981 Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 674, § 2, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 13.01 (Supp. 1982). Appellee argues that this amendment renders appellant’s claim moot, or at least requires a remand so that the Texas courts can determine whether the amendment is retroactive. We disagree.
The case is not moot because § 13.01, as applied by the courts below, continues to stand as a bar to appellant’s assertion of a paternity claim against appellee. At the filing of appellant’s claim the child was more than one year old, and on September 1, 1981, the effective date of the amendment, the child was more than four years old.
It seems probable that the amendment would not be applied retroactively by Texas courts. “It is well established law in Texas that after a cause of action has become barred by a statute of limitation, the defendant has a vested right to rely on the statute as a defense, and the state legislature cannot divest the defendant of this right by thereafter lifting the bar of limitation which had accrued in favor of the defendant. Any statute that had such an effect would be considered a retroactive law violative of Article 1, sec. 16 of the Constitution of the State of Texas.” Penry v. Wm. Barr, Inc., 415 F. Supp. 126, 128 (ED Tex. 1976) (citations omitted). See also Mellinger v. City of Houston, 68 Tex. 37, 3 S. W. 249 (1887); Brant- ley v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 536 S. W. 2d 72, 74 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976); Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State, 380 S. W. 2d 123, 127 (Tex. Civ. App. 1964).
Prior to filing this support suit against appellee, appellant sought financial assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. As conditions to eligibility for such assistance, appellant was required “to assign the State any rights to support” held by the child, 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(26)(A), and “to cooperate with the State ... in establishing the paternity of [the] child born out of wedlock with respect to whom aid [was] claimed.” 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(26)(B)(i).
The decisions of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court are not officially reported.
Appellant contends that time limitations on the right of illegitimate children to prove paternity would never be justified by the State’s desire to avoid litigation of stale or fraudulent claims because “[t]he interests of the state, and those of the alleged father, to prevent incorrect claims of paternity are . . . protected by the recent advance in blood and genetic testing.” Brief for Appellant 29. We previously have recognized that blood tests are highly probative in proving paternity, Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1, 6-8 (1981), but disagree with appellant’s contention that their existence negates the State’s interest in avoiding the prosecution of stale or fraudulent claims.
Traditional blood tests do not prove paternity. They prove nonpater-nity, excluding from the class of possible fathers a high percentage of the general male population. H. Krause, Illegitimacy: Law and Social Policy 123-136 (1971). Thus, the fact that a certain male is not excluded by these tests does not prove that he is the child’s natural father, only that he is a member of the limited class of possible fathers. More recent developments in the field of blood testing have sought not only to “prove nonpater-nity” but also to predict paternity with a high degree of probability. See Terasaki, Resolution by HLA Testing of 1000 Paternity Cases Not Excluded by ABO Testing, 16 J. Fam. L. 543 (1978). The proper evidentiary weight to be given to these techniques is still a matter of academic dispute. See, e. g., Jaffee, Comment on the Judicial Use of HLA Paternity Test Results and Other Statistical Evidence: Response to Terasaki, 17 J. Fam. L. 457 (1979). Whatever evidentiary rule the courts of a particular State choose to follow, if the blood test evidence does not exclude a certain male, he must thereafter turn to more conventional forms of proof — evidence of lack of access to the mother, his own testimony, the testimony of others— to prove that, although not excluded by the blood test, he is not in fact the child’s father. As to this latter form of proof, the State clearly has an interest in litigating claims while the evidence is relatively fresh.
This interest is particularly real under Texas procedures. Texas law requires that putative fathers submit to blood tests. Code § 13.02. Refusal to submit to the tests may result in a citation for contempt, Code § 13.02(b), and may be introduced to the jury as evidence that the putative father has not been biologically excluded from the class of possible fathers. Code § 13.06(d). The results of the blood tests are introduced at a pretrial conference held for the purpose of dismissing the complaint if the father has been excluded by the tests from the class of possible fathers. Code §§ 13.04,13.05(a). Thus, the only paternity cases which actually go to trial in Texas are those in which the putative father has refused to submit to blood tests or has not been excluded by their results, cases in which conventional types of evidence are of paramount importance.
Lalli v. Lalli and Trimble v. Gordon involved the right of illegitimate children to inherit from their natural fathers, while Mathews v. Lucas involved the right of illegitimate children to receive social security benefits. There is no reason to think that the factual differences between those cases and the present case call for a variation of the general principle which those cases have laid down. In Lucas the Court expressly relied on Gomez v. Perez in reaching its result. 427 U. S., at 507. And in Lalli the requirement imposed by New York law for an illegitimate child to inherit from its natural father was that the paternity of the father be declared in a judicial proceeding sometime before his death. 439 U. S., at 263. Thus, even those of our eases which have dealt with entitlement to government benefits, or with the intestate distribution of a natural father’s property, have frequently involved support orders or adjudications of paternity as a means for establishing the entitlement or the right there sought.
See n. 2, supra.
The Texas Family Code imposes no period of limitation on the right of a legitimate child to obtain support from its father, a right which lasts until the child is 18 years old. § 14.05(a). Although Texas law includes a 4-year limitations period applicable to “[ejvery action ... for which no limitation is otherwise prescribed,” Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art., 5529 (Vernon 1982), the running of that period is tolled during minority. Art. 5535. See also In re Miller, 605 S. W. 2d, at 334.
Appellee contends that the one-year limitation of § 13.01 also is justified by the State’s “interest in the continuation of the institutions of family and marriage” and the avoidance of any state actions that would “discourage either institution or . . . encourage persons to have children out of wedlock.” Brief for Appellee 21. Important as such a state interest might be, we have repeatedly held that “imposing disabilities on the illegitimate child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing.” Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 175 (1972). See also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S., at 265; Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S., at 769-770; Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S., at 505.
The restrictions imposed by States to control problems of proof, like the restriction imposed by Texas in this case, often take the form of statutes of limitation. “Statutes of limitation find their justification in necessity and convenience rather than in logic. . . . They are practical and pragmatic devices to spare the courts from litigation of stale claims, and the citizen from being put to his defense after memories have faded, witnesses have died or disappeared, and evidence has been lost.” Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 314 (1945). Because such statutes “are by definition arbitrary,” ibid., they are best left to legislative determination and control. Normally, therefore, States are free to set periods of limitation without fear of violating some provision of the Constitution. In this case, however, the limitation period enacted by the Texas Legislature has the unusual effect of emasculating a right which the Equal Protection Clause requires the State to provide to illegitimate children.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner challenges, from the standpoint of both power and discretion, the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of this diversity negligence action under circumstances that follow.
The action, growing out of a collision between petitioner’s automobile and one of respondent’s trains, was commenced on August 24, 1954. Some six years later, and more than three years after petitioner had finally prevailed on respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (during which time two fixed trial dates had been postponed), the District Court, on September 29, 1960, duly notified counsel for each side of the scheduling of a pretrial conference to be held at the courthouse in Hammond, Indiana, on October 12, 1960, at 1 p. m. During the preceding morning, October 11, petitioner’s counsel telephoned respondent’s lawyer from Indianapolis, stating that “he was doing some work on some papers,” that he expected to be at the pretrial conference, but that he might not attend the taking of a deposition of the plaintiff scheduled for the same day. At about 10:45 on the morning of October 12 petitioner’s counsel telephoned the Hammond courthouse from Indianapolis (about 160 miles away), and after asking for the judge, who then was on the bench, requested the judge’s secretary to convey to him this message: ‘That he [counsel] was busy preparing papers to file with the [Indiana] Supreme Court,” that “he wasn’t actually engaged in argument and that he couldn’t be here by 1:00 o’clock, but he would be here either Thursday afternoon [October 13] or any time Friday [October 14] if it [the pretrial conference] could be reset.”
When petitioner’s counsel did not appear at the pretrial conference the District Court, after reviewing the history of the case and finding that counsel had failed “to indicate ... a reasonable reason” for his nonappearance, dismissed the action “for failure of the plaintiff’s counsel to appear at the pretrial, for failure to prosecute this action.” The court, acting two hours after the appointed hour for the conference, stated that the dismissal was in the “exercise [of] its inherent power.” The Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. 291 F. 2d 542. We granted certiorari. 368 U. S. 918.
I.
The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted. The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts. The power is of ancient origin, having its roots in judgments of non-suit and non prosequitur entered at common law, e. g., 3 Blackstone, Commentaries (1768), 295-296, and dismissals for want of prosecution of bills in equity, e. g., id., at 451. It has been expressly recognized in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b), which provides, in pertinent part:
“(b) Involuntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him. . . . 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.”
Petitioner contends that the language of this Rule, by negative implication, prohibits involuntary dismissals for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute except upon motion by the defendant. In the present case there was no such motion.
We do not read Rule 41 (b) as implying any such restriction. Neither the permissive language of the Rule — which merely authorizes a motion by the defendant — nor its policy requires us to conclude that it was the purpose of the Rule to abrogate the power of courts, acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief. The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an “inherent power,” governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. That it has long gone unquestioned is apparent not only from the many state court decisions sustaining such dismissals, but even from language in this Court’s opinion in Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U. S. 174, 176. It also has the sanction of wide usage among the District Courts. It would require a much clearer expression of purpose than Rule 41 (b) provides for us to assume that it was intended to abrogate so well-acknowledged a proposition.
Nor does the absence of notice as to the possibility of dismissal or the failure to hold an adversary hearing necessarily render such a dismissal void. It is true, of course, that “the fundamental requirement of due process is an opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked.” Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U. S. 233, 246. But this does not mean that every order entered without notice and a preliminary adversary hearing offends due process. The adequacy of notice and hearing respecting proceedings that may affect a party’s rights turns, to a considerable extent, on the knowledge which the circumstances show such party may be taken to have of the consequences of his own conduct. The circumstances here were such as to dispense with the necessity for advance notice and hearing.
In addition, the availability of a corrective remedy such as is provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) — which authorizes the reopening of cases in which final orders have been inadvisedly entered — renders the lack of prior notice of less consequence. Petitioner never sought to avail himself of the escape hatch provided by Rule 60 (b).
Accordingly, when circumstances make such action appropriate, a District Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without affording notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary hearing before acting. Whether such an order can stand on appeal depends not on power but on whether it was within the permissible range of the court’s discretion.
II.
On this record we are unable to say that the District Court’s dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute, as evidenced only partly by the failure of petitioner’s counsel to appear at a duly scheduled pretrial conference, amounted to an abuse of discretion. It was certainly within the bounds of permissible discretion for the court to conclude that the telephone excuse offered by petitioner’s counsel was inadequate to explain his failure to attend. And it could reasonably be inferred from his absence, as well as from the drawn-out history of the litigation (see note 2, supra), that petitioner had been deliberately proceeding in dilatory fashion.
There is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner’s claim because of his counsel’s unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have “notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.” Smith v. Ayer, 101 U. S. 320, 326.
We need not decide whether unexplained absence from a pretrial conference would alone justify a dismissal with prejudice if the record showed no other evidence of dila-toriness on the part of the plaintiff. For the District Court in this case relied on all the circumstances that were brought to its attention, including the earlier delays. And while the Court of Appeals did not expressly rest its judgment on petitioner’s failure to prosecute, it nonetheless set out the entire history of the case (including the statement made by the district judge’s secretary that it was “the oldest civil case on the court docket”), noted that the District Court had considered the absence at the pretrial conference in light of “the history of this litigation” and “of all the circumstances surrounding counsel’s action in the case,” 291 F. 2d, at 545, and held that there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the action “under the circumstances of this case.” Id., at 546. This obviously amounts to no broader a holding than that the failure to appear at a pretrial conference may, in the context of other evidence of delay, be considered by a District Court as justifying a dismissal with prejudice.
Nor need we consider whether the District Court would have been abusing its discretion had it rejected a motion under Rule 60 (b) which was accompanied by a more adequate explanation for the absence of petitioner’s counsel from the pretrial conference. No such motion was ever made, so that there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that counsel’s failure to attend the pretrial conference was other than deliberate or the product of neglect.
Finally, this is not a case in which failure to comply with a court order “was due to inability fostered neither by . . . [petitioner’s] own conduct nor by circumstances within its control.” Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U. S. 197, 211. Petitioner’s counsel received due notice of the scheduling of the pretrial conference, and cannot now be heard to say that he could not have foreseen the consequences of his own default in attendance.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
See note 2, infra.
A history of the litigation appears in the opinion of the Court of Appeals:
“On August 24, 1954, plaintiff William Link filed his complaint in the district court against defendant The Wabash Railroad Company to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him when he drove an automobile into a collision with defendant’s train standing across a highway in Indiana.
“On September 17, 1954, defendant appeared and filed its answer to the complaint.
“On April 30, 1955, defendant filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings. On October 18, 1955, hearing was had on this motion. On November 30, 1955, the district court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered the cause dismissed. From this order of dismissal plaintiff appealed. On October 10, 1956, our court reversed and remanded the case for trial. . . . 237 F. 2d 1, certiorari denied 352 U. S. 1003 . . . (February 25, 1957). On March 13, 1957, the mandate from this court was filed in the district court.
“Subsequently, the trial court set the case for trial for July 17, 1957. On June 27, 1957, on motion of plaintiff and defendant not objecting, the trial date of July 17, 1957 was vacated; and the cause was continued.
“On August 17, 1957, defendant filed interrogatories for plaintiff to answer.
“On February 24, 1959, the trial court on its own initiative gave notice to the parties, pursuant to Local Rule 11 [footnote omitted], that the cause would be dismissed on March 25,1959, unless the court ordered otherwise.
“On March 24, 1959, plaintiff filed answers to defendant’s interrogatories.
“On March 25,1959, hearing was had on the show cause order, and on June 4, 1959 the trial court entered an order retaining the case on the docket and setting it for trial for July 22, 1959.
“On July 2, 1959, on defendant’s motion, to which plaintiff agreed, the trial date of July 22, 1959 was vacated; and the ease was continued.
“On March 11, 1960, defendant filed additional interrogatories for plaintiff to answer. On April 15, 1960, after an extension of time granted by the trial court, plaintiff filed answers to the additional interrogatories.
“On September 29, 1960, pursuant to Local Rule 12, effective March 1,1960, the district court caused notice to be mailed to counsel for both parties scheduling a pre-trial conference in this ease to be held in court on October 12, 1960, at 1:00 o’clock p. m.” 291 F. 2d, at 543-544.
See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 41 (b), p. 630, infra.
E. g., Cage v. Cage, 74 F. 2d 377; Carnegie National Bank v. City of Wolf Point, 110 F. 2d 569; Hicks v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 115 F. 2d 406; Zielinski v. United States, 120 F. 2d 792; American National Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 142 F. 2d 571; Shotkin v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 169 F. 2d 825; Slavitt v. Meader, 278 F. 2d 276.
See, e. g., Des Moines Union R. Co. v. District Court, 170 Iowa 568, 153 N. W. 217; Doughty v. Terminal R. Assn., 291 S. W. 2d 119 (Mo.); Frytez v. Gruchacz, 125 N. J. L. 630, 17 A. 2d 541; Reed v. First National Bank, 194 Ore. 45, 241 P. 2d 109; Moshannon National Bank v. Iron Mountain Ranch Co., 45 Wyo. 265, 18 P. 2d 623; ef. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sorrells, 50 Ariz. 90, 69 P. 2d 240; Thompson v. Foote, 199 Ark. 474, 134 S. W. 2d 11; Koon v. Barmettler, 134 Colo. 221, 301 P. 2d 713.
The issue in that ease was whether a plaintiff was entitled to recover interest on a refund claim for customs duties paid under protest. In holding that interest for a 29-year period during which the suit remained dormant should not have been allowed; Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for a unanimous Court, said: “This delay in prosecution would certainly have justified the court in dismissing the action on its own motion.”
In the more populous districts, where calendar congestion has become a severe problem, the District Courts, acting on their own initiative, have from time to time established special call calendars of “stale” eases for the purpose of dismissing those as to which neither adequate excuse for past delays nor reason for a further continuance appears. See, for example, the local rules of the following District Courts: Alaska Rule 16; Ariz. Rule 14; N. D. Cal. Rule 14; S. D. Cal. Rule 10 (d); Colo. Rule 24; Conn. Rule 15; Del. Rule 12; D. C. Rule 13; N. D. Fla. Rule 7; S. D. Fla. Rule 11; N. D. Ga. Rule 13 (c); Idaho Rule 8 (c); E. D. Ill. Rule 9; N. D. Ill. Gen. Rule 21; N. D. Ind. Rule 10; S. D. Ind. Rule 16; N. D. Iowa Rule 22; S. D. Iowa Rule 22; Kan. Rule 13; E. D. La. Gen. Rule 12; Me. Rule 15; Mass. Rule 12; W. D. Mich. Rule 8; Minn. Rule 3 (3); E. D. Mo. Rule 8 (g); Neb. Rule 18; Nev. Rule 9 (b); N. J. Rule 12; N. M. Rule 13; E. D. N. Y. Gen. Rule 23; N. D. N. Y. Gen. Rule 11; S. D. N. Y. Gen Rule 23; W. D. N. Y. Gen. Rule 11; N. D. Ohio Rule 6; S. D. Ohio Rule 8; E. D. Okla. Rule 12; E. D. Pa. Rule 18; M. D. Pa. Rule 21-A; S. Dak. Rule 9, § 4; S. D. Tex. Gen. Rule 22; Utah Rule 4 (c); E. D. Wash. Rule 23 (a); W. D. Wash. Rule 41; N. D. W. Va. Art. II, Rule 8; S. D. W. Va. Rule 8; E. D. Wis. Rule 11; W. D. Wis. Rule 15; Wyo. Rule 14.
Petitioner’s contention that the District Court could not act in the conceded absence of any local rule covering the situation here is obviously unsound. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83 expressly provides that “in all cases not provided for by rule, the district courts may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with these rules.” In light of what has already been said we find no such inconsistency here.
The record shows that this was the “oldest” case on the District Court’s civil docket.
Clients have been held to be bound by their counsels’ inaction in cases in which the inferences of conscious acquiescence have been less supportable than they are here, and when the consequences have been more serious. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Reid v. Richmond, 295 F. 2d 83, 89-90; Egan v. Teets, 251 F. 2d 571, 577 n. 9; United States v. Sorrentino, 175 F. 2d 721. Surely if a criminal defendant may be convicted because he did not have the presence of mind to repudiate his attorney’s conduct in the course of a trial, a civil plaintiff may be deprived of his claim if he failed to see to it that his lawyer acted with dispatch in the prosecution of his lawsuit. And if an attorney’s conduct falls substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances, the client’s remedy is against the attorney in a suit for malpractice. But keeping this suit alive merely because plaintiff should not be penalized for the omissions of his own attorney would be visiting the sins of plaintiff’s lawyer upon the defendant. Moreover, this Court’s own practice is in keeping with this general principle. For example, if counsel files a petition for certiorari out of time, we attribute the delay to the petitioner and do not request an explanation from the petitioner before acting on the petition.
The history of the case belies any suggestion that the delay was the fault of the defendant or solely of the district judge who first ruled erroneously on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. After the mandate of the Court of Appeals was filed with the District Court, the trial date that was set was vacated on the plaintiff’s motion. Thereafter, the plaintiff failed to answer the defendant’s interrogatories from August 17, 1957, until the day before the hearing on the order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution — which was mure than 19 months later. Although the next delay was occasioned by the defendant’s motion, it was consented to by the plaintiff and there is no showing whatever that plaintiff ever made any effort to bring the case to trial. In fact, when the defendant submitted further interrogatories, plaintiff again moved to have the time to answer extended. Against this background, it is hardly surprising that the District Court concluded that the failure to appear for a pretrial conference was merely another delaying tactic.
Even if the judgment of the Court of Appeals rested on the ground that counsel’s “failure” to attend the pretrial conference sufficed by itself to justify the dismissal, it is our duty, without reaching the broader question, to sustain the District Court on its narrower holding if, as we decide, that holding was correct. E. g., Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U. S. 545, 547; Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 536-537; United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U. S. 425, 435-436; see Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 88.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In December 1974, Ronald Biro, a uniformed police officer on assignment to patrol school crossings, entered respondent’s place of business, the Sleepy Hollow Flower Shop, in North Tarrytown, N. Y. He went behind the customer counter and, in the words of Ichabod Crane, one of Tarrytown’s more illustrious inhabitants of days gone past, “tarried,” spending his short break engaged in conversation with his friend Lois Hennessey, an employee of the shop. During the course of the conversation he noticed an envelope with money sticking out of it lying on the drawer of the cash register behind the counter. Biro picked up the envelope and, upon examining its contents, discovered that it contained not only money but policy slips. He placed the envelope back on the register, and, without telling Hennessey what he had seen, asked her to whom the envelope belonged. She replied that the envelope belonged to respondent Ceccolini, and that he had instructed her to give it to someone.
The next day, Officer Biro mentioned his discovery to North Tarrytown detectives who in turn told Lance Emory, an FBI agent. This very ordinary incident in the lives of Biro and Hennessey requires us, over three years later, to decide whether Hennessey’s testimony against respondent Ceccolini should have been suppressed in his trial for perjury. Respondent was charged with that offense because he denied that he knew anything of, or was in any way involved with, gambling operations. Respondent was found guilty after a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, but immediately after the finding of guilt the District Court granted respondent’s motion to “suppress” the testimony of Hennessey because the court concluded that the testimony was a “fruit of the poisonous tree”; assuming respondent’s motion for a directed verdict included a motion to set aside the verdict of guilty, the District Court granted the motion because it concluded that without Hennessey’s testimony there was insufficient evidence of respondent’s guilt. The Government appealed these rulings to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
That court rightly concluded that the Government was entitled to appeal both the order granting the motion to suppress and the order setting aside the verdict of guilty, since further proceedings if the Government were successful on the appeal would not be barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. 542 F. 2d 136, 139-140 (1976). The District Court had sensibly first made its finding on the factual question of guilt or innocence, and then ruled on the motion to suppress; a reversal of these rulings would require no further proceedings in the District Court, but merely a reinstatement of the finding of guilt. United States v. Morrison, 429 U. S. 1 (1976); United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 352-353 (1975).
The Government, however, was not successful on the merits of its appeal; the Court of Appeals by a divided vote affirmed the District Court’s suppression ruling. 542 F. 2d, at 140-142. We granted certiorari to consider the correctness of this ruling of the Court of Appeals. 431 U. S. 903 (1977).
I
During the latter part of 1973, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was exploring suspected gambling operations in North Tarry town. Among the establishments under surveillance was respondent’s place of business, which was a frequent and regular stop of one Francis Millow, himself a suspect in the investigation. While the investigation continued on a reduced scale after December 1973, surveillance of the flower shop was curtailed at that time. It was thus a full year after this discontinuance of FBI surveillance that Biro spent his patrol break behind the counter with Hennessey. When Biro’s discovery of the policy slips was reported the following day to Emory, Emory was not fully informed of the manner in which Biro had obtained the information. Four months later, Emory interviewed Hennessey at her home for about half an hour in the presence of her mother and two sisters. He identified himself, indicated that he had learned through the local police department that she worked for respondent, and told her that the Government would appreciate any information regarding respondent’s activities that she had acquired in the shop. Emory did not specifically refer to the incident involving Officer Biro. Hennessey told Emory that she was studying police science in college and would be willing to help. She then related the events which had occurred during her visit with Officer Biro.
In May 1975, respondent was summoned before a federal grand jury where he testified that he had never taken policy bets for Francis Millow at the flower shop. The next week Hennessey testified to the contrary, and shortly thereafter respondent was indicted for perjury. Respondent waived a jury, and with the consent of all parties the District Court considered simultaneously with the trial on the merits respondent’s motion to suppress both the policy slips and the testimony of Hennessey. At the conclusion of the evidence, the District Court excluded from its consideration “the envelope and the contents of the envelope,” but nonetheless found respondent guilty of the offense charged. The court then, as previously described, granted respondent’s motion to suppress the testimony of Hennessey, because she “first came directly to the attention of the government as a result of an illegal search” and the Government had not “sustained its burden of showing that Lois Henness[e]y’s testimony definitely would have been obtained without the illegal search.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a-29a.
The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling on the Government’s appeal, reasoning that “the road to Miss Henness[e]y’s testimony from Officer Biro’s concededly unconstitutional search is both straight and uninterrupted.” 542 F. 2d, at 142. The Court of Appeals also concluded that there was support in the record for the District Court’s finding that the ongoing investigation would not have inevitably led to the evidence in question without Biro’s discovery of the two policy slips. Id., at 141. Because of our traditional deference to the “two court rule,” Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 336 U. S. 271, 275 (1949), and the fact that the Government has not sought review of this latter ruling, we leave undisturbed this part of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Because we decide that the Court of Appeals was wrong in concluding that there was insufficient attenuation between Officer Biro’s search and Hennessey’s testimony at the trial, we also do not reach the Government’s contention that the exclusionary rule should not be applied when the evidence derived from the search is being used to prove a subsequent crime such as perjury.
II
The “road” to which the Court of Appeals analogized the train of events from Biro’s discovery of the policy slips to Hennessey’s testimony at respondent’s trial for perjury is one of literally thousands of such roads traveled periodically between an original investigative discovery and the ultimate trial of the accused. The constitutional question under the Fourth Amendment was phrased in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), as whether “the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has 'become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’ ” Id., at 487, 491. The question was in turn derived from the Court’s earlier decision in Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341 (1939), where Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated for the Court:
''Here, as in the Silverthorne case [Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States], the facts improperly obtained do not 'become sacred and inaccessible. If knowledge of them is gained from an independent source they may be proved like any others, but the knowledge gained by the Government’s own wrong cannot be used by it’ simply because it is used derivatively. 251 U. S. 385, 392.
''In practice this generalized statement may conceal concrete complexities. Sophisticated argument may prove a causal connection between information obtained through illicit wire-tapping and the Government’s proof. As a matter of good sense, however, such connection may have become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.”
This, of course, makes it perfectly clear, if indeed ever there was any doubt about the matter, that the question of causal connection in this setting, as in so many other questions with which the law concerns itself, is not to be determined solely through the sort of analysis which would be applicable in the physical sciences. The issue cannot be decided on the basis of causation in the logical sense alone, but necessarily includes other elements as well. And our cases subsequent to Nardone, supra, have laid out the fundamental tenets of the exclusionary rule, from which the elements that are relevant to the causal inquiry can be divined.
An examination of these cases leads us to reject the Government’s suggestion that we adopt what would in practice amount to a per se rule that the testimony of a live witness should not be excluded at trial no matter how close and proximate the connection between it and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. We also reaffirm the holding of Wong Sun, supra, at 485, that “verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest as the officers’ action in the present case is no less the 'fruit’ of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion.” We are of the view, however, that cases decided since Wong Sun significantly qualify its further observation that “the policies underlying the exclusionary rule [do not] invite any logical distinction between physical and verbal evidence.” 371 U. S., at 486. Rather, at least in a case such as this, where not only was the alleged “fruit of the poisonous tree” the testimony of a live witness, but unlike Wong Sun the witness was not a putative defendant, an examination of our cases persuades us that the Court of Appeals was simply wrong in concluding that if the road were uninterrupted, its length was immaterial. Its length, we hold, is material, as are certain other factors enumerated below to which the court gave insufficient weight.
In Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 486 (1976), we observed that “despite the broad deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule, it has never been interpreted to proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” Recognizing not only the benefits but the costs, which are often substantial, of the exclusionary rule, we have said that “application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served,” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 (1974). In that case, we refused to require that illegally seized evidence be excluded from presentation to a grand jury. We have likewise declined to prohibit the use of such evidence for the purpose of impeaching a defendant who testifies in his own behalf. Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954).
We have limited the standing requirement in the exclusionary rule context because the “additional benefits of extending the . . . rule” to persons other than the ones subject to the illegal search are outweighed by the “further encroachment upon the public interest in prosecuting those accused of crime and having them acquitted or convicted on the basis of all the evidence which exposes the truth.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 174-75 (1969). Even in situations where the exclusionary rule is plainly applicable, we have declined to adopt a “per se or ‘but for’ rule” that would make inadmissible any evidence, whether tangible or live-witness testimony, which somehow came to light through a chain of causation that began with an illegal arrest. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 603 (1975).
Evaluating the standards for application of the exclusionary rule to live-witness testimony in light of this balance, we are first impelled to conclude that the degree of free will exercised by the witness is not irrelevant in determining the extent to which the basic purpose of the'exclusionary rule will be advanced by its application. This is certainly true when the challenged statements are made by a putative defendant after arrest, Wong Sun, supra, at 491; Brown v. Illinois, supra, and a fortiori is true of testimony given by nondefendants.
The greater the willingness of the witness to freely testify, the greater the likelihood that he or she will be discovered by legal means and, concomitantly, the smaller the incentive to conduct an illegal search to discover the witness. Witnesses are not like guns or documents which remain hidden from view until one turns over a sofa or opens a filing cabinet. Witnesses can, and often do, come forward and offer evidence entirely of their own volition. And evaluated properly, the degree of free will necessary to dissipate the taint will very likely be found more often in the case of live-witness testimony than other kinds of evidence. The time, place and manner of the initial questioning of the witness may be such that any statements are truly the product of detached reflection and a desire to be cooperative on the part of the witness. And the illegality which led to the discovery of the witness very often will not play any meaningful part in the witness' willingness to testify.
“The proffer of a living witness is not to be mechanically equated with the proffer of inanimate evidentiary objects illegally seized. The fact that the name of a potential witness is disclosed to police is of no evidentiary significance, per se, since the living witness is an individual human personality whose attributes of will, perception, memory and volition interact to determine what testimony he will give. The uniqueness of this human process distinguishes the evidentiary character of a witness from the relative immutability of inanimate evidence.” Smith v. United States, 117 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 3-4, 324 F. 2d 879, 881-882 (1963) (Burger, J.) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 954 (1964).
Another factor which not only is relevant in determining the usefulness of the exclusionary rule in a particular context, but also seems to us to differentiate the testimony of all live witnesses — even putative defendants — from the exclusion of the typical documentary evidence, is that such exclusion would perpetually disable a witness from testifying about relevant and material facts, regardless of how unrelated such testimony might be to the purpose of the originally illegal search or the evidence discovered thereby. Rules which disqualify knowledgeable witnesses from testifying at trial are, in the words of Professor McCormick, “serious obstructions to the ascertainment of truth”; accordingly, “[f]or a century the course of legal evolution has been in the direction of sweeping away these obstructions.” C. McCormick, Law of Evidence § 71 (1954). Alluding to the enormous cost engendered by such a permanent disability in an analogous context, we have specifically refused to hold that “making a confession under circumstances which preclude its use, perpetually disables the confessor from making a usable one after those conditions have been removed.” United States v. Bayer, 331 U. S. 532, 541 (1947). For many of these same reasons, the Court has also held admissible at trial testimony of a witness whose identity was disclosed by the defendant’s statement given after inadequate Miranda warnings. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 450-451 (1974).
“For, when balancing the interests involved, we must weigh the strong interest under any system of justice of making available to the trier of fact all concededly relevant and trustworthy evidence which either party seeks to adduce. . . . Here respondent’s own statement, which might have helped the prosecution show respondent’s guilty conscience at trial, had already been excised from the prosecution’s case pursuant to this Court’s Johnson [v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966) ] decision. To extend the excision further under the circumstances of this case and exclude relevant testimony of a third-party witness would require far more persuasive arguments than those advanced by respondent.”
In short, since the cost of excluding live-witness testimony often will be greater, a closer, more direct link between the illegality and that kind of testimony is required.
This is not to say, of course, that live-witness testimony is always or even usually more reliable or dependable than inanimate evidence. Indeed, just the opposite may be true. But a determination that the discovery of certain evidence is sufficiently unrelated to or independent of the constitutional violation to permit its introduction at trial is not a determination which rests on the comparative reliability of that evidence. Attenuation analysis, appropriately concerned with the differences between live-witness testimony and inanimate evideuce, can consistently focus on the factors enumerated above with respect to the former, but on different factors with respect to the latter.
In holding that considerations relating to the exclusionary rule and the constitutional principles which it is designed to protect must play a factor in the attenuation analysis, we do no more than reaffirm an observation made by this Court half a century ago:
“A criminal prosecution is more than a game in which the Government may be checkmated and the game lost merely because its officers have not played according to rule.” McGuire v. United States, 273 U. S. 95, 99 (1927).
The penalties visited upon the Government, and in turn upon the public, because its officers have violated the law must bear some relation to the purposes which the law is to serve.
Ill
Viewing this case in the light of the principles just discussed, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the degree of attenuation was not sufficient to dissipate the connection between the illegality and the testimony. The evidence indicates overwhelmingly that the testimony given by the witness was an act of her own free will in no way coerced or even induced by official authority as a result of Biro’s discovery of the policy slips. Nor were the slips themselves used in questioning Hennessey. Substantial periods of time elapsed between the time of the illegal search and the initial contact with the witness, on the one hand, and between the -latter and the testimony at trial on the other. While the particular knowledge to which Hennessey testified at trial can be logically traced back to Biro’s discovery of the policy slips, both the identity of Hennessey and her relationship with the respondent were well known to those investigating the case. There is, in addition, not the slightest evidence to suggest that Biro entered the shop or picked up the envelope with the intent of finding tangible evidence bearing on an illicit gambling operation, much less any suggestion that he entered the shop and searched with the intent of finding a willing and knowledgeable witness to testify against respondent. Application of the exclusionary rule in this situation could not have the slightest deterrent effect on the behavior of an officer such as Biro. The cost of permanently silencing Hennessey is too great for an evenhanded system of law enforcement to bear in order to secure such a speculative and very likely negligible deterrent effect.
Obviously no mathematical weight can be assigned to any of the factors which we have discussed, but just as obviously they all point to the conclusion that the exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance where the claim is based on a causal relationship between a constitutional violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support suppression of an inanimate object. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
Me. Justice Blackmukt took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Appeal from the suppression order is, of course, authorized by the clear language of 18 U. S. C. §3731 (1976 ed.). That section permits “[a]n appeal by the United States . . . from a decision or order of a district courts [sic] suppressing or excluding evidence . . . , not made after the defendant has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on an indictment or information ...” If Congress had intended only pretrial suppression orders to be appealable, it would not have added the phrase “and before the verdict or finding on an indictment or information.”
The extent of the continued investigation is not made clear on the record but we do know at least that on December 3, 1974, a telephone conversation between Millow and Ceccolini, which implicated the latter in a policy betting operation, was intercepted by local police participating in a combined federal-state gambling investigation.
Respondent was also indicted on a second count which charged that he had knowingly made a false statement when he testified that he did not know Hank Bucci was involved in gambling operations. The judge found respondent not guilty on this count, however, because “although there is evidence to support this charge the government has not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a.
Of course, the analysis might be different where the search was conducted by the police for the specific purpose of discovering potential witnesses.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner Ralph Howard Blakely, Jr., pleaded guilty to the kidnaping of his estranged wife. The facts admitted in his plea, standing alone, supported a maximum sentence of 53 months. Pursuant to state law, the court imposed an “exceptional” sentence of 90 months after making a judicial determination that he had acted with “deliberate cruelty.” App. 40, 49. We consider whether this violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.
I
Petitioner married his wife Yolanda in 1973. He was evidently a difficult man to live with, having been diagnosed at various times with psychological and personality disorders including paranoid schizophrenia. His wife ultimately filed for divorce. In 1998, he abducted her from their orchard home in Grant County, Washington, binding her with duct tape and forcing her at knifepoint into a wooden box in the bed of his pickup truck. In the process, he implored her to dismiss the divorce suit and related trust proceedings.
When the couple’s 13-year-old son Ralphy returned home from school, petitioner ordered him to follow in another car, threatening to harm Yolanda with a shotgun if he did not do so. Ralphy escaped and sought help when they stopped at a gas station, but petitioner continued on with Yolanda to a friend’s house in Montana. He was finally arrested after the friend called the police.
The State charged petitioner with first-degree kidnaping, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.40.020(1) (200Q). Upon reaching a plea agreement, however, it reduced the charge to second-degree kidnaping involving domestic violence and use of a firearm, see §§9A.40.030(1), 10.99.020(3)(p), 9.94A.125. Petitioner entered a guilty plea admitting the elements of second-degree kidnaping and the domestic-violence and firearm allegations, but no other relevant facts.
The case then proceeded to sentencing. In Washington, second-degree kidnaping is a class B felony. § 9A.40.030(3). State law provides that “[n]o person convicted of a [class B] felony shall be punished by confinement... exceeding ... a term of ten years.” § 9A.20.021(1)(b). Other provisions of state law, however, further limit the range of sentences a judge may impose. Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act specifies, for petitioner’s offense of second-degree kidnaping with a firearm, a “standard range” of 49 to 53 months. See §9.94A.320 (seriousness level V for second-degree kidnaping); App. 27 (offender score 2 based on §9.94A.360); § 9.94A.310(1), box 2-V (standard range of 13-17 months); § 9.94A.310(3)(b) (36-month firearm enhancement). A judge may impose a sentence above the standard range if he finds “substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.” § 9.94A.120(2). The Act lists aggravating factors that justify such a departure, which it recites to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. § 9.94A.390. Nevertheless, “[a] reason offered to justify an exceptional sentence can be considered only if it takes into account factors other than those which are used in computing the standard range sentence for the offense.” State v. Gore, 143 Wash. 2d 288, 315—316, 21 P. 3d 262, 277 (2001). When a judge imposes an exceptional sentence, he must set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting it. § 9.94A. 120(3). A reviewing court will reverse the sentence if it finds that “under a clearly erroneous standard there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence.” Id., at 315, 21 P. 3d, at 277 (citing § 9.94A.210(4)).
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the State recommended a sentence within the standard range of 49 to 53 months. After hearing Yolanda’s description of the kidnaping, however, the judge rejected the State’s recommendation and imposed an exceptional sentence of 90 months — 37 months beyond the standard maximum. He justified the sentence on the ground that petitioner had acted with “deliberate cruelty,” a statutorily enumerated ground for departure in domestic-violence cases. § 9.94A.390(2)(h)(iii).
Faced with an unexpected increase of more than three years in his sentence, petitioner objected. The judge accordingly conducted a 3-day bench hearing featuring testimony from petitioner, Yolanda, Ralphy, a police officer, and medical experts. After the hearing, he issued 32 findings of fact, concluding:
“The defendant’s motivation to commit kidnapping was complex, contributed to by his mental condition and personality disorders, the pressures of the divorce litigation, the impending trust litigation trial and anger over his troubled interpersonal relationships with his spouse and children. While he misguidedly intended to forcefully reunite his family, his attempt to do so was subservient to his desire to terminate lawsuits and modify title ownerships to his benefit.
“The defendant’s methods were more homogeneous than his motive. He used stealth and surprise, and took advantage of the victim’s isolation. He immediately employed physical violence, restrained the victim with tape, and threatened her with injury and death to herself and others. He immediately coerced the victim into providing, information by the threatening application of a knife. He violated a subsisting restraining order.” App. 48-49.
The judge adhered to his initial determination of deliberate cruelty.
Petitioner appealed, arguing that this sentencing procedure deprived him of his federal constitutional right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all facts legally essential to his sentence. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, 111 Wash. App. 851, 870-871, 47 P. 3d 149, 159 (2002), relying on the Washington Supreme Court’s rejection of a similar challenge in Gore, supra, at 311-315, 21 P. 3d, at 275-277. The Washington Supreme Court denied discretionary review. 148 Wash. 2d 1010, 62 P. 3d 889 (2003). We granted certiorari. 540 U. S. 965 (2003).
II
This case requires us to apply the rule we expressed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490 (2000): “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” This rule reflects two longstanding tenets of common-law criminal jurisprudence: that the “truth of every accusation” against a defendant “should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours,” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 343 (1769), and that “an accusation which lacks any particular fact which the law makes essential to the punishment is ... no accusation within the requirements of the common law, and it is no accusation in reason,” 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure § 87, p. 55 (2d ed. 1872). These principles have been acknowledged by courts and treatises since the earliest days of graduated sentencing; we compiled the relevant authorities in Apprendi, see 530 U. S., at 476-483, 489-490, n. 15; id., at 501-518 (Thomas, J., concurring), and need not repeat them here.
Apprendi involved a New Jersey hate-crime statute that authorized a 20-year sentence, despite the usual 10-year maximum, if the judge found the crime to have been committed “‘with a purpose to intimidate . . . because of race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity.’” Id., at 468-469 (quoting N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:44-3(e) (West Supp. 1999-2000)). In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 592-593, and n. 1 (2002), we applied Apprendi to an Arizona law that authorized the death penalty if the judge found 1 of 10 aggravating factors. In each case, we concluded that the defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated because the judge had imposed a sentence greater than the maximum he could have imposed under state law without the challenged factual finding. Apprendi, supra, at 491-497; Ring, supra, at 603-609.
In this case, petitioner was sentenced to more than three years above the 53-month statutory maximum of the standard range because he had acted with “deliberate cruelty.” The facts supporting that finding were neither admitted by petitioner nor found by a jury. The State nevertheless contends that there was no Apprendi violation because the relevant “statutory maximum” is not 53 months, but the 10-year maximum for class B felonies in §9A.20.021(1)(b). It observes that no exceptional sentence may exceed that limit. See § 9.94A.420. Our precedents make clear, however, that the “statutory maximum” for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the fa,cts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. See Ring, supra, at 602 (“ ‘the maximum he would receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone’ ” (quoting Apprendi, supra, at 483)); Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545, 563 (2002) (plurality opinion) (same); cf. Apprendi, supra, at 488 (facts admitted by the defendant). In other words, the relevant “statutory maximum” is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings. When a judge inflicts punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts “which the law makes essential to the punishment,” Bishop, supra, §87, at 55, and the judge exceeds his proper authority.
The judge in this case could not have imposed the exceptional 90-month sentence solely on the basis of the facts admitted in the guilty plea. Those facts alone were insufficient because, as the Washington Supreme Court has explained, “[a] reason offered to justify an exceptional sentence can be considered only if it takes into account factors other than those which are used in computing the standard range sentence for the offense,” Gore, 143 Wash. 2d, at 315-316, 21 P. 3d, at 277, which in this case included the elements of second-degree kidnaping and the use of a firearm, see §§ 9.94A.320, 9.94A.310(3)(b). Had the judge imposed the 90-month sentence solely on the basis of the plea, he would have been reversed. See § 9.94A.210(4). The “maximum sentence” is no more 10 years here than it was 20 years in Apprendi (because that is what the judge could have imposed upon finding a hate crime) or death in Ring (because that is what the judge could have imposed upon finding an aggravator).
The State defends the sentence by drawing an analogy to those we upheld in McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79 (1986), and Williams v. New York, 837 U. S. 241 (1949). Neither case is on point. McMillan involved a sentencing scheme that imposed a statutory minimum if a judge found a particular fact. 477 U. S., at 81. We specifically noted that the statute “does not authorize a sentence in excess of that otherwise allowed for [the underlying] offense.” Id., at 82; cf. Harris, supra, at 567. Williams involved an indeterminate-sentencing regime that allowed a judge (but did not compel him) to rely on facts outside the trial record in determining whether to sentence a defendant to death. 337 U. S., at 242-243, and n. 2. The judge could have “sentenced [the defendant] to death giving no reason at all.” Id., at 252. Thus, neither case involved a sentence greater than what state law authorized on the basis of the verdict alone.
Finally, the State tries to distinguish Apprendi and Ring by pointing out that the enumerated grounds for departure in its regime are illustrative rather than exhaustive. This distinction is immaterial. Whether the judge’s authority to impose an enhanced sentence depends on finding a specified fact (as in Apprendi), one of several specified facts (as in Ring), or any aggravating fact (as here), it remains the case that the jury’s verdict alone does not authorize the sentence. The judge acquires that authority only upon finding some additional fact.
Because the State’s sentencing procedure did not comply with the Sixth Amendment, petitioner’s sentence is invalid.
Ill
Our commitment to Apprendi in this context reflects not just respect for longstanding precedent, but the need to give intelligible content to the right of jury trial. That right is no mere procedural formality, but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure. Just as suffrage ensures the people’s ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches, jury trial is meant to ensure their control in the judiciary. See Letter XV by the Federal Farmer (Jan. 18, 1788), reprinted in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 815, 320 (H. Storing ed. 1981) (describing the jury as “securing] to the people at large, their just and rightful controul in the judicial department”); John Adams, Diary Entry (Feb. 12, 1771), reprinted in 2 Works of John Adams 252, 253 (C. Adams ed. 1850) (“[T]he common people, should have as complete a control... in every judgment of a court of judicature” as in the legislature); Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Abbé Arnoux (July 19, 1789), reprinted in 15 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 282, 283 (J. Boyd ed. 1958) (“Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the Legislative”); Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227, 244-248 (1999). Apprendi carries out this design by ensuring that the judge’s authority to sentence derives wholly from the jury’s verdict. Without that restriction, the jury would not exercise the control that the Framers intended.
Those who would reject Apprendi we resigned to one of two alternatives. The first is that the jury need only find whatever facts the legislature chooses to label elements of the crime, and that those it labels sentencing factors — no matter how much they may increase the punishment — may be found by the judge. This would mean, for example, that a judge could sentence a man for committing murder even if the jury convicted him only of illegally possessing the firearm used to commit it — or of making an illegal lane change while fleeing the death scene. Not even Apprendi’s critics would advocate this absurd result. Cf. 530 U. S., at 552-553 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). The jury could not function as circuitbreaker in the State’s machinery of justice if it were relegated to making a determination that the defendant at some point did something wrong, a mere preliminary to a judicial inquisition into the facts of the crime the State actually seeks to punish.
The second alternative is that legislatures may establish legally essential sentencing factors within limits — limits crossed when, perhaps, the ‘sentencing factor is a “tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense.” McMillan, 477 U. S., at 88. Whát this means in operation is that the law must not go too far — it must not exceed the judicial estimation of the proper role of the judge.
The subjectivity of this standard is obvious. Petitioner argued below that second-degree kidnaping with deliberate cruelty was essentially the same as first-degree kidnaping, the very charge he had avoided by pleading to a lesser offense. The court conceded this might be so but held it irrelevant. See 111 Wash. App., at 869,47 P. 3d, at 158. Petitioner’s 90-month sentence exceeded the 53-month standard maximum by almost 70%; the Washington Supreme Court in other cases has upheld exceptional sentences 15 times the standard maximum. See State v. Oxborrow, 106 Wash. 2d 525, 528, 533, 723 P. 2d 1123, 1125, 1128 (1986) (en banc) (15-year exceptional sentence; 1-year standard maximum sentence); State v. Branch, 129 Wash. 2d 635, 650, 919 P. 2d 1228, 1235 (1996) (en banc) (4-year exceptional sentence; 3-month standard maximum sentence). Did the court go too far in any of these cases? There is no answer that legal analysis can provide. With too far as the yardstick, it is always possible to disagree with such judgments and never to refute them.
Whether the Sixth Amendment incorporates this manipulate standard rather than Apprendi’s bright-line rule depends on the plausibility of the claim that the Framers would have left definition of the scope of jury power up to judges’ intuitive sense of how far is too far. We think that claim not plausible at all, because the very reason the Framers put a jury-trial guarantee in the Constitution is that they were unwilling to trust government to mark out the role of the jury.
IV
By reversing the judgment below, we are not, as the State would have it, “finding] determinate sentencing schemes unconstitutional.” Brief for Respondent 34. This case is not about whether determinate sentencing is constitutional, only about how it can be implemented in a way that respects the Sixth Amendment. Several policies prompted Washington’s adoption of determinate sentencing, including proportionality to the gravity of the offense and parity among defendants. See Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §9.94A.010 (2000). Nothing we have said impugns those salutary objectives.
Justice O’Connor argues that, because determinate-sentencing schemes involving judicial factfinding entail less judicial, discretion than indeterminate schemes, the constitutionality of the latter implies the constitutionality of the former. Post, at 314-323. This argument is flawed on a number of levels. First, the Sixth Amendment by its terms is not a limitation on judicial power, but a reservation of jury power. It limits judicial power only to the extent that the claimed judicial power infringes on the province of the jury. Indeterminate sentencing does not do so. It increases judicial discretion, to be sure, but not at the expense of the jury’s traditional function of finding the facts essential to lawful imposition of the penalty. Of course indeterminate schemes involve judicial factfinding, in that a judge (like a parole board) may implicitly rule on those facts he deems important to the exercise of his sentencing discretion. But the facts do not pertain to whether the defendant has a legal right to a lesser sentence — and that makes all the difference insofar as judicial impingement upon the traditional role of the jury is concerned. In a system that says the judge may punish burglary with 10 to 40 years, every burglar knows he is risking 40 years in jail. In a system that punishes burglary with a 10-year sentence, with another 30 added for use of a gun, the burglar who enters a home unarmed is entitled to no more than a 10-year sentence — and by reason of the Sixth Amendment the facts bearing upon that entitlement must be found by a jury.
But even assuming that restraint of judicial power unrelated to the jury’s role is a Sixth Amendment objective, it is far from clear that Apprendi disserves that goal. Determinate judicial-factfinding schemes entail less judicial power than indeterminate schemes, but more judicial power than determinate jury-factfinding schemes. Whether Apprendi increases judicial power overall depends on what States with determinate judicial-factfinding schemes would do, given the choice between the two alternatives. Justice O’Connor simply assumes that the net effect will favor judges, but she has no empirical basis for that prediction. Indeed, what evidence we have points exactly the other way: When the Kansas Supreme Court found Apprendi infirmities in that State’s determinate-sentencing regime in State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394, 404-414, 23 P. 3d 801, 809-814 (2001), the legislature responded not by reestablishing indeterminate sentencing but by applying Apprendi's requirements to its current regime. See Act of May 29, 2002, ch. 170, 2002 Kan. Sess. Laws pp. 1018-1023 (codified at Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-4718 (2003 Cum. Supp.)); Brief for Kansas Appellate Defender Office as Amicus Curiae 3-7. The result was less, not more, judicial power.
Justice Breyer argues that Apprendi works to the detriment of criminal defendants who plead guilty by depriving them of the opportunity to argue sentencing factors to a judge. Post, at 331. But nothing prevents a defendant from waiving his Apprendi rights. When a defendant pleads guilty, the State is free to seek judicial sentence enhancements so long as the defendant either stipulates to the relevant facts or consents to judicial factfinding. See Ap-prendi, 530 U. S., at 488; Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 158 (1968). If appropriate waivers are procured, States may continue to offer judicial factfinding as a matter of course to all defendants who plead guilty. Even a defendant who stands trial may consent to judicial factfinding as to sentence enhancements, which may well be in his interest if relevant evidence would prejudice him at trial. We do not understand how Apprendi can possibly work to the detriment of those who are free, if they think its costs outweigh its benefits, to render it inapplicable.
Nor do we see any merit to Justice Breyer’s contention that Apprendi is unfair to criminal defendants because, if States respond by enacting “17-element robbery crime[s],” prosecutors will have more elements with which to bargain. Post, at 331, 335-336 (citing Bibas, Judicial Fact-Finding and Sentence Enhancements in a World of Guilty Pleas, 110 Yale L. J. 1097 (2001)). Bargaining already exists with regard to sentencing factors because defendants can either stipulate or contest the facts thát make them applicable. If there is any difference between bargaining over sentencing factors and bargaining over elements, the latter probably favors the defendant. Every new element that a prosecutor can threaten to charge is also an element that a defendant can threaten to contest at trial and make the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, given the sprawling scope of most criminal codes, and the power to affect sentences by making (even nonbinding) sentencing recommendations, there is already no shortage of in terrorem tools at prosecutors’ disposal. See King & Klein, Apprendi and Plea Bargaining, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 295, 296 (2001) (“Every prosecuto-rial bargaining chip mentioned by Professor Bibas existed pro-Apprendi exactly as it does post-Apprendi”).
Any evaluation of Apprendis “fairness” to criminal defendants must compare it with the regime it replaced, in which a defendant, with no warning in either his indictment or plea, would routinely see his maximum potential sentence balloon from as little as five years to as much as life imprisonment, see 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), (D), based not on facts proved to his peers beyond a reasonable doubt, but on facts extracted after trial from a report compiled by a probation officer who the judge thinks more likely got it right than got it wrong. We can conceive of no measure of fairness that would find more fault in the utterly speculative bargaining effects Justice Breyer identifies than in the regime he champions. Suffice it to say that, if such a measure exists, it is not the one the Framers left us with.
The implausibility of Justice Breyer’s contention that Apprendi is unfair to criminal defendants is exposed by the lineup of amici in this case. It is hard to believe that the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers was somehow duped into arguing for the wrong side. Justice Breyer’s only authority asking that defendants be protected from Apprendi is an article written not by a criminal defense lawyer but by a law professor and former prosecutor. See post, at 331 (citing Bibas, supra)', Association of American Law Schools Directory of Law Teachers 2003-2004, p. 319.
Justice Breyer also claims that Apprendi will attenuate the connection between “real criminal conduct and real punishment” by encouraging plea bargaining and by restricting alternatives to adversarial factfinding. Post, at 334, 338-339. The short answer to the former point (even assuming the questionable premise that Apprendi does encourage plea bargaining, but see supra, at 310, n. 12) is that the Sixth Amendment was not written for the benefit of those who choose to forgo its protection. It guarantees the right to jury trial. It does not guarantee that a particular number of jury trials will actually take place. That more defendants elect to waive that right (because, for example, government at the moment is not particularly oppressive) does not prove that a constitutional provision guaranteeing availability of that option is disserved.
Justice Breyer’s more general argument — that Apprendi undermines alternatives to adversarial factfinding— is not so much a criticism of Apprendi as an assault on jury trial generally. His esteem for “nonadversarial” truth-seeking processes, post, at 339, supports just as well an argument against either. Our Constitution and the common-law traditions it entrenches, however, do not admit the contention that facts are better discovered by judicial inquisition than by adversarial testing before a jury. See 3 Blackstone, Commentaries, at 373-374, 379-381. Justice Breyer may be convinced of the equity of the regime he favors, but his views, are not the ones we are bound to uphold.
Ultimately, our decision cannot turn on whether or to what degree trial by jury impairs the efficiency or fairness of criminal justice. One can certainly argue that both these values would be better served by leaving justice entirely in the hands of professionals; many nations of the world, particularly those following civil-law traditions, take just that course. There is not one shred of doubt, however, about the Framers’ paradigm for criminal justice: not the civil-law ideal of administrative perfection, but the common-law ideal of limited state power accomplished by strict division of authority between judge and jury. As Apprendi held, every defendant has the right to insist that the prosecutor prove to a jury all facts legally essential to the punishment. Under the dissenters’ alternative, he has no such right. That should be the end of the matter.
* * *
Petitioner was sentenced to prison for more than three years beyond what the law allowed for the crime to which he confessed, on the basis of a disputed finding that he had acted with “deliberate cruelty.” The Framers would not have thought it too much to demand that, before depriving a man of three more years of his liberty, the State should suffer the modest inconvenience of submitting its accusation to “the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neigh-bours,” 4 Blackstone, supra, at 343, rather than a lone employee of the State.
The judgment of the Washington Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Parts of Washington’s criminal code have been recodified and amended. We cite throughout the provisions in effect at the time of sentencing.
Petitioner further agreed to an additional charge of second-degree asault involving domestic violence, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 9A.36.021(1)(c), 10.99.020(3)(b) (2000). The 14-month sentence on that count ran concurrently and is not relevant here.
The domestic-violence stipulation subjected petitioner to such measures as a “no-contact” order, see § 10.99.040, but did not increase the standard range of his sentence.
The judge found other aggravating factors, but the Court of Appeals questioned their validity under state law and their independent sufficiency to support the extent of the departure. See 111 Wash. App. 851, 868-870, and n. 3, 47 P. 3d 149, 158-159, and n. 3 (2002). It affirmed the sentence solely on the finding of domestic violence with deliberate cruelty. Ibid. We therefore focus only on that factor.
Justice Breyer cites Justice O’Connor’s Apprendi dissent for the point that this Bishop quotation means only that indictments must charge facts that trigger statutory aggravation of a common-law offense. Post, at 340-341 (dissenting opinion). Of course, as he notes, Justice O’Con-nor was referring to an entirely different quotation, from Archbold’s treatise. See 530 U. S., at 526 (citing J. Archbold, Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases 51, 188 (15th ed. 1862)). Justice Breyer claims the two are “similar,” post, at 341, but they are as similar as chalk and cheese. Bishop was not “addressing” the “problem” of statutes that aggravate common-law offenses. Ibid. Rather, the entire chapter of his treatise is devoted to the point that “every fact which is legally essential to the punishment,” 1 Criminal Procedure §81, at 51, must be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury, id., ch. 6, at 50-56. As one “example” of this principle (appearing several pages before the language we quote in text above), he notes a statute aggravating common-law assault. Id., § 82, at 51-52. But nowhere is there the slightest indication that his general principle was limited to that example. Even Justice Breyer’s academic supporters do not make that claim. See Bibas, Judicial Fact-Finding and Sentence Enhancements in a World of Guilty Pleas, 110 Yale L. J. 1097, 1131-1132 (2001) (conceding that Bishop’s treatise supports Apprendi, while criticizing its "natural-law theorizing”).
As to Justice O’Connor’s criticism of the quantity of historical support for the Apprendi rule, post, at 323 (dissenting opinion): It bears repeating that the issue between us is not whether the Constitution limits States’ authority to reclassify elements as sentencing factors (we all agree that it does); it is only which line, ours or hers, the Constitution draws. Criticism of the quantity of evidence favoring our alternative would have some force if it were accompanied by any evidence favoring hers. Justice O’CONNOR does not even provide a coherent alternative meaning for the jury-trial guarantee, unless one considers “whatever the legislature chooses to leave to the jury, so long as it does not go too far” coherent. See infra, at 305-308.
The State does not contend that the domestic-violence stipulation alone supports the departure. That the statute lists domestic violence as grounds for departure only when combined with some other aggravating factor suggests it could not. See §§9.94A.390(2)(h)(i)-(iii).
Nor does it matter that the judge must, after finding aggravating facts, make a judgment that they present a compelling ground for departure. He cannot make that judgment without finding some facts to support it beyond the bare elements of the offense. Whether the judicially determined facts require a sentence enhancement or merely allow it, the verdict alone does not authorize the sentence.
The United States, as amicus curiae, urges us to affirm. It notes differences between Washington’s sentencing regime and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines but questions whether those differences are constitutionally significant. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25-30. The Federal Guidelines are not before us, and we express no opinion on them.
Justice O’Connor believes that a “built-in political check” will prevent lawmakers from manipulating offense elements in this fashion. Post, at 322. But the many immediate practical advantages of judicial factfinding, see post, at 318-320, suggest that political forces would, if anything, pull in the opposite direction. In any case, the Framers’ decision to entrench the jury-trial right in the Constitution shows that they did not trust government to make political decisions in this area.
Another example of conversion from separate crime to sentence enhancement that Justice O’Connor evidently does not consider going “too far” is the obstruction-of-justice enhancement, see post, at 319. Why perjury during trial should be grounds for a judicial sentence enhancement on the underlying offense, rather than an entirely separate offense to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (as it has been for centuries, see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 136-138 (1769)), is unclear.
Justice Breyer responds that States are not required, to give defendants the option of waiving jury trial on some elements but not others. Post, at 335-336. True enough. But why would the States that he asserts we are coercing into hardheartedness — that is, States that want judge-pronounced determinate sentencing to be the norm but we won’t let them — want to prevent a defendant from choosing that regime? Justice Breyer claims this alternative may prove “too expensive and unwieldy for States to provide,” post, at 336, but there is no obvious reason why forcing defendants to choose between contesting all elements of his hypothetical 17-element robbery crime and contesting none of them is less expensive than also giving them the third option of pleading guilty to some elements and submitting the rest to judicial factfinding. Justice Breyer’s argument rests entirely on a speculative prediction about the number of defendants likely to choose the first (rather than the second) option if denied the third.
To be sure, Justice Breyer and the other dissenters would forbid those increases of sentence that violate the constitutional principle that tail shall not wag dog. The source of this principle is entirely unclear. Its precise effect, if precise effect it has, is presumably to require that the ratio of sentencing-factor add-on to basic criminal sentence be no greater than the ratio of caudal vertebrae to body in the breed of canine with the longest tail. Or perhaps no greater than the average such ratio for all breeds. Or perhaps the median. Regrettably, Apprendi has prevented full development of this line of jurisprudence.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Douglas join.
This case presents the questions whether a labor union's strike assistance, by way of room rent and food vouchers, furnished to a worker participating in a strike constitutes income to him under § 61 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; and whether the assistance furnished to this particular worker, who was in need, constituted a “gift” to him, and hence was excluded from income by § 102 (a) of the Code.
The respondent was employed by the Kohler Company in Wisconsin. The bargaining representative at the Kohler plant was Local 833 of the United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO (UAW). In April 1954, the Local, with the approval of the International Union of the UAW, called a strike against Kohler in support of various bargaining demands in connection with a proposed renewal of their recently expired collective bargaining contract. The respondent was not a member of the Union, but he went out on strike. He had been earning $2.16 an hour at his job. This was his sole source of income, and when he struck he soon found himself in financial need. He went to the Union headquarters and requested assistance. It was the policy of the Union to grant assistance to the many Kohler strikers simply on a need basis. It made no difference whether a striker was a union member. The Union representatives questioned respondent as to his financial resources, and his dependents. He had no other job and needed assistance with respect to the essentials of life. He was single during the period in question, and the Union provided him with a food voucher for $6 a week, redeemable in kind at a local store; the voucher was later increased to $7.50 a week. The Union also paid his room rent, which amounted to $9 a week. If in need, married strikers and married strikers with children received respectively larger food vouchers. The over-all policy of the International Union was not to render strike assistance where strikers could obtain state unemployment compensation or local public assistance benefits. But the former condition does not prevail in Wisconsin, and local public assistance was available only on a showing of a destitution evidently deemed extreme by the Union.
The Union thought that strikers ought to perform picketing duty, but did not require, advise or encourage strikers who were receiving assistance to picket or perform any other activity in furtherance of the strike; but assistance ceased for strikers who obtained work. Respondent performed some picketing, though apparently no considerable amount. After receiving assistance for several months, he joined the Union. This had in no way been required of him or suggested to him in connection with the continued receipt of assistance.
The program of strike assistance was primarily financed through the strike fund of the International Union, which had been raised through crediting to it 25 cents of the $1.25 per capita monthly assessment the International required from the local unions. The Local also had a small strike fund built up through monthly credits of 5 cents of the local members’ dues, and contributions were received in some degree, not contended to be substantial, from other unions and outsiders. The constitution of the International Union required that it be the authorizing agency for strikes, and imposed on it the general duty to render financial assistance to the members on strike.
During 1954, the Union furnished respondent assistance in the value of $565.54. In computing his federal income tax for the year, he did not include in gross income any amount in respect of the assistance. The District Director of Internal Revenue informed respondent that the $565.54 should have been added to his gross income and the tax due increased by $108 accordingly. Respondent paid this amount, and after administrative rejection of a refund claim, sued for a refund in the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. A jury trial was had, and the court submitted to the jury the single interrogatory whether the assistance rendered to respondent was a gift. The jury answered in the affirmative; but the court entered judgment for the Government, re. o. v., on the basis that as a matter of law the assistance was income to the respondent, and did not fall within the statutory exclusion for gifts. 158 F. Supp. 865.
By a divided vote, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 262 F. 2d 367. It held alternatively that the assistance was not within the concept of income of § 61 (a) of the Code, and that.in any event the jury’s determination that the assistance was a gift, and hence excluded from gross income by § 102 (a), had rational support in the evidence and accordingly was within its province as trier of the facts. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari, because of the importance of the issues presented. 359 U. S. 1010. Later, when the Government petitioned for certiorari in No. 376, Commissioner v. Duberstein, and acquiesced in the taxpayer’s petition in No. 546, Stanton v. United States, it suggested that those cases be set down for argument with the case at bar, because they illustrated in a more general context the “gift” exclusion issues presented by this case. We agreed, and the cases were argued together. We conclude, on the basis of our opinion in the Duberstein case, p. 278, ante, that the jury in this case, as finder of the facts, acted within its competence in concluding that the assistance rendered here was a gift within § 102 (a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, we think it unnecessary to consider or express any opinion as to whether the assistance in fact constituted income to the respondent within the meaning of § 61 (a).
At trial, counsel for the Government did not make objection to any part of the District Court’s charge to the jury or the “gift” exclusion. In this Court, the charge is belatedly challenged, and only as part of the Government’s position that there should be formulated a new “test” for application in this area. We have rejected that contention in our opinion in Duberstein. In the absence of specific objection at trial, or of demonstration of any .compelling reason for dispensing with such objection, we do not here notice any defect in the charge, in the light of the controlling legal principles as we have reviewed them in Duberstein.
We think, also, that the proofs were adequate to support the conclusion of the jury. Our opinion in Duber-stein stresses the basically factual nature of the inquiry as to this issue. The factual inferences to be drawn from the basic facts were here for the jury. They had the power to conclude, on the record, taking into account such factors as the form and amount of the assistance and the conditions of personal need, of lack of other sources of income, compensation, or public assistance, and of dependency status, which surrounded the program under which it was rendered, that while the assistance was furnished only to strikers, it was not a recompense for striking. They could have concluded that the very general language of the Union’s constitution, when considered with the nature of the Union as an entity and with the factors to which we have just referred, did not indicate that basically the assistance proceeded from any constraint of moral or legal obligation, of a nature that would preclude it from being a gift. And on all these circumstances, the jury could have concluded that assistance, rendered as it was to a class of persons in the community in economic need, proceeded primarily from generosity or charity, rather than from the incentive of anticipated economic benefit. We can hardly say that, as a matter of law, the fact that these transfers were made to one having a sympathetic interest with the giver prevents them from being a gift. This is present in many cases of the most unquestionable charity.
We need not stop to speculate as to what conclusion we would have drawn had we sat in the jury box rather than those who did. The question is one of the allocation of power to decide the question; and once we say that such conclusions could with reason be reached on the evidence, and that the District Court’s instructions are not overthrown, our reviewing authority is exhausted, and we must recognize that the jury was empowered to render the verdict which it did.
Affirmed.
“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
“(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items;
“(2) Gross income derived from business;
“(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
“(4) Interest;
“(5) Rents;
“(6) Royalties;
“(7) Dividends;
“(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
“(9) Annuities;
“(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
“(11) Pensions;
“(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
“(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
“(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
“(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.”
“Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift . . . .”
After the increase referred to, married strikers without children received a $15 weekly food voucher; those with one child, an $18 voucher.
Compare N. Y. Labor Law, § 592 (compensation payable after seven weeks of striking).
Article 12, § 1 provides that “The International Executive Board . . . shall have the power to authorize strikes.” Section 15 of that article provides that upon such authorization, “it shall be the duty of the International Executive Board to render all financial assistance to the members on strike consistent with the resources and responsibilities of the International Union.”
The strike funds referred to are provided for by §§4 and 11 of Art. 16 of the International’s constitution.
Specific challenge to the instructions was not made by the Government until its reply brief in this Court, and then only on the basis we have noted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issues here are whether, under the circumstances of this case, a state court may enjoin strikers and union representatives from (1) “threatening, intimidating or coercing any of the officers, agents or employees of [the employer] at any place,” and also “from obstructing, or attempting to obstruct the free use of the streets adjacent to [the employer’s] place of business, and the free ingress and egress to and from [the employer’s] property,” and (2) all “picketing or patrolling” of the employer’s premises. For reasons hereafter stated, we conclude that the state court may lawfully • enjoin conduct of substantially the first category but not of the second.
Most of the material facts are uncontroverted. In 1955, respondent, Rainfair, Inc., was a Wisconsin corporation with headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin. It owned and operated a plant in Wynne, Arkansas, an essentially rural community of about 4,000 inhabitants. About 100 women and seven men were there employed in the manufacture of men’s slacks which were shipped in interstate commerce. None of the employees were members of a labor union but many had signed applications to join the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, which is one of the petitioners.
Apparently in an effort to compel the employer to recognize the union as the bargaining agent of the employees, 29 of the employees did not report for work on May 2, 1955. A picket line was established on the street in front of the plant. Strike headquarters were maintained across the street from the plant entrance. Nearly all of the strikers were women. Their number varied from eight to 37. All was not quiet, however. On one occasion nails were strewn over the company’s parking lot and, about a week later, the whole lot was “seeded” with roofing tacks. Tacks were also scattered in the driveway of the plant manager’s home and on the driveways of 12 of the nonstriking women employees. One of the pickets told the plant manager that she would “wipe the sidewalk” with him and send him back to Wisconsin because he “was nothing but trash.” The plant manager was followed by the strikers each time he left the plant; he also was harassed at night by occasional shouting at his home and by numerous anonymous telephone calls.
Immediately after the strike was called, respondent, by registered mail, informed each of the strikers that, if they did not return to work within a few days, the company would assume that those not returning had quit their jobs. Only three returned. Thirteen new employees were hired. The strike ended on May 19, the pickets were withdrawn and the strikers applied for reinstatement. Respondent, however, declined to arrange for immediate reinstatement. On June 17, the strikers voted to re-establish the picket line on Monday, June 20. The purpose was to protest against respondent’s failure to recognize the union and its refusal to reinstate the employees who had applied for reinstatement in May.
Shortly after midnight, on the morning of June 20, two women strikers deliberately drove a sharp instrument into two tires of a car owned by the daughter of one of the nonstriking women employees. At about 5:15 a. m. the police were summoned to the plant where they found a five-foot black snake inside the plant beneath a broken window. At about 6 a. m. picketing was resumed. Although the union posted notices warning the strikers against committing acts of violence, a union representative later was sufficiently concerned to ask the police to have someone regularly on duty at the entrance to the plant. The evidence shows that the tension was in large part caused by the enormous amount of abusive language hurled by the strikers at the company employees. The Supreme Court of Arkansas later summarized this as follows:
“As the employees would go to and from work at the plant, or go to lunch, or take a recess, the strikers would congregate along the west edge of their lot and sometimes in Rowena Street and engage in loud and offensive name calling, singing or shouting directed at the workers. They would call the workers ‘scabs/ ‘dirty scabs/ ‘fat scabs/ ‘yellow scabs/ ‘crazy scabs/ ‘cotton patch scabs/ ‘pony tailed scabs/ ‘fuzzy headed scabs/ ‘fools/ ‘cotton picking fools/ and other similar names. This took place every time an employee left or entered the plant. It was done by the strikers individually, in couples or by the entire group and in a loud and boisterous manner. One witness described it as ‘just bedlam’ when more than a dozen joined in the shouting. Particular names or remarks were reserved for individual workers. One pregnant worker was greeted with, ‘Get the hot water ready/ or, ‘I am coming to make another payment on the baby, call Dr. Beaton/ or, ‘Why, you can work another hour until you go to the delivery room.’ This worker and another drove to a filling station for gasoline when two of the strikers drove up and told the attendant not to wait on ‘these scabs’ before he waited on the strikers.
“One worker said the strikers always called her ‘fat scab/ and that individual pickets and strikers made fun of her clothing and asked her if ‘Pete/ the plant manager, still liked her ‘low-cut dresses and earrings.’ This made the employee so angry she invited the picket to come over and ‘make it some of her business.’. . .
“The strikers sang songs with improvised lyrics to the tune of certain popular ballads and religious and Union songs. ‘When The Saints Go Marching In’ became ‘When The Scabs Go Marching In’ and the ballad, ‘Davy Crockett/ began, ‘Born in a cotton patch in Arkansas, the greenest gals we ever saw . . . .’
“The women pickets would stand in the street or sit near the plant and shout ugly names, stick out their tongues, hold their noses and make a variety of indecent gestures while pointing at the workers in the plant. Several workers testified the continuous name calling and boisterous conduct of the strikers made them afraid, angry, ill or nervous and had an adverse effect on their ability to properly do their work. Some of the workers would talk back to the strikers while others remained silent. The Chief of Police of Wynne testified there was more tension during the second picketing than the first and that he was fearful there was going to be trouble during the second picketing and so informed Union staff members. One staff member called him once when trouble seemed imminent and wanted to 'go on record’ as having requested the presence of the officer.” 226 Ark. 80, 83-84, 288 S. W. 2d 589, 591.
On June 24, respondent filed a complaint in the local Chancery Court. It described the conduct of the strikers and alleged that such conduct amounted to “unlawful acts ... for the unlawful purpose of intimidating and coercing” respondent’s employees into joining the union, that respondent had no adequate remedy at law and that it was suffering irreparable damage from such conduct. The court acted upon the complaint and the testimony of the plant manager and issued a temporary injunction. After full hearing, it made the injunction permanent on September 15. The trial court’s findings included the following statement:
“That the defendants, in picketing the plaintiff’s plant, have resorted to violence, coercion and intimidation, and such other unlawful conduct as was calculated to cause a breach of the peace, and that the defendants have unlawfully abused the right to peaceably picket, as granted to them by the laws of this state and the Federal Constitution, and that said defendants should be permanently enjoined from picketing the plaintiff’s plant.”
The permanent decree enjoined not only the threatening and intimidation of the employees of respondent at any place, but also all picketing or patrolling of respondent’s premises by the named defendants and all other persons in sympathy or acting in concert with them. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the decree. 226 Ark. 80, 288 S. W. 2d 589. We granted certiorari largely because of the sweeping language of the decree. 352 U. S. 822.
The applicable principles of law are substantially agreed upon. Respondent concedes that it is engaged in interstate commerce and that its employees are entitled to the protection of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. § 151. Respondent does not contend that the state court had power to enjoin peaceful organized activity, recognizing that generally the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction of such matters. Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468. Petitioners concede that the state court had the power to enjoin violence. Auto Workers v. Wisconsin Board, 351 U. S. 266; Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Board, 315 U. S. 740. Respondent contends that the record here shows a pattern of violence so enmeshed in the picketing that, to restore order, it was necessary to enjoin all organized conduct. Petitioners, on the other hand, urge that there was no violence here and no threat of it and, accordingly, that there was no factual warrant for the injunction which issued.
The issue here is whether or not the conduct and language of the strikers were likely to cause physical violence. Petitioners urge that all of this abusive language was protected and that they could not, therefore, be enjoined from using it. We cannot agree. Words can readily be so coupled with conduct as to provoke violence. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572. Petitioners contend that the words used, principally “scab” and variations thereon, are within a protected terminology. But if a sufficient number yell any word sufficiently loudly showing an intent to ridicule, insult or annoy, no matter how innocuous the dictionary definition of that word, the effect may cease to be persuasion and become intimidation and incitement to violence. Wynne is not an industrial metropolis. When, in a small community, more than 30 people get together and act as they did here, and heap abuse on their neighbors and former friends, a court is justified in finding that violence is imminent. Recognizing that the trial court was in a better position than we can be to assess the local situation, we think the evidence supports its conclusion, affirmed by the State Supreme Court, that the conduct and massed name-calling by petitioners were calculated to provoke violence and were likely to do so unless promptly restrained.
Though the state court was within its discretionary power in enjoining future acts of violence, intimidation and threats of violence by the strikers and the union, yet it is equally clear that such court entered the pre-empted domain of the National Labor Relations Board insofar as it enjoined peaceful picketing by petitioners. The picketing proper, as contrasted with the activities around the headquarters, was peaceful. There was little, if any, conduct designed to exclude those who desired to return to work. Nor can we say that a pattern of violence was established which would inevitably reappear in the event picketing were later resumed. Cf. Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 312 U. S. 287. What violence there was was scattered in time and much of it was unconnected with the picketing. There is nothing in the record to indicate that an injunction against such conduct would be ineffective if picketing were resumed.
Accordingly, insofar as the injunction before us prohibits petitioners and others cooperating with them from threatening violence against, or provoking violence on the part of, any of the officers, agents or employees of respondent and prohibits them from obstructing or attempting to obstruct the free use of the streets adjacent to respondent’s place of business, and the free ingress and egress to and from that property, it is affirmed. On the other hand, to the extent the injunction prohibits all other picketing and patrolling of respondent’s premises and in particular prohibits peaceful picketing, it is set aside. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is vacated and the case is remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Douglas, being of opinion that Congress has given the National Labor Relations Board exclusive jurisdiction of this controversy, would reverse the judgment in its entirety and remand the cause to the state court for dismissal of the injunction.
In the meantime the union had filed unfair labor practice charges against respondent before the National Labor Relations Board. These were still pending at the time of the hearing of the instant case. The union also requested the Board to conduct a representation election, but this request was withdrawn before the hearing on the injunction. At an election held on October 19, a majority of the employees of respondent voted not to be represented by the union.
They later were convicted of this misdemeanor.
The placards were inscribed, “Rainfair Workers on Strike, Rain-fair is unfair to its employees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO.”
“It is, therefore, considered and decreed by this court that the defendants James E. Youngdahl . . . and each of them, and their agents and employees, and each and every one of the officers and members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, and all other persons in sympathy, or acting in concert with them, be, and they are hereby permanently enjoined while on, adjacent to, or near plaintiff’s premises located on Martin Drive and Rowena Street, in Wynne, Arkansas, from interfering with plaintiff’s business, its customers and employees, and from picketing or patrolling, or causing to be picketed or patrolled the plaintiff’s premises, and the sidewalks, streets, or other property adjacent to plaintiff’s premises, with placards or banners designating said place of business as unfair to organized labor, or with placards otherwise so worded as to give said place of business such designation; that the defendants, and each of them, their agents and employees, and the officers and members of the above-mentioned union, and all sympathizers, and all other persons acting in concert with them, be, and they are hereby restrained and enjoined from accosting and detaining, or causing to be accosted or to be detained on the sidewalks or streets adjacent to or on plaintiff’s premises, any person or persons seeking to enter or depart from said place of business for the purpose of dissuading them from patronizing, or working for plaintiff, or from calling attention to any alleged unfairness of plaintiff, or its place of business, to organized labor; from threatening, intimidating or coercing any of the officers, agents or employees of plaintiff at any place; from loitering and congregating around and under the tent and upon the property that is used as the union’s headquarters, located directly across Rowena Street in front of plaintiff’s premises; and from obstructing, or attempting to obstruct the free use of the streets adjacent to plaintiff’s place of business, and the free ingress and egress to and from plaintiff’s property.”
In Arkansas there was then in effect a statute of long standing which expressly made it a crime for any person to “make use of any profane, violent, vulgar, abusive or insulting language toward or about any other person in his presence or hearing, which language in its common acceptation is calculated to arouse to anger the person about or to whom it is spoken or addressed, or to cause a breach of the peace or an assault . . . .” Ark. Stat., 1947, 41-1412.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II-A.
The question presented in this case is whether a provision of the District of Columbia Code, § 22-1115, violates the First Amendment. This section prohibits the display of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if that sign tends to bring that foreign government into “public odium” or “public disrepute.” It also prohibits any congregation of three or more persons within 500 feet of a foreign embassy.
I
Petitioners are three individuals who wish to carry signs critical of the Governments of the Soviet Union and Nicaragua on the public sidewalks within 500 feet of the embassies of those Governments in Washington, D. C. Petitioners Bridget M. Brooker and Michael Boos, for example, wish to display signs stating “RELEASE SAKHAROV” and “SOLIDARITY” in front of the Soviet Embassy. Petitioner J. Michael Waller wishes to display a sign reading “STOP THE KILLING” within 500 feet of the Nicaraguan Embassy. All of the petitioners also wish to congregate with two or more other persons within 500 feet of official foreign buildings.
Asserting that D. C. Code § 22-1115 (1981) prohibited them from engaging in these expressive activities, petitioners, together with respondent Father R. David Finzer, brought a facial First Amendment challenge to that provision in the District Court for the District of Columbia. They named respondents, the Mayor and certain other law enforcement officials of the District of Columbia, as defendants. The United States intervened as amicus curiae supporting the constitutionality of the statute.
Congress enacted §22-1115 in 1938, S. J. Res. 191, ch. 29, § 1, 52 Stat. 30 (1938), pursuant to its authority under Article I, § 8, cl. 10, of the Constitution to “define and punish... Offenses against the Law of Nations.” Section 22-1115 reads in pertinent part as follows:
“It shall be unlawful to display any flag, banner, placard, or device designed or adapted to intimidate, coerce, or bring into public odium any foreign government, party, or organization, or any officer or officers thereof, or to bring into public disrepute political, social, or economic acts, views, or purposes of any foreign government, party or organization... within 500 feet of any building or premises within the District of Columbia used or occupied by any foreign government or its representative or representatives as an embassy, legation, consulate, or for other official purposes... or to congregate within 500 feet of any such building or premises, and refuse to disperse after having been ordered so to do by the police authorities of said District.”
The first portion of this statute, the “display” clause, applies to signs tending to bring a foreign government into public odium or public disrepute, such as signs critical of a foreign government or its policies. The display clause applies only to the display of signs, not to the spoken word. See Zaimi v. United States, 155 U. S. App. D. C. 66, 82, 476 F. 2d 511, 527 (1973). The second portion of the statute, the “congregation” clause, addresses a different concern. It prohibits congregation, which District of Columbia common law defines as an assemblage of three or more people. District of Columbia v. Reed, Cr. No. 2021-67 (D. C. Ct. Gen. Sess., May 11, 1967) (reprinted in App. in Kinoy v. District of Columbia, 130 U. S. App. D. C. 290, 298, 400 F. 2d 761, 769 (1968)); Hunter v. District of Columbia, 47 App. D. C. 406, 409 (1918). Both of these prohibitions generally operate within a 500-foot zone surrounding embassies or consulates owned by foreign governments, but the statute also can extend to other buildings if foreign officials are inside for some official purpose.
The District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, relying upon an earlier Court of Appeals decision, Frend v. United States, 69 App. D. C. 281, 100 F. 2d 691 (1938), cert. denied, 306 U. S. 640 (1939), that had sustained the statute against a similar First Amendment challenge. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed. Finzer v. Barry, 255 U. S. App. D. C. 19, 798 F. 2d 1450 (1986). Although it found Frend “persuasive precedent,” the Court of Appeals thought Frend was not binding because it “was decided almost a half century ago and in the interval the Supreme Court has developed constitutional law in ways that must be taken into account.” 255 U. S. App. D. C., at 23, 798 F. 2d, at 1454.
The Court of Appeals considered -the two aspects of §22-1115 separately. First, the court concluded that the display clause was a content-based restriction on speech. Relying, however, upon our decisions in Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983), and Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 461-462 (1980), the court nonetheless found it constitutional because it was justified by a compelling governmental interest and was narrowly drawn to serve that interest. Second, the Court of Appeals concluded that the congregation clause should be construed to authorize an order to disperse “only when the police reasonably believe that a threat to the security or peace of the embassy is present,” and that as construed, the congregation clause survived First Amendment scrutiny. 255 U. S. App. D. C., at 40, 798 F. 2d, at 1471.
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1083 (1987). We now reverse the Court of Appeals’ conclusion as to the display clause, but affirm as to the congregation clause.
II
A
Analysis of the display clause must begin with several important features of that provision. First, the display clause operates at the core of the First Amendment by prohibiting petitioners from engaging in classically political speech. We have recognized that the First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment” to the principle that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964), and have consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues. See, e. g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 913 (1982); Carey v. Brown, supra, at 467. This has led us to scrutinize carefully any restrictions on public issue picketing. See, e. g., United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171 (1983); Carey v. Brown, supra; Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972).
Second, the display clause bars such speech on public streets and sidewalks, traditional public fora that “time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939) (Roberts, J.). In such places, which occupy a “special position in terms of First Amendment protection,” United States v. Grace, 461 U. S., at 180, the government’s ability to restrict expressive activity “is very limited.” Id., at 177.
Third, §22-1115 is content básed. Whether individuals may picket in front of a foreign embassy depends entirely upon whether their picket signs are critical of the foreign government or not. One category of speech has been completely prohibited within 500 feet of embassies. Other categories of speech, however, such as favorable speech about a foreign government or speech concerning a labor dispute with a foreign government, are permitted. See D. C. Code § 22-1116 (1981).
Both the majority and dissent in the Court of Appeals accepted this common sense reading of the statute and concluded that the display clause was content based. The majority indicated, however, that it could be argued that the regulation was not content based. 255 U. S. App. D. C., at 38, n. 15, 798 F. 2d, at 1469, n. 15. Both respondents and the United States have now made such an argument in this Court. They contend that the statute is not content based because the government is not itself selecting between viewpoints; the permissible message on a picket sign is determined solely by the policies of a foreign government.
We reject this contention, although we agree the provision is not viewpoint based. The display clause determines which viewpoint is acceptable in a neutral fashion by looking to the policies of foreign governments. While this prevents the display clause from being directly viewpoint based, a label, with potential First Amendment ramifications of its own, see, e. g., City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 804 (1984); Schacht v. United States, 398 U. S. 58, 63 (1970), it does not render the statute content neutral. Rather, we have held that a regulation that “does not favor either side of a political controversy” is nonetheless impermissible because the “First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends... to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U. S. 530, 537 (1980). Here the government has determined that an entire category of speech — signs or displays critical of foreign governments — is not to be permitted.
We most recently considered the definition of a content-neutral statute in Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41 (1986). Drawing on prior decisions, we described “‘content-neutral’ speech restrictions as those that ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.’ Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976) (emphasis added).” Id., at 48. The regulation at issue in Renton described prohibited speech by reference to the type of movie theater involved, treating “theaters that specialize in adult films differently from other kinds of theaters.” Id., at 47. But while the regulation in Renton applied only to a particular category of speech, its justification had nothing to do with that speech. The content of the films being shown inside the theaters was irrelevant and was not the target of the regulation. Instead, the ordinance was aimed at the “secondary effects of such theaters in the surrounding community,” ibid. (emphasis in original), effects that are almost unique to theaters featuring sexually explicit films, i. e., prevention of crime, maintenance of property values, and protection of residential neighborhoods. In short, the ordinance in Renton did not aim at the suppression of free expression.
Respondents attempt to bring the display clause within Renton by arguing that here too the real concern is a secondary effect, namely, our international law obligation to shield diplomats from speech that offends their dignity. We think this misreads Renton. We spoke in that decision only of secondary effects of speech, referring to regulations that apply to a particular category of speech because the regulatory targets happen to be associated with that type of speech. So long as the justifications for regulation have nothing to do with content, i. e., the desire to suppress crime has nothing to do with the actual films being shown inside adult movie theaters, we concluded that the regulation was properly analyzed as content neutral.
Regulations that focus on the direct impact of speech on its audience present a different situation. Listeners’ reactions to speech are not the type of “secondary effects” we referred to in Renton. To take an example factually close to Renton, if the ordinance there was justified by the city’s desire to prevent the psychological damage it felt was associated with viewing adult movies, then analysis of the measure as a content-based statute would have been appropriate. The hypothetical regulation targets the direct impact of a particular category of speech, not a secondary feature that happens to be associated with that type of speech.
Applying these principles to the case at hand leads readily to the conclusion that the display clause is content-based. The clause is justified only by reference to the content of speech. Respondents and the United States do not point to the “secondary effects” of picket signs in front of embassies. They do not point to congestion, to interference with ingress or egress, to visual clutter, or to the need to protect the security of embassies. Rather, they rely on the need to protect the dignity of foreign diplomatic personnel by shielding them from speech that is critical of their governments. This justification focuses only on the content of the speech and the direct impact that speech has on its listeners. The emotive impact of speech on its audience is not a “secondary effect.” Because the display clause regulates speech due to its potential primary impact, we conclude it must be considered content-based.
B
Our cases indicate that as a content-based, restriction on political speech in a public forum,, §22-1115 must be subjected to the most exacting scrutiny. Thus, we have required the State to show that the “regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S., at 45. Accord, Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U. S. 569, 572-573 (1987); Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800 (1985); United States v. Grace, 461 U. S., at 177.
We first consider whether the display clause serves a compelling governmental interest in protecting the dignity of foreign diplomatic personnel. Since the dignity of foreign officials will be affronted by signs critical of their governments or governmental policies, we are told, these foreign diplomats must be shielded from such insults in order to fulfill our country’s obligations under international law.
As a general matter, we have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide “adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, ante, at 56. See also, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 270. A “dignity” standard, like the “outrageousness” standard that we rejected in Hustler, is so inherently subjective that it would be inconsistent with “our longstanding refusal to [punish speech] because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience.” Hustler Magazine, supra, at 55.
We are not persuaded that the differences between foreign officials and American citizens require us to deviate from these principles here. The dignity interest is said to be compelling in this context primarily because its recognition and protection is part of the United States’ obligations under international law. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, April 18, 1961, [1972] 23 U. S. T. 3227, T. I. A. S. No. 7502, which all parties agree represents the current state of international law, imposes on host states
“[the] special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.” Id., at 3237-3238, Art. 22.
As a general proposition, it is of course correct that the United States has a vital national interest in complying with international law. The Constitution itself attempts to further this interest by expressly authorizing Congress “[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 10. Cf. The Federalist No. 3, p. 43 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Jay). Moreover, protecting foreign emissaries has a long history and noble purpose. In this country national concern for the protection of ambassadors and foreign ministers even predates the Constitution. In 1781 the Continental Congress adopted a resolution calling on the States to enact laws punishing “infractions of the immunities of ambassadors and other public ministers, authorised and received as such by the United States in Congress assembled,” targeting in particular “violence offered to their persons, houses, carriages and property.” 21 J. Continental Cong. 1136-1137 (G. Hunt ed. 1912).
The need to protect diplomats is grounded in our Nation’s important interest in international relations. As a leading commentator observed in 1758, “[i]t is necessary that nations should treat and hold intercourse together, in order to promote their interests, — to avoid injuring each other, — and to adjust and terminate their disputes.” E. Vattel, The Law of Nations 452 (J. Chitty ed. 1844) (translation). This observation is even more true today given the global nature of the economy and the extent to which actions in other parts of the world affect our own national security. Diplomatic personnel are essential to conduct the international affairs so crucial to the well-being of this Nation. In addition, in light of the concept of reciprocity that governs much of international law in this area, see C. Wilson, Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities 32 (1967), we have a more parochial reason to protect foreign diplomats in this country. Doing so ensures that similar protections will be accorded those that we send abroad to represent the United States, and thus serves our national interest in protecting our own citizens. Recent history is replete with attempts, some unfortunately successful, to harass and harm our ambassadors and other diplomatic officials. These underlying purposes combine to make our national interest in protecting diplomatic personnel powerful indeed.
At the same time, it is well established that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 16 (1957). See 1 Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 131, Comment a, p. 53 (Tent. Draft No. 6, Apr. 12, 1985) (“[R]ules of international law and provisions of international agreements of the United States are subject to the Bill of Rights and other prohibitions, restrictions or requirements of the Constitution and cannot be given effect in violation of them”).
Thus, the fact that an interest is recognized in international law does not automatically render that interest “compelling” for purposes of First Amendment analysis. We need not decide today whether, or to what extent, the dictates of international law could ever require that First Amendment analysis be adjusted to accommodate the interests of foreign officials. Even if we assume that international law recognizes a dignity interest and that it should be considered sufficiently “compelling” to support a content-based restriction on speech, we conclude that § 22-1115 is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. See, e. g., Perry Education Assn., 460 U. S., at 45; Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles, 482 U. S., at 573.
The most useful starting point for assessing § 22-1115 is to compare it with an analogous statute adopted by Congress, which is the body primarily responsible for implementing our obligations under the Vienna Convention. Title 18 U. S. C. § 112(b)(2) subjects to criminal punishment willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign official or an official guest or obstruct a foreign official in the performance of his duties.”
Its legislative history reveals that § 112 was developed as a deliberate effort to implement our international obligations. See, e. g., 118 Cong. Rec. 27112-27113 (1972). At the same time, the history reflects a substantial concern with the effect of any such legislation on First Amendment freedoms. For example, the original provision contained a prohibition on willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass... or obstruct a foreign official,” as does the current version of § 112. In a portion with similarities to the display clause, however, it also punished anyone who
“parades, pickets, displays any flag, banner, sign, placard, or device, or utters any word, phrase, sound, or noise, for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, threatening, or harassing any foreign official or obstructing him in the performance of his duties.” Act for Protection of Foreign Official Guests of the United States, Pub. L. 92-539, Title III, § 301(c)(1), 86 Stat. 1070, 1073 (1972).
Concerned with the effects that such a provision might have on First Amendment freedoms, the Senate added a new subsection, which directed:
“[N]othing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” § 301(e), 86 Stat. 1073.
See S. Rep. No. 92-1105, p. 19 (1972).
After the 1972 passage of § 112 in this form, congressional concerns about its impact on First Amendment freedoms apparently escalated rather than abated. In 1976, Congress revisited the area and repealed the antipicketing provision, leaving in place only the current prohibition on willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign official.” § 112(b)(2). In modifying § 112, Congress was motivated by First Amendment concerns:
“This language [of the original anti-picketing provision] raises serious Constitutional questions because it appears to include within its purview conduct and speech protected by the First Amendment.” S. Rep. No. 94-1273, p. 8, n. 9 (1976); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1614, p. 6, n. 9 (1976).
Thus, after a careful balancing of our country’s international obligations with our Constitution’s protection of free expression, Congress has determined that § 112 adequately satisfies the Government’s interest in protecting diplomatic personnel outside the District of Columbia. It is the necessary, “appropriate” step that Congress has enacted to fulfill our international obligations. Cf. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Art. 22, § 2, 23 U. S. T., at 3237 (“special duty to take all appropriate steps”).
Section 112 applies to all conduct “within the United States but outside the District of Columbia.” § 112(b)(3). In the legislative history, the exclusion of the District from the statute’s reach is explained with reference to § 22-1115; Congress was informed that a “similar” statute already applied inside the District. S. Rep. No. 92-1105, supra, at 19; H. R. Rep. No. 92-1268, p. 5 (1972). The two statutes, however, are not identical, and the differences between them are constitutionally significant. In two obvious ways, § 112 is considerably less restrictive than the display clause of §22-1115. First and foremost, § 112 is not narrowly directed at the content of speech but at any activity, including speech, that has the prohibited effects. Moreover, §112, unlike §22-1115, does not prohibit picketing; it only prohibits activity undertaken to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass.” Indeed, unlike the display clause, even the repealed antipicketing portion of § 112 permitted peaceful picketing.
Given this congressional development of a significantly less restrictive statute to implement the Vienna Convention, there is little force to the argument that we should give deference to a supposed congressional judgment that the Convention demands the more problematic approach reflected in the display clause. If § 112 is all that is necessary in the rest of the country, petitioners contend it should be all that is necessary in the District of Columbia. The only counterargument offered by respondents is that the District has a higher concentration of foreign embassies than other locales and that a more restrictive statute is therefore necessary. But this is arguably factually incorrect (New York City is reported to have a greater number of foreign embassies, missions, or consulates than does the District of Columbia, see Note, Regulating Embassy Picketing in the Public Forum, 55 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 908, 928, n. 140 (1987)), and logically beside the point since the need to protect “dignity” is equally present whether there is one embassy or mission or one hundred. The United States points to Congress’ exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, and argues that this justifies more extensive measures. We fail to see, however, why the potential legislative power to enact more extensive measures makes such measures necessary.
Congressional action since the Court of Appeals’ ruling in this case casts even further doubt on the validity of the display clause and causes one to doubt whether that court would have reached the same result under the law as it now stands. In § 1302 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, Congress said:
“(1) [T]he District of Columbia law concerning demonstrations near foreign missions in the District of Columbia (D. C. Code, sec. 22-1115) may be inconsistent with the reasonable exercise of the rights of free speech and assembly, that law may have been selectively enforced, and peaceful demonstrators may have been unfairly arrested under the law;
“(2) the obligation of the United States to provide adequate security for the missions and personnel of foreign governments must be balanced with the reasonable exercise of the rights of free speech and assembly; and
“(3) therefore, the Council of the District of Columbia should review and, if appropriate, make revisions'in the laws of the District of Columbia concerning demonstrations near foreign missions, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury.” Pub. L. 99-399, § 1302, 100 Stat. 853, 897.
This sense-of-the-Congress resolution originated as a proposal to repeal § 22-1115 directly and to amend § 112 to include the District. The sponsor of this proposal noted that in excluding the District from the reach of § 112, Congress had apparently assumed that § 22-1115 and §112 were similar, when in fact the two laws are “in no way similar.” 132 Cong. Rec. 15329 (1986) (Sen. Grassley). The Senate passed the bill repealing § 22-1115, see ibid., but the Conference Committee was concerned with objections to congressional repeal arising from the tenets of “home rule” for the District of Columbia. See id., at 20913. Cf. District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (establishing home rule). These objections led Congress to replace a repeal of § 22-1115 with the sense-of-the-Congress language quoted above.
The District of Columbia government has responded to the congressional request embodied in the Omnibus Act by repealing § 22-1115. The repeal is contingent, however, on Congress’ first acting to extend § 112 to the District. See Protection for Foreign Officials, Official Guests, and Internationally Protected Persons Amendment Act of 1987, § 3, D. C. Act 7-138, 35 D. C. Reg. 728-729 (Feb. 5, 1988). Cf. § 112(b)(3) (Section applies “within the United States but outside the District of Columbia”).
While this most recent round of legislative action concerning § 22-1115 has not yet led to making the repeal of that provision effective, it has undercut significantly respondents’ defense of the display clause. When considered together with earlier congressional action implementing the Vienna Convention, the claim that the display clause is sufficiently narrowly tailored is gravely weakened: if ever it did so, Congress no longer considers this statute necessary to comply with our international obligations. Relying on congressional judgment in this delicate area, we conclude that the availability of alternatives such as § 112 amply demonstrates that the display clause is not crafted with sufficient precision to withstand First Amendment scrutiny. It may serve an interest in protecting the dignity of foreign missions, but it is not narrowly tailored; a less restrictive alternative is readily available. Cf. Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 280, n. 6 (1986) (plurality opinion). Thus, even assuming for present purposes that the dignity interest is “compelling,” we hold that the display clause of § 22-1115 is inconsistent with the First Amendment.
Ill
Petitioners initially attack the congregation clause by arguing that it confers unbridled discretion upon the police. In addressing such a facial overbreadth challenge, a court’s first task is to ascertain whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Houston v. Hill, 482 U. S. 451, 458-459 (1987); Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 494 (1982). In making this assessment, we consider the actual text of the statute as well as any limiting constructions that have been developed. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 355 (1983); Hoffman Estates, supra, at 494, n. 5.
The congregation clause makes it unlawful
“to congregate within 500 feet of any [embassy, legation, or consulate] and refuse to disperse after having been ordered so to do by the police.” § 22-1115.
Standing alone, this text is problematic both because it applies to any congregation within 500 feet of an embassy for any reason and because it appears to place no limits at all on the dispersal authority of the police. The Court of Appeals, however, has provided a narrowing construction that alleviates both of these difficulties.
The Court of Appeals, we must first observe, read the congregation clause as distinct from the display clause, so the constitutional infirmity of the latter need not affect the former. See 255 U. S. App. D. C., at 41, n. 17, 798 F. 2d, at 1472, n. 17. Second, the Court of Appeals followed the lead of several earlier decisions, see, e. g., United States v. Travers, 98 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 1505 (D. C. Ct. Gen. Sess. April 2, 1970), and concluded that the statute permits the dispersal only of congregations that are directed at an embassy; it does not grant “police the power to disperse for reasons having nothing to do with the nearby embassy.” 255 U. S. App. D. C., at 41, 798 F. 2d, at 1472. Finally, the Court of Appeals further circumscribed police discretion by holding that the statute permits dispersal “only when the police reasonably believe that a threat to the security or peace of the embassy is present.” Id., at 40, 798 F. 2d, at 1471.
Petitioners protest that the Court of Appeals was without authority to narrow the statute. According to petitioners, § 22-1115 must be considered to be state legislation, which brings it within the sweep of prior decisions indicating that federal courts are without power to adopt a narrowing construction of a state statute unless such a construction is reasonable and readily apparent. See, e. g., Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 110 (1972); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 520-521 (1972). Even assuming that the District of Columbia could be considered a State for this purpose, the argument overlooks the fact that § 22-1115 was enacted by Congress, not by the District of Columbia Council. Cf. Whalen v. United States, 445 U. S. 684, 687-688 (1980). It is well settled that federal courts have the power to adopt narrowing constructions of federal legislation. See, e. g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 769, n. 24 (1982); United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 368-370 (1971). Indeed, the federal courts have the duty to avoid constitutional difficulties by doing so if such a construction is fairly possible. See, e. g., Ferber, supra, at 769, n. 24; Thirty-seven Photographs, supra, at 369; Schneider v. Smith, 390 U. S. 17, 26-27 (1968). While the original congressional resolution is now part of the District of Columbia Code, this administrative transfer did not diminish the national interest in the congregation clause. As counsel for respondents indicated at oral argument, there “is no independent District of Columbia interest here.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. Accordingly, we see no barrier to the Court of Appeals’ adoption of a narrowing construction.
So narrowed, the congregation clause withstands First Amendment overbreadth scrutiny. It does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct; it merely regulates the place and manner of certain demonstrations. Unlike a general breach of the peace statute, see, e. g., Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (1965), the congregation clause is site specific; it applies only within 500 feet of foreign embassies. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 568, n. 1 (1965) (ordinance prohibiting certain picketing “near” a courthouse upheld; § 22-1115 cited with approval as being less vague due to specification of 500 feet); Grayned, supra, at 112, 120-121 (upholding ban on picketing near a school; special nature of place relevant in judging reasonableness of restraint). Moreover, the congregation clause does not prohibit peaceful congregations; its reach is limited to groups posing a security threat. 'As we have noted, “where demonstrations turn violent, they lose their protected quality as expression under the First Amendment.” Grayned, supra, at 116. These two limitations prevent the congregation clause from reaching a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and make the clause consistent with the First Amendment.
Petitioners argue that even as narrowed by the Court of Appeals, the congregation clause is invalid because it is impermissibly vague. In particular, petitioners focus on the word “peace,” which is not further defined or limited. We
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The three petitioners, dining car employees, filed separate suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. They sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries received upon the derailment of one of defendant’s trains near Dillon, South Carolina. The defendant filed motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the cases to the Florence Division of the Eastern District of South Carolina. The District Court denied the motions to dismiss and granted the motions to transfer under 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a).
Since the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had held, in All States Freight v. Modarelli, 196 F. 2d 1010, that the order for transfer was not appealable, the petitioners filed applications for mandamus or prohibition to the district judge in order to require him to set aside his orders of transfer. The Court of Appeals denied the applications, and we granted certiorari. 348 U. S. 870.
The cases of the three petitioners present identical questions of law, were consolidated for argument here, and will be disposed of in this opinion.
The district judge in granting the motions to transfer stated that if he had been free to construe § 1404 (a) as he did in the case of Naughton v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 85 F. Supp. 761, he would have denied the transfers because, in his view, it called for an application of the stricter rule of jorum non conveniens as recognized in decisions of this Court. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501. But since the Naughton case, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had held, in All States Freight v. Modarelli, supra, that the district judge had a broader discretion in the application of the statute than under the doctrine of jorum non conveniens. The district judge, therefore, followed the rule laid down in the All States Freight case, supra. We think the Court of Appeals correctly rejected the narrower doctrine of jorum non conveniens and properly construed the statute. As Judge Goodrich, speaking for the court, appropriately-pointed out, at p. 1011:
“The jorum non conveniens doctrine is quite different from Section 1404 (a). That doctrine involves the dismissal of a case because the forum chosen by the plaintiff is so completely inappropriate and inconvenient that it is better to stop the litigation in the place where brought and let it start all over again somewhere else. It is quite naturally subject to careful limitation for it not only denies the plaintiff the generally accorded privilege of bringing an action where he chooses, but makes it possible for him to lose out completely, through the running of the statute of limitations in the forum finally deemed appropriate. Section 1404 (a) avoids this latter danger. Its words should be considered for what they say, not with preconceived limitations derived from the jorum non conveniens doctrine.”
Judge Maris, who was Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on the revision of the Code and approved the text submitted to Congress, sat on the Court of Appeals en banc when All States Freight was decided. And Judge Parker of the Fourth Circuit, consultant to the Advisory Committee, writing for the court in Jiffy Lubricator Co., Inc. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 177 F. 2d 360, 362, also construed the statute as we understand it:
"... A dismissal in application of that [jorum non conveniens] or any other principle puts an end to the action and hence is final and appealable. An order transferring it to another district does not end but preserves it as against the running of the statute of limitations and for all other purposes. The notion that 28 U. S. C. A. § 1404 (a) was a mere codification of existing law relating to forum non conveniens is erroneous. It is perfectly clear that the purpose of this section of the Revised Judicial Code was to grant broadly the power of transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, whether dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens would have been appropriate or not.”
See also Moore, Commentary on the Judicial Code (1949 ed.), p. 208.
When Congress- adopted § 1404 (a), it intended to do more than just codify the existing' law on jorum non con-veniens. As this Court said in Ex parte Collett, 337 U. S. 55-61, Congress, in writing § 1404 (a), which was an entirely new section, was revising as well as codifying. The harshest result of the application of the old doctrine of forum non conveniens, dismissal of the action, was eliminated by the provision in § 1404 (a) for transfer. When the harshest part of the doctrine is excised by statute, it can hardly be called mere codification. As a consequence, we believe that Congress, by the term “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,” intended to permit courts to grant transfers upon a lesser showing of inconvenience. This is not to say that the relevant factors have changed or that the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not to be considered, but only that the discretion to be exercised is broader.
It is conceded by the petitioners that if the district judge was correct in exercising his discretion to transfer these cases under § 1404 (a) without regard to the stringent requirements of jorum non conveniens, then the Court of Appeals properly denied the applications for mandamus and prohibition. Since we agree that the district judge correctly construed the statute in evaluating the evidence, we do not find it necessary to detail the facts considered by him in reaching his judgment. It was correct in law and warranted by the facts.
Since we find that the district judge properly construed § 1404 (a), it is unnecessary to pass upon the question of whether mandamus or prohibition is a proper remedy.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Hablan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case turns on whether the federal carjacking statute, 18 U. S. C. §2119, as it was when petitioner was charged, defined three distinct offenses or a single erime with a choice of three maximum penalties, two of them dependent on sentencing factors exempt from the requirements of charge and jury verdict. We think the better reading is of three distinct offenses, particularly in light of the rule that any interpretive uncertainty should be resolved to avoid serious questions about the statute’s constitutionality.
t — 1
In December 1992, petitioner, Nathaniel Jones, and two others, Oliver and McMillan, held up two men, Mutanna and Mardaie. While Jones and McMillan went through the victims’ pockets, Oliver stuck his gun in Mutanna’s left ear, and later struck him on the head. Oliver and McMillan made their getaway in the Cadillac Jones had driven to the scene, while Jones forced Mardaie into Mutanna’s Honda and drove off after them. After stopping to put Mardaie out, Jones sped away in the stolen car subject to police pursuit, which ended when Jones crashed into a telephone pole. United States v. Oliver, 60 F. 3d 547, 549 (CA9 1995); Tr. 159, 387, 310 (July 27-28, 1993).
A grand Jones and his two accomplices on two counts: using or aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c), and carjacking or aiding and abetting carjacking, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2119, which then read as follows:
''Whoever, possessing a firearm as 921 of this title, takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall—
"(1) be fined under or than 15 years, or both,
“(2) if serious bodily injury (as of this title) results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and
“(3) if prisoned for any number of years up to life, or both.” 18 U. S. C. §2119 (1988 ed., Supp. V).
The indictment made no reference to the statute’s numbered subsections and charged none of the facts mentioned in the latter two, and at the arraignment the Magistrate Judge told Jones that he faced a maximum sentence of 15 years on the carjacking charge. App. 4-5, 7. Consistently with this advice, the District Court’s subsequent jury instructions defined the elements subject to the Government’s burden of proof by reference solely to the first paragraph of § 2119, with no mention of serious bodily injury. Id., at 10. The jury found Jones guilty on both counts.
a new turn, however, with the arrival of the presentence report, which recommended that petitioner be sentenced to 25 years for the carjacking because one of the victims had suffered serious bodily injury. The report noted that Mutanna had testified that Oliver’s gun caused profuse bleeding in Mutanna’s ear, and that a physician had concluded that Mutanna had suffered a perforated eardrum, with some numbness and permanent hearing loss. Id., at 15-16; 60 F. 3d, at 554. Jones objected that the 25-year recommendation was out of bounds, since serious bodily injury was an element of the offense defined in part by §2119(2), which had been neither pleaded in the indictment nor proven before the jury. App. 12-13. The District Court saw the matter differently and, based on its finding that the serious bodily injury allegation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, imposed a 25-year sentence on the carjacking count, ibid., together with a consecutive 5-year sentence for the firearm offense, 60 F. 3d, at 549.
of Appeals did not read §2119(2) as setting out an element of an independent offense. Id., at 551-554. The Ninth Circuit thus agreed with the Eleventh, see United States v. Williams, 51 F. 3d 1004, 1009-1010 (1995), in reasoning that the structure of the statute, particularly the grammatical dependence of the numbered subsections on the first paragraph, demonstrated Congress’s understanding that the subsections did not complete the definitions of separate crimes. 60 F. 3d, at 552-558. For its view that the subsections provided sentencing factors, the court found additional support in the statute’s legislative history. The heading on the subtitle of the bill creating §2119 was “Enhanced Penalties for Auto Theft,” which the court took as indicating that the statute’s numbered subsections merely defined sentencing enhancements. Id., at 553. The court also noted several references in the Committee Reports and floor debate on the bill to enhanced penalties for an apparently single carjacking offense. Ibid. Because of features arguably distinguishing this case from Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224 (1998), we granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1045 (1998), and now reverse.
Much, turns on the determination that a fact is an element of an offense rather than a sentencing consideration, given that elements must be charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e. g., Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 117 (1974); United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 509-510 (1995). Accordingly, some statutes come with the benefit of provisions straightforwardly addressing the distinction between elements and sentencing factors. See McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79, 85-86 (1986) (express identification of statutory provision as sentencing factor). Even without any such help, however, §2119 at first glance has a look to it suggesting that the numbered subsections are only sentencing provisions. It begins with a principal paragraph listing a series of obvious elements (possession of a firearm, taking a motor vehicle, connection with interstate commerce, and so on). That paragraph comes close to standing on its own, followed by sentencing provisions, the first of which, subsection (1), certainly adds no further element. But the superficial impression loses clarity when one looks at the penalty subsections (2) and (3). These not only provide for steeply higher penalties, but condition them on further facts (injury, death) that seem quite as important as the elements in the principal paragraph (e. g., force and violence, intimidation). It is at best questionable whether the specification of facts sufficient to increase a penalty range by two-thirds, let alone from 15 years to life, was meant to carry none of the process safeguards that elements of an offense bring with them for a defendant’s benefit. The “look” of the statute, then, is not a reliable guide to congressional intentions, and the Government accordingly advances two, more subtle structural arguments for its position that the fact specified in subsection (2) is merely a sentencing factor.
Like the Court of Appeals, the Government stresses that the statute’s numbered subsections do not stand alone in defining offenses, most of whose elements on anyone’s reckoning are set out in the statute’s opening paragraph. This integrated structure is said to suggest that the statute establishes only a single offense. To the same point, the Government argues that the numbered subsections come after the word “shall,” which often divides offense-defining provisions from those that specify sentences. Brief for United States 15-18. While these points are sound enough as far as they go, they are far short of dispositive even on their own terms, whereas they are weakened here by a number of countervailing structural considerations. First, as petitioner notes, Reply Brief for Petitioner 1-2, if the shorter subsection (2) of § 2119 does not stand alone, neither does the section’s more voluminous first paragraph. In isolation, it would merely describe some very obnoxious behavior, leaving any reader assuming that it must be a crime, but never being actually told that it is. Only the numbered subsidiary provisions complete the thought. Section 2119 is thus unlike most offense-defining provisions in the federal criminal code, which genuinely stand on their own grammatical feet thanks to phrases such as “shall be unlawful,” see, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 922(g), “shall be punished,” see, e. g., § 511A(a), or “shall be guilty of,” see, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §514 (1994 ed., Supp. II), which draw a provision to its close. Second, as for the significance of the word “shall,” although it frequently separates offense-defining clauses from sentencing provisions, it hardly does so invariably. One of the robbery statutes that served as a model for §2119, see 18 U. S. C. §§ 2118(a)(3), (b)(3), for example, places elements of the offense on either side of “shall.” And, of course, where the supposedly “elements” side is itself grammatically incomplete (as here), the placement of “shall” is oddly equivocal. Indeed, both the Government and the Courts of Appeals treat the statute perhaps most closely resembling this one, § 1365(a) (consumer tampering), as defining basic and aggravated offenses, one of which is defined in terms of serious bodily injury. See, e. g., United States v. Meling, 47 F. 3d 1546, 1551 (CA9 1995).
These clues derived from ing of wording, like those the dissent holds up to distinguish the carjacking act both from the robbery statutes upon which it was modeled and state aggravated robbery statutes, see post, at 260-262, 263-264 (opinion of Kennedy, X), turn out to move us only so far in our effort to infer congressional intent. The text alone does not justify any confident inference. But statutory drafting occurs against a backdrop not merely of structural conventions of varying significance, but of traditional treatment of certain categories of important facts, like the degree of injury to victims of crime, in relation to particular crimes. If a given statute is unclear about treating such a fact as element or penalty aggravator, it makes sense to look at what other statutes have done, on the fair assumption that Congress is unlikely to intend any radical departures from past practice without making a point of saying so.
We engaged in just such an enquiry this past Term in Almendarez-Torres, where we stressed the history of treating recidivism as a sentencing factor, and noted that, with perhaps one exception, Congress had never clearly made prior conviction an offense element where the offense conduct, in the absence of recidivism, was independently unlawful. 523 U. S., at 230. Here, on the contrary, the search for comparable examples more readily suggests that Congress had separate and aggravated offenses in mind when it employed the scheme of numbered subsections in §2119. Although Congress has explicitly treated serious bodily injury as a sentencing factor, see, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 2262(b)(2) (interstate violation of a protection order); § 248(b)(2) (free access to clinic entrances; bodily injury), it has unmistakably identified serious bodily injury as an offense element in any number of statutes, see, e. g., 10 U. S. C. § 928(b)(2) (assault by a member of the armed forces); 18 U. S. C. § 37(a)(1) (violence at international airports); § 1091(a)(2) (genocide). The likelihood that Congress understood injury to be an offense element here follows all the more from the fact that carjacking is a type of robbery, and serious bodily injury has traditionally been treated, both by Congress and by the state legislatures, as defining an element of the offense of aggravated robbery. As the Government acknowledges, Brief for United States 20-21, and n. 8, Congress modeled the federal carjacking statute on several other federal robbery statutes. One of them, 18 U. S. C. §2118 (robbery involving controlled substances), clearly makes causing serious bodily injury an element of the offense. It provides that “[wjhoever takes or attempts to take from the person or presence of another by force or violence or by intimidation any [of certain controlled substances] shall... be fined... or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, if (1) the replacement cost of the [controlled substance] was not less than $500,... or (3) another person was killed or suffered significant bodily injury as a result of such taking or attempt.” § 2118(a)(3); see also § 2118(b)(3). A second model, § 2113 (bank robbery), as the Government concedes, see Brief for United States 17, makes related facts of violence, that is, assault and jeopardizing life by using a dangerous weapon, elements defining an aggravated form of that type of robbery. See §§ 2113(d), (e); cf. Almendarez-Torres, supra, at 231 (citing bank robbery statute as example of statute establishing greater and lesser included offenses); McMillan, 477 U. S., at 88 (contrasting § 2113(d) with provision defining a sentencing enhancement).
When pressed unable to explain why Congress might have chosen one treatment of serious bodily harm or violence in defining two of the three offenses it used as its models for § 2119 and a different treatment in writing the carjacking statute itself, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 41-44, and we are unable to imagine a convincing reason ourselves. We thus think it fair to say that, as in the earlier robbery statutes, so in the carjacking statute, Congress probably intended serious bodily injury to be an element defining an aggravated form of the crime.
causation of serious bodily injury or harm as an element defining a distinct offense of aggravated robbery. See, e. g., Ala. Code § 13A-8-41(a)(2) (1994) (robbery in the first degree defined in part by the causing of “serious physical injury”); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 11.41.500(a)(3) (1996) (same); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-103 (1997) (aggravated robbery; “[ijnfliets or attempts to inflict death or serious physical injury”); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134(a)(l) (1994) (robbeiy in the first degree; “[c]auses serious physical injury”); Iowa Code §711.2 (1993) (robbery in the first degree; “purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious injury”); Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-3427 (1995) (aggravated robbery; “inflicts bodily harm”); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §515.020(l)(a) (Miehie 1990) (robbery in the first degree; “causes physical injury”); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 636:l(III)(c) (1996) (class A felony of robbery; “[ijnflicted or attempted to inflict death or serious injury”); N. Y. Penal Law §160.15 (McKinney 1988) (robbery in the first degree; “[clauses serious physical injury”); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 164.415(l)(c) (1990) (robbery in the first degree; “[clauses or attempts to cause serious physical injury'); Tex. Penal Code Ann, § 29.03(a)(1) (1994) (aggravated robbery; “causes serious bodily injury”); Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-302(l)(b) (1995) (aggravated robbery; “causes serious bodily injury”); Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.200(l)(c) (1994) (robbery in the first degree; “[ijnfliets bodily injury55). While the state practice is not, admittedly, direct authority for reading the federal carjacking statute, it does show that in treating serious bodily injury as an element, Congress would have been treading a well-worn path.
Despite these indications and the equivocal structural clues, the Government suggests that a 1996 amendment supports its reading of the carjacking statute as previously enacted. In the Carjacking Correction Act of 1996,110 Stat. 3020, Congress provided that the term “serious bodily injury” in subsection (2) should include sexual abuse and aggravated sexual abuse as defined in §§2241 and 2242. The Government points to several statements in the 1996 amendment’s legislative history in which subsection (2) is described as providing a “penalty enhancement,” see, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 104-787, pp. 2, 3 (1996), as showing that subsection (2) defines a sentencing factor. Even those of us disposed to treat legislative history as authority, however, find the quoted statements unimpressive. Assuming that “penalty enhancement” was meant to be synonymous with “sentencing factor,” the legislative history also contains contrary indications in some of the statements made by the 1996 amendment’s sponsors, suggesting an assumption that subsection (2) established an element or elements that had to be proven at trial. See 142 Cong. Rec. 19769 (1996) (statement of Sen. Biden) (“[T]he defendant had been convicted, of raping the woman” (emphasis added)). This hardly seems the occasion to doubt that “subsequent legislative history is a ‘hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier’ Congress.” Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 650 (1990) (quoting United States v. Price, 361 U. S. 304, 313 (1960)). Indeed, our leeriness of relying on hindsight expressed in legislative history is only confirmed by recognizing what oddity there would be in defining the fact of serious bodily injury by reference to a distinct offense with its own offense elements, like sexual abuse, while at the same time assuming that the fact so defined is merely a sentencing consideration.
Nor do we Court of Appeals is any more helpful to the Government. See 60 P. 3d, at 553. The Committee Reports and floor debate on the statute refer to its augmentation of the criminal law in the singular, not the plural, speaking only of a new federal “crime” or “offense” of carjacking in the singular. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 102-851, pt. 1, p. 17 (1992); 138 Cong. Rec. 32500 (1992) (statement of Rep. Dingell). But what we make of the singular-plural distinction turns on the circumstances. Characterizing a cluster of provisions as enacting something to be described by the singular terms “offense” or “crime” would signify a good deal if the speakers or writers were addressing a point on which the distinction mattered. That is not, however, what they were doing in the passages cited, where those references couched in the singular did not occur in discussions of the issue of offense elements versus sentencing factors that we confront here. So, we think their significance is slight. On the subject of legislative history, we should add that we see nothing favorable to the Government in the fact that the statement in the House Report explaining that the drafters of the carjacking statute drew on the examples of other federal robbery statutes referred to an early version of the carjacking statute when it lacked any reference to the aggravated forms of the offense now defined by subsections (2) and (8). See H. R. Rep. No. 102-851, supra, at 17. As against the suggestion that Congress looked to the earlier robbery statutes only when it settled on the language contained in the carjacking statute’s first paragraph, we think it would have been strange for Congress to find guidance in the other robbery statutes at the beginning of the legislative process and then just forget about them. As the Government itself suggests in a somewhat different context, there is no reason to think that Congress “might have abandoned [those] ready federal models” in developing the more fully elaborated version of the statute that it ultimately adopted. Brief for United States 21, n. 8.
Ill
While we think the fairest reading of §2119 treats the fact of serious bodily harm as an element, not a mere enhancement, we recognize the possibility of the other view. Any doubt that might be prompted by the arguments for that other reading should, however, be resolved against it under the rule, repeatedly affirmed, that “where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.” United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909); see also United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401 (1916). It is “out of respect for Congress, which we assume legislates in the light of constitutional limitations," Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 191 (1991), that we adhere to this principle, which “has for so long been applied by this Court that it is beyond debate." Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988); see also United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U. S. 64, 78 (1994).
As the Government us would be open to constitutional doubt in light of a series of cases over the past quarter century, dealing with due process and the guarantee of trial by jury. The first of these, Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975), reviewed a Maine murder statute providing that the element of malice (in the sense of want of provocation, Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 215 (1977)) would be presumed upon proof of intent to kill resulting in death, subject to a defendant’s right of rebuttal that he had acted on provocation in the heat of passion, which would reduce the offense to manslaughter. Mullaney, supra, at 686, and n. 3. The challenge was that the presumption subject to rebuttal relieved the State of its due process burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, as explained in In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 364 (1970). The State replied that the challenge was merely formalistic, that the State’s law in effect established a generic crime of felonious homicide, Mullaney, supra, at 688, 696-697, on which view the fact subject to presumption and rebuttal would have gone simply to sentence, and Winship would not have been controlling. But the Court declined to accord the State this license to recharacterize the issue, in part because the State’s reading left its statute at odds both with the centuries-old common law recognition of malice as the fact distinguishing murder from manslaughter and with the widely held modern view that heat of passion, once raised by the evidence, was a subject of the State’s burden, 421 U. S., at 692-696, and in part because an unlimited choice over characterizing a stated fact as an element would leave the State substantially free to manipulate its way out of Winship, 421 U. S., at 698.
Two Terms later, in Patterson v. New York, supra, the Court ruled on a Winship challenge to a scheme defining murder as causing death with intent, subject to an affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation. 432 U. S., at 205-206. Unlike Maine’s law, New York’s raised no presumption of malice; malice was omitted from the elements of murder. Patterson contended that because the presence or absence of an extreme emotional disturbance affected the severity of sentence, Winship and Mullaney required the State to prove the absence of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. We rejected this argument and “decline[d] to adopt as a constitutional imperative... that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.” 432 U. S., at 210. We identified the use of a presumption to establish an essential ingredient of the offense as the curse of the Maine law, because the “shifting of the burden of persuasion with respect to a fact which the State deems so important that it must be either proved or presumed is impermissible under the Due Process Clause.” Id., at 215. With one caveat, therefore, Patterson left the States free to choose the elements that define their crimes, without any impediment from Winship. The caveat was a stated recognition of some limit upon state authority to reallocate the traditional burden of proof, 432 U. S., at 210, which in that case was easily satisfied by the fact that “at common law the burden of proving” the mitigating circumstances of severe emotional disturbance “rested on the defendant.” Id., at 202; see also id., at 211; Mullaney, supra, at 693-694. While a narrow reading of this limit might have been no more than a ban on using presumptions to reduce elements to the point of being nominal, a broader reading was equally open, that the State lacked the discretion to omit “traditional” elements from the definition of crimes and instead to require the accused to disprove such elements.
tions about the charging obligation and the requisite quantum of proof, were succeeded by McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79 (1986), in which the Winship issue rose from a provision that a judge’s finding (by a preponderance) of visible possession of a firearm would require a mandatory minimum sentence for certain felonies, but a minimum that fell within the sentencing ranges otherwise prescribed. Although the Court rejected the petitioner’s claim insofar as it would have required a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of any fact upon which a mandatory minimum sentence depended (and rejected certain subsidiary arguments as well), it did observe that the result might have been different if proof of visible possession had exposed a defendant to a sentence beyond the maximum that the statute otherwise set without reference to that fact. 477 U. S., at 88.
McMillan is notable not only for question of due process requirements for factfinding that raises a sentencing range, but also for disposing of a claim that the Pennsylvania law violated the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial as well. The petitioner’s basic argument was for a right to jury determination of all “ultimate facts concerning the offense committed,” id., at 93, and although the Court disposed of this by reference back to its due process discussion, that discussion had broached the potential constitutional significance of factfinding that raised the sentencing ceiling.
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the jury guarantee of the Sixth: when a jury determination has not been waived, may judicial factfinding by a preponderance support the application of a provision that increases the potential severity of the penalty for a variant of a given crime? The seriousness of the due process issue is evident from Mul-laney’s insistence that a State cannot manipulate its way out of Winship, and from Patterson's recognition of a limit on state authority to reallocate traditional burdens of proof; the substantiality of the jury claim is evident from the practical implications of assuming Sixth Amendment indifference to treating a fact that sets the sentencing range as a sentencing factor, not an element.
The terms of the carjacking statute illustrate very well what is at stake. If serious bodily injury were merely a sentencing factor under §2119(2) (increasing the authorized penalty by two thirds, to 25 years), then death would presumably be nothing more than a sentencing factor under subsection (3) (increasing the penalty range to life). If a potential penalty might rise from 15 years to life on a rionjury determination, the jury’s role would correspondingly shrink from the significance usually carried by determinations of guilt to the relative importance of low-level gatekeeping: in some cases, a jury finding of fact necessary for a maximum 15-year sentence would merely open the door to a judicial finding sufficient for life imprisonment. It is therefore no trivial question to ask whether recognizing an unlimited legislative power to authorize determinations setting ultimate sentencing limits without a jury would invite erosion of the jury’s function to a point against which a line must necessarily be drawn.
tional doubt rule requires if the history bearing on the Framers' understanding of the Sixth Amendment principle demonstrated an accepted tolerance for exclusively judicial factfinding to peg penalty limits. But such is not the history. To be sure, the scholarship of which we are aware does not show that a question exactly like this one was ever raised and resolved in the period before the framing. On the other hand, several studies demonstrate that on a general level the tension between jury powers and powers exclusively judicial would likely have been very much to the fore in the Framers’ conception of the jury right.
The fact that we point to no exemplifying the distinction between elements and facts that elevate sentencing ranges is unsurprising, given the breadth of judicial discretion over fines and corporal punishment in less important, misdemeanor cases, see, e. g., J. Baker, Introduction to English Legal History 584 (3d ed. 1990); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 372 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); Preyer, Penal Measures in the American Colonies: An Overview, 26 Am. J. Legal Hist. 326, 350 (1982), and the norm of fixed sentences in cases of felony, see Langbein, The English Criminal Trial Jury on the Eve of the French Revolution, in The Trial Jury in England, France, Germany 1700-1900, pp. 36-37 (A. Sehioppa ed. 1987); 4 Blaekstone 238-239; A. Scott, Criminal Law in Colonial Virginia 27-28,108-106 (1930).
Even in this system, however, competition developed between judge and jury over the real significance of their respective roles. The potential or inevitable severity of sentences was indirectly checked by juries’ assertions of a mitigating power when the circumstances of a prosecution pointed to political abuse of the criminal process or endowed a criminal conviction with particularly sanguinary consequences. This power to thwart Parliament and Crown took the form not only of fiat-out acquittals in the face of guilt but of what today we would call verdicts of guilty to lesser included offenses, manifestations of what Blaekstone described as “pious perjury” on the jurors’ part. 4 Blaekstone 238-239.
Countervailing measures to diminish the juries’ power were naturally forthcoming, with ensuing responses both in the mother country and in the Colonies that validate, though they do not answer, the question that the Government’s position here would raise. One such move on the Government’s side was a parliamentary practice of barring the right to jury trial when defining new, statutory offenses. See, e. g., Frankfurter & Corcoran, Petty Federal Offenses and the Constitutional Guaranty of Trial by Jury, 39 Harv. L. Rev. 917, 925-930 (1926); 4 Blackstone 277-279. This practice extended to violations of the Stamp Act and recurred in statutes regulating imperial trade, see C. Ubbelohde, Vice-Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution 16-21,74-80 (1960); Wroth, The Massachusetts Vice Admiralty Court, in Law and Authority in Colonial America 82, 50 (G. Billias ed. 1965), and was one of the occasions for the protest in the Declaration of Independence against deprivation of the benefit of jury trial, see P. Maier, American Scripture 118 (1997). But even before the Declaration, a less revolutionary voice than the Continental Congress had protested against the legislative practice, in words widely read in America. The use of nonjury proceedings had “of late been so far extended,” Blackstone warned in the 1760’s, “as, if a check be not timely given, to threaten the disuse of our admirable and truly English trial by jury.” 4 Blackstone 278. Identifying trial by jury as “the grand bulwark” of English liberties, Blackstone contended that other liberties would remain secure only “so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate, not only from all open attacks, (which none will be so hardy as to make) but also from all secret machinations, which may sap and undermine it; by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trial, by justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, and courts of conscience. And however convenient these may appear at first, (as doubtless all arbitrary powers, well executed, are the most convenient), yet let it be again remembered, that delays, and little inconveniences in the forms of justice, are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters.” Id., at 342-344,
A second response to the juries’ power to occurred in attempts to confine jury determinations in libel eases to findings of fact, leaving it to the judges to apply the law and, thus, to limit the opportunities for juror nullification. Ultimately, of course, the attempt failed, the juries’ victory being embodied in Fox’s Libel Act in Britain, see generally T. Green, Verdict According to Conscience 318-355 (1985), and exemplified in John Peter Zenger’s acquittal in the Colonies, see, e. g., J. Rakove, Original Meanings 300-302 (1996). It is significant here not merely that the denouement of the restrictive efforts left the juries in control, but that the focus of those efforts was principally the juries’ control over the ultimate verdict, applying law to fact (or “finding” the law, see, e. g., id., at 301), and not the factfinding role itself. There was apparently some accepted understanding at the time that the finding of facts was simply too sacred a jury prerogative to be trifled with in prosecution for such a significant and traditional offense in the common-law courts. That this history had to be in the minds of the Framers is beyond cavil. According to one authority, the leading account of Zenger’s trial was, with one possible exception, “the most widely known source of libertarian thought in England and America during the eighteenth century.” L. Levy, Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History 133 (1963). It is just as much beyond question that Americans of the period perfectly well understood the lesson that the jury right could be lost not only by gross denial, but by erosion. See supra, at 245-247. One contributor to the ratification debates, for example, commenting on the jury trial guarantee in Art. Ill, §2, echoed Blackstone in warning of the need “to guard with the most jealous circumspection against the introduction of new, and arbitrary methods of trial, which, under a variety of plausible
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, William Fiore, was convicted of violating a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the operation of a hazardous waste facility without a permit. After Fiore’s conviction became final, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the statute for the first time, and made clear that Fiore’s conduct was not within its scope. However, the Pennsylvania courts refused to grant Fiore collateral relief. We granted certiorari in part to decide when, or whether, the Federal Due Process Clause requires a State to apply a new interpretation of a state criminal statute retroactively to cases on collateral review.
In order to determine if that question was in fact presented, we asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court whether its decision interpreting the statute not to apply to conduct like Fiore’s was a new interpretation, or whether it was, instead, a correct statement of the law when Fiore’s conviction became final. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, responding to our certified question, has now made clear that retro-activity is not at issue. At the same time, that court’s interpretation of its statute makes clear that Fiore did not violate the statute. We consequently find that his conviction is not consistent with the demands of the Federal Due Process Clause. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 316 (1979).
H-1
This case, previously described in greater detail in our opinion certifying the state-law question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 528 U. S. 23 (1999), arises out of William Fiore’s conviction under a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits “operating] a hazardous waste” facility without a “permit.” Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35, § 6018.401(a) (Purdon 1993); see Commonwealth v. Fiore, CC No. 8508740 (Ct. Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Pa., Jan. 19, 1988), App. 6. The Commonwealth conceded that Fiore in fact had a permit, but argued that Fiore had deviated so dramatically from the permit’s terms that he nonetheless had violated the statute. And the Commonwealth’s lower courts agreed. See id., at 43-44; Commonwealth v. Fiore, 391 Pa. Super. 634, 563 A. 2d 189 (1989) (affirming Fiore’s conviction on the trial court’s reasoning).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review Fiore’s case, Commonwealth v. Fiore, 525 Pa. 577, 575 A. 2d 109 (1990), and his conviction became final. Thereafter, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the conviction of Fiore’s co-defendant, David Scarpone, convicted of the same crime at the same time. The Supreme Court reversed Scarpone’s conviction on the ground that the statute meant what it said: The statute made it unlawful to operate a facility without a permit; one who deviated from his permit’s terms was not a person without a permit; hence, a person who deviated from his permit’s terms did not violate the statute. Commonwealth v. Scarpone, 535 Pa. 273, 279, 634 A. 2d 1109, 1112 (1993) (describing the Commonwealth’s interpretation as “a bald fiction we cannot endorse”).
Fiore, unsuccessful in his subsequent state-court attempts to have his own conviction set aside, see Commonwealth v. Fiore, 445 Pa. Super. 401, 665 A. 2d 1185 (1995), appeal denied, Commonwealth v. Fiore, 544 Pa. 623, 675 A. 2d 1243 (1996), brought a federal habeas corpus action. The District Court granted the writ, but the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. 149 F. 3d 221 (1998). The Court of Appeals believed that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Scarpone’s case, had announced a new rule of law, inapplicable to Fiore’s already final conviction. Id., at 227. And, the Court of Appeals said, “state courts are under no [federal] constitutional obligation to apply their decisions retroactively.” Id., at 222. We granted certiorari to determine whether Fiore’s conviction was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause. 526 U. S. 1038 (1999).
II
Because we were uncertain whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision change in the law of Pennsylvania, we certified the following question to that court:
“Does the interpretation of Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35, § 6018.401(a) (Purdon 1993), set forth in Commonwealth v. Scarpone, 535 Pa. 273, 279, 634 A. 2d 1109, 1112 (1993), state the correct interpretation of the law of Pennsylvania at the date Fiore’s conviction became final?” 528 U. S., at 29.
We received the following reply:
“Scarpone did not announce a new rule of law. Our ruling merely clarified the plain language of the statute.... Our interpretation of [§ 6018.401(a)] in Scarpone furnishes the proper statement of law at the date Fiore’s conviction became final.” Fiore v. White, 562 Pa. 634, 646, 757 A. 2d 842, 848-849 (2000) (citation omitted).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s reply specifies that the interpretation of § 6018.401(a) set out in Scarpone “merely clarified” the statute and was the law of Pennsylvania — as properly interpreted — at the time of Fiore’s conviction. Because Scarpone was not new law, this ease presents no issue of retroactivity. Rather, the question is simply whether Pennsylvania can, consistently with the Federal Due Process Clause, convict Fiore for conduct that its criminal statute, as properly interpreted, does not prohibit.
This Court’s precedents make clear that Fiore’s conviction and continued incarceration on this charge violate due process. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a State to convict a person of a crime without proving the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U. S., at 316; In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 364 (1970). In this case, failure to possess a permit is a basic element of the crime of which Fiore was convicted. Scarpone, supra, at 279, 634 A. 2d, at 1112. And the parties agree that the Commonwealth presented no evidence whatsoever to prove that basic element. To the contrary, the Commonwealth, conceding that Fiore did possess a permit, see Brief for Respondents 1, necessarily concedes that it did not prove he failed to possess one.
The simple, inevitable conclusion is that Fiore’s conviction fails to satisfy the Federal Constitution’s demands. We therefore reverse the contrary judgment of the Third Circuit and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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: | 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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511 (1985), we held that a district court’s rejection of a defendant’s qualified-immunity defense is a “final decision” subject to immediate appeal under the general appellate jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. §1291. The question presented in this case is whether a defendant’s immediate appeal of an unfavorable qualified-immunity ruling on his motion to dismiss deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction over a second appeal, also based on qualified immunity, immediately following denial of summary judgment.
I
In 1983, South Coast Savings and Loan Association, a new institution, applied to the Federal Home .Loan Bank Board (FHLBB or Board) for the approval necessary to obtain account insurance from the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC).- Under FHLBB regulations, approval of new institutions was to be withheld if their “financial policies or management” were found to be “unsafe” for any of various reasons, including “character of the management.” 12 CFR § 571.6(b) (1986). Accordingly, when FHLBB approved South Coast for FSLIC insurance in March 1984, it imposed a number of requirements, including the condition that South Coast “provide for employment of a qualified full-time executive managing officer, subject to approval by the Principal Supervisory Agent” — FHLBB’s term for the president of the regional Home Loan Bank when operating in his oversight capacity on behalf of FHLBB. Record, Exh. B, Resolution No. 84-164, ¶ 10(p) (Mar. 29, 1984). The Board’s resolution also required that, for a period of three years, any change in South Coast’s chief management position be approved by FHLBB. Ibid.
Shortly after obtaining FHLBB’s conditional approval, South Coast was succeeded in interest by Pioneer Savings and Loan Association, another new institution. Pioneer named respondent Pelletier as its managing officer, subject to FHLBB consent, which Pioneer sought in mid-May 1985. Only a few weeks earlier, however, on April 23, 1985, FHLBB had declared insolvent Beverly Hills Savings and Loan Association, where respondent had at one time held a senior executive position. An inquiry by FSLIC pointed to potential misconduct by high-level management of the failed institution, which ultimately became the subject of an FSLIC lawsuit against several Beverly Hills officers, including respondent.
The FSLIC suit had not yet been filed at the time Pioneer sought the Board’s consent to hire respondent; but FSLIC’s pending investigation into Beverly Hills’ collapse caused petitioner Behrens, the FHLBB “Supervisory Agent” then responsible for monitoring Pioneer’s operations, to write Pioneer on May 8,1986, withholding approval and advising that respondent be replaced. On receipt of the letter Pioneer asked respondent to resign and, when he refused, fired him.
Three years later, in 1989, respondent brought suit in federal court, naming petitioner as defendant in a complaint that included Bivens damages claims for two alleged constitutional wrongs. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). Respondent charged, first, that petitioner’s action in writing a letter that had effectively discharged him from his post at Pioneer, in summary fashion and without notice or opportunity to be heard, violated his right to procedural due process. Second, he claimed that he had been deprived of substantive due process by petitioner’s alleged interference with his “clearly established and Constitutionally protected property and liberty rights ... to specific employment and to pursue his profession free from undue governmental interference.” First Amended Complaint ¶ 38, reprinted in App. 7, 16. The complaint alleged that petitioner’s letter, along with other, continuing efforts to harm respondent’s reputation, had cost respondent not only his position at Pioneer, but also his livelihood within the savings and loan industry. The complaint also contained other claims — against petitioner and against the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (petitioner’s immediate employer), FHLBB, and the United States; none of these is relevant to the present appeal.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. With regard to the Bivens claims, he asserted a statute-of-limitations defense and claimed qualified immunity from suit on the ground that his actions, taken in a governmental capacity, “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). The District Court ruled in favor of petitioner on the statute-of-limitations ground and therefore dismissed the procedural due process Bivens claim, and the substantive due process Bivens claim to the extent it related to petitioner’s letter and respondent’s loss of employment at Pioneer. It refused, however, to dismiss respondent’s suit “to the extent [it was] based on other alleged subsequent acts of defendant] preventing and continuing to prevent [respondent] from securing employment.” Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, No. CV 89-969 (CD Cal., Oct. 5, 1989), reprinted in App. 27-28. The court also denied petitioner’s summary judgment motion, without prejudice, on the ground that it was premature given the lack of discovery.
Petitioner immediately appealed the District Court’s implicit denial of his qualified-immunity defense regarding the remaining Bivens claim. The Court of Appeals entertained the appeal, notwithstanding its interlocutory nature, holding that “a denial of qualified immunity is an appealable ‘final’ order under the test set forth in Cohen v. Beneficial Indust. Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949) . . . , regardless of whether that denial takes the form of a refusal to grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss or a denial of summary judgment.” Pelle-tier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, 968 F. 2d 865, 870 (CA9 1992). It said in dictum, however, that a defendant claiming qualified immunity could not “take advantage of the several opportunities for immediate appeal afforded him by bringing repeated pretrial appeals,” and that “[o]ne such interlocutory appeal is all that a government official is entitled to and all that we will entertain.” Id., at 870-871. On the merits of the appeal, the court rejected the argument that petitioner enjoyed qualified immunity because he had not violated any “clearly established right.” It said that the question whether respondent had a constitutionally protected property interest in his Pioneer employment (subject, as it was, to regulatory approval) was not properly before the court, since the claims relating specifically to his discharge had been dismissed as time barred. Id., at 871-872. (The Court of Appeals noted in dictum, however, id., at 869, n. 6, that the District Court had applied an unduly short limitations period.) With respect to the claimed deprivation of post-Pioneer employment, the court held that the “nebulous theories of conspiracy” set out in respondent’s complaint — although “insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment” — made out a proper Bivens claim. 968 F. 2d, at 872-873.
Upon remand, the District Court reversed its earlier statute-of-limitations ruling in light of the Court of Appeals’ dictum, and reinstated the claims relating to employment at Pioneer. After discovery, petitioner moved for .summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, contending that his actions had not violated any “clearly established” right of respondent regarding his employment at Pioneer or elsewhere. The District Court denied the motion with the unadorned statement that “[m]aterial issues of fact remain as to defendant Behrens on the Bivens claim.” Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, No. CV 89-0969 (CD Cal., Sept. 6, 1994), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which, on respondent’s motion, the District Court certified as frivolous. In an unpublished order, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal “for lack of jurisdiction.” Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, No. 94-56507 (CA9, Nov. 17, 1994), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. la. We granted certio-rari, 514 U. S. 1035 (1995).
II
Section 1291 of Title 28, U. S. C., gives courts of appeals jurisdiction over “all final decisions” of district courts, except those for which appeal is to be had to this Court. The requirement of finality precludes consideration of decisions that are subject to revision, and even of “fully consummated decisions [that] are but steps towards final judgment in which they will merge.” Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949). It does not, however, bar review of all prejudgment orders. In Cohen, we described a “small class” of district court decisions that, though short of final judgment, are immediately appealable because they “finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, 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.” Ibid. See also Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 142-145 (1993) (citing Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978)). The issue in the present case is the extent to which orders denying governmental officers’ assertions of qualified immunity come within the Cohen category of appealable decisions.
As set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), the qualified-immunity defense “shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” id., at 818 (citing Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 565 (1978)). Harlow adopted this criterion of “objective legal reasonableness,” rather than good faith, precisely in order to “permit the defeat of insubstantial claims without resort to trial.” 457 U. S., at 819, 813. Unsurprisingly, then, we later found the immunity to be “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation, conditioned on the resolution of the essentially legal [immunity] question.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S., at 526. And, as with district-court rejection of claims to other such entitlements distinct from the merits, see, e. g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct, supra, at 145-146 (Eleventh Amendment immunity); Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651, 662 (1977) (right not to be subjected to double jeopardy), we held that “a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell, supra, at 530. See also Johnson v. Jones, 515 U. S. 304, 311-312 (1995).
While Mitchell did not say that a defendant could appeal from denial of a qualified-immunity defense more than once, it clearly contemplated that he could raise the defense at successive stages:
“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Even if the plaintiff’s complaint adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendant in fact committed those acts.” 472 U. S., at 526 (citation omitted).
Thus, Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a “final” judgment subject to immediate appeal. Since an unsuccessful appeal from a denial of dismissal cannot possibly render the later denial of a motion for summary judgment any less “final,” it follows that petitioner’s appeal falls within §1291 and dismissal was improper.
Indeed, it is easier to argue that the denial of summary judgment — the order sought to be appealed here — is the more “final” of the two orders. That is the reasoning the First Circuit adopted in holding that denial of a motion to dismiss on absolute-immunity grounds was not “final” where the defendant had stated that, if unsuccessful, he would later seek summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds: “Since the district court has not yet determined whether [the defendant] has qualified immunity, and that he will have to stand trial, its decision is not an appealable collateral order.” Kaiter v. Boxford, 836 F. 2d 704, 707 (1988). The problem with this approach, however, is that it would logically bar any appeal at the motion-to-dismiss stage where there is a possibility of presenting an immunity defense on summary judgment; that possibility would cause the motion-to-dismiss decision to be not “final” as to the defendant’s right not to stand trial. The First Circuit sought to avoid this difficulty by saying that the defendant could render the motion-to-dismiss denial final by waiving his right to appeal the summary judgment denial. See id., at 708. But quite obviously, eliminating the ability to appeal the second order does not eliminate the possibility that the second order will vindicate the defendant’s right not to stand trial, and therefore does not eliminate the supposed reason for declaring the first order nonfinal.
The source of the First Circuit’s confusion was its mistaken conception of the scope of protection afforded by qualified immunity. Harlow and Mitchell make clear that the defense is meant to give government officials a right, not merely to avoid “standing trial,” but also to avoid the burdens of “such pretrial matters as discovery ..., as ‘[inquiries of this kind can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.’” Mitchell, supra, at 526 (emphasis added) (quoting from Harlow, supra, at 817). Whether or not a later summary judgment motion is granted, denial of a motion to dismiss is conclusive as to this right. We would have thought that these and other statements from Mitchell and Harlow had settled the point, questioned by Justice Breyer, see post, at 317, that this right is important enough to support an immediate appeal. If it were not, however, the consequence would be, not that only one pretrial appeal could be had in a given case, as Justice Breyer proposes, but rather, that there could be no immediate appeal from denial of a motion to dismiss but only from denial of summary judgment. That conclusion is foreclosed by Mitchell, which unmistakably envisioned immediate appeal of “[t]he denial of a defendant’s motion for dismissal or summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.” 472 U. S., at 527.
The Court of Appeals in the present case, in the first of its two decisions, rested its “one-appeal” pronouncement upon the proposition that resolving the question of entitlement to qualified immunity “should not require more than one judiciously timed appeal.” Pelletier, 968 F. 2d, at 871. It did not explain how this proposition pertains to the question of finality, but we suppose it could be argued that a category of appeals thought to be needless or superfluous does not raise a claim of right “too important to be denied review,” as our Cohen finality jurisprudence requires, see 337 U. S., at 546. In any event, the proposition is not sound. That one appeal on the immunity issue may not be enough is illustrated by the history of respondent’s claims for loss of employment at Pioneer in the present ease. Because these claims had initially been dismissed as time barred, the Court of Appeals refused to decide (and thus evidently regarded as an open question) whether one who holds his job subject to regulatory approval can assert a constitutionally cognizable expectation of continued employment. See Pelletier, supra, at 871-872. Thus, the question whether petitioner was entitled to immunity on these claims was not presented to any court until petitioner’s summary judgment motion — and, by operation of the Ninth Circuit’s one-appeal rule, has never been addressed by an appellate court.
That is assuredly an unusual set of circumstances, but even in a case proceeding in a more normal fashion resolution of the immunity question may “require more than one judiciously timed appeal,” because the legally relevant factors bearing upon the Harlow question will be different on summary judgment than on an earlier motion to dismiss. At that earlier stage, it is the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint that is scrutinized for “objective legal reasonableness.” On summary judgment, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on the pleadings, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56, and the court looks to the evidence before it (in the light most favorable to the plaintiff) when conducting the Harlow inquiry. It is no more true that the defendant who has unsuccessfully appealed denial of a motion to dismiss has no need to appeal denial of a motion for summary judgment, than it is that the defendant who has unsuccessfully made a motion to dismiss has no need to make a motion for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals expressed concern that a second appeal would tend to have the illegitimate purpose of delaying the proceedings. See 968 F. 2d, at 870-871. Undeniably, the availability of a second appeal affords an opportunity for abuse, but we have no reason to believe that abuse has often occurred. To the contrary, successive pretrial assertions of immunity seem to be a rare occurrence. Moreover, if and when abuse does occur, as we observed in the analogous context of interlocutory appeals on the issue of double jeopardy, “[i]t is well within the supervisory powers of the courts of appeals to establish summary procedures and calendars to weed out frivolous claims.” Abney, 431 U. S., at 662, n. 8. In the present case, for example, the District Court appropriately certified petitioner’s immunity appeal as “frivolous” in light of the Court of Appeals’ (unfortunately erroneous) one-appeal precedent. This practice, which has been embraced by several Circuits, enables the district court to retain jurisdiction pending summary disposition of the appeal, and thereby minimizes disruption of the ongoing proceedings. See, e. g., Chuman v. Wright, 960 F. 2d 104, 105 (CA9 1992); Yates v. Cleveland, 941 F. 2d 444, 448-449 (CA6 1991); Stewart v. Donges, 915 F. 2d 572,576-577 (CA10 1990); Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F. 2d 1335, 1339 (CA7 1989). In any event, the question before us here — whether there is jurisdiction over the appeal, as opposed to whether the appeal is frivolous — must be determined by focusing upon the category of order appealed from, rather than upon the strength of the grounds for reversing the order. “Appeal rights cannot depend on the facts of a particular case.” Carroll v. United States, 354 U. S. 394, 405 (1957). See also Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 868 (1994). As we have said, an order denying qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an “issue of law,” Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 530, is immediately appealable.
Ill
Our rejection of the one-interlocutory-appeal rule does not dispose of this ease. Respondent proposes two other reasons why appeal of denial of the summary judgment motion is not available. First, he argues that no appeal is available where, even if the District Court’s qualified-immunity ruling is reversed, the defendant will be required to endure discovery and trial on matters separate from the claims against which immunity was asserted. Respondent reasons that a ruling which does not reach all the claims does not “conclusively determin[e] the defendant’s claim of right not to stand trial,” id., at 527, and thus the order denying immunity cannot be said to be “final” within the meaning of Cohen.
It is far from clear that, given the procedural posture of the present case, respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the proposition for which he argues; but we will address the proposition on its merits. The Courts of Appeals have almost unanimously rejected it, and so do we. The Harlow right to immunity is a right to immunity from certain claims, not from litigation in general; when immunity with respect to those claims has been finally denied, appeal must be available, and cannot be foreclosed by the mere addition of other claims to the suit. Making appealability depend upon such a factor, particular to the case at hand, would violate the principle discussed above, that appealability determinations are made for classes of decisions, not individual orders in specific cases. Apart from these objections in principle, the practical effect of respondent’s proposal would be intolerable. If the district court rules erroneously, the qualified-immunity right not to be subjected to pretrial proceedings will be eliminated, so long as the plaintiff has alleged (with or without evidence to back it up) violation of one “clearly established” right; and both that and the further right not to be subjected to trial itself will be eliminated, so long as the complaint seeks injunctive relief (for which no “clearly established” right need be alleged).
Second, respondent asserts that appeal of denial of the summary judgment motion is not available because the denial rested on the ground that “[mjaterial issues of fact remain.” This, he contends, renders the denial unappealable under last Term’s decision in Johnson v. Jones, 515 U. S., at 313-318. That is a misreading of the case. Denial of summary judgment often includes a determination that there are controverted issues of material fact, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56, and Johnson surely does not mean that every such denial of summary judgment is nonappealable. Johnson held, simply, that determinations of evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment are not immediately appealable merely because they happen to arise in a qualified-immunity case; if what is at issue in the sufficiency determination is nothing more than whether the evidence could support a finding that particular conduct occurred, the question decided is not truly “separable” from the plaintiff’s claim, and hence there is no “final decision” under Cohen and Mitchell. See 515 U. S., at 313-318. Johnson reaffirmed that summary judgment determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an “abstract issu[e] of law” relating to qualified immunity, id., at 317 — typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was “clearly established,” see, e. g., Mitchell, supra, at 530-535; Davis v. Scherer, 468 U. S. 183, 190-193 (1984).
Here the District Court’s denial of petitioner’s summary judgment motion necessarily determined that certain conduct attributed to petitioner (which was controverted) constituted a violation of clearly established law. Johnson permits petitioner to claim on appeal that all of the conduct which the District Court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment met the Harlow standard of “objective legal reasonableness.” This argument was presented by petitioner in the trial court, and there is no apparent impediment to its being raised on appeal. And while the District Court, in denying petitioner’s summary judgment motion, did not identify the particular charged conduct that it deemed adequately supported, Johnson recognizes that under such circumstances “a court of appeals may have to undertake a cumbersome review of the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed.” Johnson, supra, at 319. That is the task now facing the Court of Appeals in this case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
FHLBB, FSLIC, and the regulatory scheme described in this opinion no longer exist, having been eliminated by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989,103 Stat. 183.
Interestingly, however, Mitchell itself dealt with the second of two interlocutory appeals on immunity claims. See 472 U. S., at 515-519. Neither the Court of Appeals nor this Court assigned any significance to the successive aspect of the second appeal.
Justice Breyer suggests that the second of two pretrial qualified-immunity appeals does not come within Cohen’s class of immediately ap-pealable final orders because it is insufficiently “separable” from the claim raised on the first appeal, see post, at 316. But the Cohen “separability” component asks whether the question to be resolved on appeal is “conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.” Mitchell v. For-syth, 472 U. S. 511, 527 (1985). The appropriate comparison, then, is between the decision sought to be reviewed and the claim underlying the action itself — not between the decision and any previous appeal, as Justice Breyer suggests. And again, Mitchell clearly states that a denial of qualified immunity, whether on a motion for dismissal or summary judgment, is an “appealable ‘final decision.’” Id., at 530.
We are aware of only five reported cases — Mitchell itself, Nelson v. Silverman, 999 F. 2d 417 (CA9 1993), Abel v. Miller, 904 F. 2d 394 (CA7 1990), Francis v. Coughlin, 891 F. 2d 43 (CA2 1989), and the present case — in which Courts of Appeals have been twice asked to review successive pretrial assertions of immunity. See Abel, supra, at 396 (“Paucity of precedent [on successive interlocutory appeals] must reflect the forbearance of public officials rather than lack of opportunity”); Kaiter v. Boxford, 836 F. 2d 704, 706 (CA1 1988) (“[I]n every case we have found which permitted interlocutory review of an immunity ruling, the defendant’s entire claim to immunity was raised in a single proceeding”).
See, e. g., McLaurin v. Morton, 48 F. 3d 944, 949 (CA6 1995); Green v. Brantley, 941 F. 2d 1146, 1148-1151 (CA11 1991) (en banc); Di Martini v. Ferrin, 889 F. 2d 922, 924-925 (CA9 1989), cert. denied, 501 U. S. 1204 (1991); Young v. Lynch, 846 F. 2d 960, 961-963 (CA4 1988); DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger Silas Mason Co., 844 F. 2d 714, 717-718 (CA10 1988); Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F. 2d 736, 742, n. 1 (CA2 1988); Scott v. Lacy, 811 F. 2d 1153,1153-1154 (CA7 1987); De Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora, 792 F. 2d 1187, 1188-1190 (CA1 1986); Tubbesing v. Arnold, 742 F. 2d 401, 403-404 (CA8 1984). Only the Third Circuit holds otherwise. See Prisco v. United States Dept. of Justice, 851 F. 2d 93, 95-96, cert. denied, 490 U. S. 1089 (1989).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court,
Petitioner, George Smith, together with Daisart Sportswear, Inc., and another person, was charged by the United States in two informations of forty-onfe counts each with violations of § 301 of the Second War Powers Act and Priorities Regulations Nos. 1 and 3. The first information charged petitioner and his co-defendants with the intentional misuse of priority ratings in forty-one instances in order to purchase certain cotton and rayon materials and the second information charged them with the unlawful utilization of the textiles so obtained. . The same defendants were. also indicted in the same court for conspiring to violate the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the regulations thereunder by selling finished piece goods above the established maximum price and by keeping false records of their transactions. The two informations' and the indictment were consolidated for trial in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York; after trial before a jury , petitioner was found guilty on the indictment and on thirty-five counts of each of the informations. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction as to the indictment and twenty-three counts of each of the informations, but-reversed as to. twelve counts of each of the two' informations. United States v. Daisart Sportswear, 169 F. 2d 856.
During 1944 and 1945 the petitioner, Smith, was the sole owner and officer of Daisart Sportswear, Inc. (hereinafter called Daisart), a corporation engaged in the fabrication, purchase, and sale of .textile goods. Its actual operation was as a contractor working on the goods of others. As part of its business Daisart was to furnish Metals Disintegrating Corporation with cloth bags for filtering and packing the metal powders manufactured by Metals Disintegrating under contracts with the Army and Navy. The War Production Board had granted Metals Disintegrating- high preference ratings to secure the materials necessary to fulfill its government contracts. Because of its inability to provide the particular cloth used to make powder bags, which was of a greyish white duck color, very similar to the canvas used in tents, Metals Disintegrating gave Daisart high blanket preference ratings which Daisart was to apply or extend to purchase all the piece gpods needed to manufacture the bags.
There is evidence which would justify a jury in finding the following facts. - Thróugh the use of these top priori-. ties petitioner obtained piece goods for his company, and in the orders he certified that the goods were to be manufactured into powder bags. Over two and-a half million square yards of material were thus invoiced to and paid for by Daisart. Metals Disintegrating, however, purchased from Daisart only 11,987 powder bags, consisting of 48,920 square yards of material. Moreover these piece goods which petitioner obtained by means of preference ratings consisted of fabrics of a wide variety of colors and finishes. They were resold.by Daisart, often still in' their .original packing, to manufacturers of civilian clothing at prices far in excess of the maximum established by law. In these transactions petitioner and his corporation in conspiracy with the other person indicted used fictitious names, gave false descriptions of goods and prices, and falsified invoices, but the money paid for the goods arrived by circuitous and devious routes into the bank accounts.of either petitioner or Daisart Sportswear, Inc.
Such evidence is amply sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction on the. informations and indictment, but he insists that he is immune-from prosecution for the acts of which he stands convictéd. He bases his claim to immunity on § 202 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended; 56 Stat. 23, 58 Stat. 632, which reads as follows^ ,
“(a) The Administrator is authorized to make such studies aiid investigations, to conduct such hearings, and to obtain such information as he deems necessary or proper to assist him in prescribing any regulation of order under this Act, or in the administration and/enforcement of this Act and regulations, orders and price schedules thereunder.
“(c) For the purpose of obtaining any information under subsection (a), the Administrator may by subpepa fequire any other person to appear and testify or. to appear and produce documents, or both, at any designated place.
‘‘(g) .No person shall be excused from complying with any requirements under this section because of his privilege against self-incrimination, but the immunity provisions of the 'Compulsory Testimony Act of February 11, 1893 (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title. 49, sec. 46), shall apply with respect to any individual who specifically claims such privilege.”
The Compulsory Testimony Act of February 11, 1893, 27 Stat. 443, 49 U. S. C. § 46, provides:
“That 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, ... 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, . . . Provided, That no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.”
Petitioner’s plea of immunity arose out of his testifying before an examiner of the Office of- Price Administration in response to subpoenas issued by that office. ■ In August, 1945, investigators of the War Production Board began an inquiry into the transactions of Daisart Sportswear-, Inc. Two subpoenas were issued by the Office of Price Administration summoning petitioner individually and as an officer of Daisart to appear before an official of the Office of Price Administration. The subpoenas directed petitioner to produce all records and documents, “pertaining to the purchase, sale, manufacture, fabrication and/or finishing piece goods, materials, fabrics from January 1, 1945, up to the present time.” On April 30, 1946, pursuant to the subpoenas, petitioner appeared with counsel before an examiner of thé O. P. A. After a ruling,'unchallenged by respondent, that the appearance was under the compulsion of a valid subpoena, petitioner was sworn in as a witness and advised erroneously that he could not be compelled to make any self-incriminating statements and further advised that he had certain constitutional guarantees. ■ This was an obvious reference to the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination as recognized by § 202 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, quoted above.
After a few questions of a preliminary nature, petitioner stated: “I want to claim privilege as to anything that I say.”. Thereafter, in answer to questions by the examiner, petitioner explained' that the records required by the subpoenas had either been destroyed, lost, or misplaced. He testified that he was the sole owner and officer of Daisart Sportswear, Inc., which until it went out of business in October, 1945, was engaged in the manufacture, purchase, and sale of textiles and allied products. In carrying on this business, the material out of which products were made was often furnished to Daisart by the organization, a so-called .manufacturer, for whom Daisart contracted to make the product. Smith then testified that from various operations Daisart sold surplus fabrics and textiles; that for Metals Disintegrating Company, Daisart made bags and that for certain manufacturing operations Daisart had to acquire materials and fabrics. He denied that Daisart bought any material for the sole purpose of reselling it and stated that Daisart sold only material which was surplusage from its various operations. As examples of his company’s operations, petitioner said that Daisart was a contractor for five companies which he specifically named and for many others whose names had slipped his mind; and that Daisart also manufactured ammunition bags as a subcontractor for Metals Disintegrating Company, which had a prime contract with the Government. In reply to the question as to how Daisart arrived at its selling price with respect to the material it sold, petitioner answered: “Since it was surplus, it was sold at the price billed to me plus freight and haulage and less discount allowed to me.”
Petitioner gave the names of “A. Steinman & Co.,” “L. Lazarus & Co.,” and “Southeastern Cottons” as three of the firms from whom Daisart purchased materials and fabrics, stated that Daisart received invoices from the suppliers for its purchases, and that Daisart paid for its purchases by check at all times. He disclosed the Fidelity Union Trust Company of Newark, N. J., as' the bank where Daisart maintained its account,-' and gave the name of the accountant who had the social security and bank statements of Daisart. - He testified that these records would reflect the total overall business of Daisart, including the purchase and sale of all materials. According to petitioner, Daisart usually received the material from the manufacturer with whom it was contracting, and Daisart merely supplied labor and trimming. The manufacturer did not bill Daisart for the material, but simply shipped it for use by Daisart, who in turn billed the manufacturer for the finished garments. It was tacitly understood that if Daisart could save any of the material, it could do as it pleased with that excess material. Petitioner said that the waste from the making of ammunition bags approximated the amount actually Used in "the. bags, and that Metals Disintegrating knew this fact but never made any claim with respect to the waste.
After the foregoing evidence, there occurred the following colloquy between petitioner and the examiner:.
“Question [by O. P. A. examiner]': So that with respect to Daisart Sportswear Inc., contracting activities on ammunition bag materials, were shipped by the manufacture!'without bill?
“Answer [by petitioner]: It was not. Metals Disintegrating Company being a foreign concern and being unable to furnish this material, they asked me to purchase materials for them. They were aware that I cannot do that without proper priorities. Those priorities were forthcoming in a blanket sum. No stipulated amount and I was further told to maintain a constant stock for any orders they may call. I mean Daisart Sportswear Inc-., for any orders they may call for. Their orders came to me sometimes dated and never in any set size or - specified form. They charged from day to day. I then went about purchasing material for their work. When and if I had a surplus, I would notify them and ask them if they had anything immediately on hand as I am overstocked, at which time they told me they had not and to dispose of it.
“Question: This is a voluntary statement. You do not claim immunity with respect to that, statement?
“Answer: No.
“Question: -I assume that anything you tell us,• Mr. Smith, is subject to verification? You state that after a time Metals Disintegrating Company, although it had a contract with the government, was not in a position. to furnish you with the materials necessary for .Daisart to manufacture this item?
“Answer: Right.
■ “Question: ■ And that because of that situation,' Daisart was required to obtain priorities so that Daisart could obtain the. materials and that it did-so?
“Answer: In a blanket amount.
“Question: And that pursuant to that priority, Daisart thereafter acquired materials, some of which were used in the manufacture of ammunition bags for Metals, and some of it was disposed of by Daisart, is that correct?
“Answer: Yes.
“Question: And those disposals by Daisart formed a good part of the sales of fabrics made by Daisart?
“Answer: They did.”
When the prosecution during the trial sought to introduce the transcript of this testimony before the O. P. A. official, .petitioner moved for a dismissal of the informations and the indictment against him upon the ground that he was granted immunity from prosecution by . the Price Control Act of 1942 for the acts concerning which he was questioned. Petitioner asserted that the hearing before the O. P. A. official covered essentially the same matters which formed the basis for the informations and the indictment. The trial judge reserved decision on the motion and received the transcript of the testimony in evidence against petitioner' and the corporation. Subsequently the court ruled that the transcript was not admissible against petitioner, but was only admissible against the defendant corporation, and the jury was so instructed. The trial court also overruled the motion for a dismissal of the' charges against petitioner and stated that “the testimony does nobAhpve any part or feature of the commission of a crime, nor will it tend to a conviction when combined with proof of other circumstances which others may supply.” This the trial court thought.was the test. Conviction followed on 35 counts of each of the two informations and on the indictment for conspiracy. Petitioner was sentenced to pay $10,000 on each count, a total of $710,000 in fines and to imprisonment in such a way that he would have three years to serve..
The .Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of. peti-tioner on twelve counts of each of the two informations on the ground that because-he had “not waived immunity-in respect to his earlier disclosure that A. Steinam & Co., L. Lazarus & Co., and Southeastern Cottons were sellers to the corporation, he cannot be prosecuted on the counts based on transactions with those companies.” 169 F. 2d at 861. These were the three companies specifically named by petitioner in his testimony before the examiner of the Office of Price Administration. This reversal reduced the amount of the fines imposed upon petitioner by $240,000, but not his sentence of three yéars’ imprisonment. The Court' of Appeals affirmed the rest of the sentences on the informations and the indictment. • It héld that petitioner’s claim to immunity by reason of his testimony before the examiner was clear and good but for the statement made by petitioner set out above. This the court thought was voluntary and waived all immunity, on the facts therein stated and that these were the essential facts in the convictions. 169 F. 2d- at 860, 862. One judge dissented in part on the ground that by his testimony before the O. P. A. official petitioner had acquired immunity from prosecution for the transactions charged in the indictment. Because of the importance of the problem in the administration of federal criminal justice, we brought the case here by certiorari. 335 U. S. 882.
First. The evolution of congressional policy in déaling with immunity from criminal prosecution in return for evidence has-been adequately discussed recently by this Court United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424 (1943), and Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1 (1948). Through Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, it was established that absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for offenses disclosed by the evidence must be given a person compelled to testify after claim of privilege against self-incrimination. To meet that requirement Congress amended the immunity provisions, of the Interstate Commerce. Act, 24j3tat. 383, § 12, that protected a. witness from use against him of evidence so given in any subsequent criminal proceeding so as to provide that the witness should not be “prosecuted . . . for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify . . . .” P. 141, supra. This remission of responsibility for criminal acts met the “absolute” test of the constitutional provision against self-incrimination. Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591. If a witness could not be prosecuted on facts concerning which he testified, the witness could not fairly say he had been compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. He might suffer disgrace and humiliation but such unfortunate results to him are outside of constitutional protection. Id., p. 598. Cf. pp. 630-631. This compulsory testimony statute was further amended in 1906 to provide that the immunity should extend only to a natural person testifying under oath in obedience to a subpoena. 34 Stat. 798. The Monia case, supra, decided in 1943 that it was not necessary for a witness to claim his privilege, against self-incrimination under the compulsory testimony statute as thus amended-. This conclusion was reached on an interpretation of the immunity statute, p. 430, despite a contrary rule requiring a claim of privilege under the self-incrimination provision of-the Fifth Amendment. See Vajtauer v. Commissioner, 273 U. S. 103, 113. Cf. Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131.
In the light of these decisions adjusting a witness’ duty of testimony to his constitutional protection against self-incrimination, Congress has been enabled, through the use of the Compulsory Testimony Act of 1893 as a model, to legislate so as to force from the lips of the guilty testimony believed necessary to administer a variety of acts. By the date of the Monia decision,. Congress had, foresightedly, added to the standard immunity clause, drawn from the Interstate Commerce Act, the provision, that tjie witness must claim his privilege. By this' addition the statute on compulsory testimony as to this requirement was put on a parity with the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. It is such a supplemented immunity statute that we are called upon to apply in this case.
Petitioner was compelled to testify at the examination under the Price Control Act. He was subpoenaed and put under.oath. At the beginning of the examination, he raised a question as to the validity of the subpoena so as to assure himself that he was not voluntarily present. He promptly declared: “I want to claim privilege as to anything that I say.”. In response to the examiner's queries as to his and Daisart's'business activities, petitioner thereafter made the statements set out at pp. 142 to 145, supra. - These statements as to the organization of his business, his use of priorities, his suppliers and customers, his ban'king connections and the method of computing the selling price of surplus materials are clearly more than suggestions from which it might be imagined evidence as to his operations could be obtained. Brown v. Walker,, supra, at 599. Some, at least, of the disclosures, such as the, use of blanket priorities of Metals Disintegrating to procure textiles and thé method of fixing prices on surplus sales, bore directly on the subsequent charges of misuse of priorities and the goods obtained thereby as well as the charge of conspiracy to violate the Price Control Act. The facts brought out'in his examination are not facts disassociated from his prosecution as in Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, but in the language of the Compulsory Testimony Act are pertinent to the prosecution and “concerning which” petitioner testified. The facts were links in the chain of evidence. The Government does not contest thé conclusion that part of the testimony before the examiner, concerns the criminal charges.
Second. The Government, however, contends that petitioner’s immunity from prosecution on facts concerning which he. was compelled to testify was waived by a subsequent voluntary statement. This statement as given in question and answer form is set out above at p. 144. Privilege can be waived and with the waiver the statutory immunity disappears. Since the purpose of the remission of penalties is to. force out evidence that is protected by privilege against self-incrimination, a waive! of that protection makes the testimony available for prosecution of the witness. Nor do we see any reason why claim of privilege to all or- any part of testimony may not be withdrawn. Although the privilege against self-incrimination must be claimed, when claimed it is guaranteed by the Constitution. Thereafter only absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution is sufficient to compel the desired testimony. Waiver of constitutional rights, however, is not lightly to be inferred. A witness cannot properly be held after clairp to have waived his privilege and consequent immunity upon vague and uncertain evidence.
It is plain here that petitioner relied from the beginning of his examination upon his privilege. The United States had notice that the witness sought protection against prosecution for any facts to which he was compelled to testify. The Government had then to decide whether to pay the price to secure the facts of the suspected criminal operation. Just before the question that opened the colloquy quoted at p. 144, the examination had elicited that Daisart often contracted with manufacturers to do work on goods bought and furnished by the manufacturer. Then came the question above quoted, pp. 143-144, as to the practice on the ammunition-bag contract. The answer, we think, was responsive. Then came the question; “This is a voluntary statement. You do not claim immunity with respect to that statement?” And the answer, “No.” Whether the “No” applied to the first or second sentence is not known. In view of the specific claim of privilege, it seems unlikely that petitioner would waive the privilege and testify, voluntarily and without protection against prosecution, as to the details of his operations with Metals Disintegrating, the source of the blanket priorities that lay at the base of the charges by information and indictment; No question is made as to the correctness of the transcription. Without any effort to clarify the “No,” the examiner went ahead and had the witness restate the substance of the long answer quoted on p. 144 without any further intimation that the subsequent answers were considered by the examiner to be voluntary. We do not think under these circumstances this equivocal “No” is a waiver of the previous definite claim of general privilege against self-incrimination.
The trial court excluded the entire statement before the examiner, including the question just discussed, as evidence against petitioner. Since that court did not think the statement contained testimony proving any part or feature of the commission of a crime and did not tend to a conviction when combined with proof of other circumstances which others might supply, it refused the motion for a directed acquittal.
Furthermore, before the question was asked the answer to which the Government argues is a voluntary statement, petitioner, testifying under unquestioned privilege with immunity, gave the information that is detailed above at pp. 141 to 143, inclusive. Without restating the entire substance of the testimony, we think the statements concerning the necessity of Daisart to acquire fabrics for manufacturing, together with information as to the names of the suppliers, the name of Daisart’s bank and as to the manner of Daisart’s receipts, disbursements and sales prices, were sufficient to give petitioner the immunity claimed.
Third. Finally the Government presses upon us the argument that, as to the indictment, the 'testimony petitioner gave at the examination under the Price Control Act was wholly sélf-exonerating and therefore did not secure immunity from prosecution by the indictment. The contention is that since the immunity granted by § 202 (g) of the Emergency Price Control Act was an exchange for the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and since this evidence is not incriminating, it therefore cannot be used to setíure immunity from prosecution for conspiracy to violate the Price Control Act. See Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1; 8 Wigmore, Evidence, § 2282.
The indictment was for conspiracy to sell finished piece goods in excess, of prices fixed under the Price Control Act. The position of the Government is that the only testimony relating to the charge of the indictment is that petitioner testified that he sold the goods at prices within the allowable limits. But the indictment also charged as a part of the conspiracy a plan through false invoices to secure payments for the goods by checks to fictitious persons which the conspirators cashed.
A glance at the details of the testimony set out at pp. 142 through 145, supra, will demonstrate that petitioner’s testimony at the examination went beyond the exculpatory language concerning the sale price. Petitioner testified as to the business organization of Daisart, its acquisition of materials through the priorities furnished by Metals Disintegrating from named firms on their invoices and its payment for these goods at all times by check. Daisart’s bank was named. Since the. argument on this point relates only to exculpatory statements and not to waivers, it is also to be noted'that all testimony contained in the answer printed on p. 144, above, is to be taken into consideration. Certainly many of these disclosures furnished leads that could have uncovered evidence of the unlawful conspiracy charged in the indictment. Petitioner testified concerning transactions, matters and things substantially, connected with parts of the conspiracy for which he was indicted — for example, th§ testimony that he bought material under invoice from a named supplier and paid for it by check on a named bank. This evidence, being substantially connected (with the conspiracy, was ample to give immunity from the conspiracy prosecution. The Compulsory Testimony Act of February 11, 1893, gives immunity from prosecution on account “of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which” the witness is compelled to'testify in return for such evidence. Consequently, we need not decide whether, if only exculpatory evidence was given concerning matters pertinent to the criminal charge, the statute would grant immunity.
Reversed.
56 Stat 176,177; 58 Stat. 827; 60 Stat. 868.
32 C. F. R., Cum. Supp. §§ 944.1-944.21; 32 C. F. R., Cum. Supp. § 944.23.
56 Stat. 23 ét seq., as amended, 56 Stat. 767, 58 Stat. 632, 59 Stat. 306,60 Stat. 664.
A footnote to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 169 F. 2d 856 at 859, states: “These terms are explained in United States v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 160 F. 2d 729, certiorari denied 331 U. S. 829, 67. S. Ct. 1351, A- preference rating is applied by the original recipient to obtain commodities from a supplier who then extends (uses) the rating to secure the needed commodities from' subsuppliers.” .
See Shapiro v. United States, supra, p. 6; Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 142.
United States v. Mania, supra, at 429; cf. p. 442, et seq.
United States v. Monia, supra, at 429.
In the Heike case, the accused had testified in a grand jury investigation as to violations of the Sherman Act. Such testimony did not earn the immunity of the Act of February 25, 1903, 32 Stat. 854, 904, on a subsequent indictment for a fraud on the revenue by the secret introduction of springs in scales to cause them to indicate less than the actual weight. A table of annual meltings of sugar had been given at the monopoly investigation by Heike. This Court said: “The table of meltings by the year had no bearing on the frauds, as it was not confined to the sugar fraudulently weighed and it does not appear how the number of pounds was made up. The mere fact that a part of the sugar embraced in the table was the sugar falsely weighed did not make the table evidence concerning the frauds. The same consideration shows that it did not tend to incriminate the witness. It neither led nor could have led to a discovery of his crime.” 227 U. S. at 143.
See United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 430; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 599; United States v. Weisman, 111 F. 2d 260; United States v. Molasky, 118 F. 2d 128, 134.
The Government’s argument is that voluntary statements are not protected by privilege and do not earn immunity. It is suggested, too, that the answers were not responsive to the question and that a witness cannot volunteer facts and secure immunity any more than he can secure remission of penalties by appearing as a witness without compulsion. Further, the Government relies upon the voluntary character of the above statement as á waiver of privilege, not only as to facts included in the statement but also as to similar facts that the witness had disclosed previously under compulsion after claim of privilege. This position is based on the opinion of the Court of Appeals, where it was said: “Even where this testimony repeated previous answers which would have been subject to the witness’ initial general claim of immunity, we see no reason why a witness cannot qualify and limit his claim as the examination proceeds, just as he can make new claims as to issues he has not waived.” 169 F. 2d at 861.
Raffel v. United States, 271 U. S. 494, 496, and cases cited; Vajtauer v. Commissioner, 273 U. S. 103, 113; United States v. Monia 317 U. S. 424, 427; Johnson v. United States, 318 U. S. 189, 195.
Hodges v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408, 412; Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Comm’n, 301 U. S. 292, 306; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U. S 389, 394; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464.
United States v. Monia 317 U. S. 424, 430.
“Compare United States v. St. Pierre, 128 F. 2d 979, 980: “Nor is it material that appellant stated at several points that he . had committed no federal crime; such a contradiction, especially by a nervous or excitable witness would not overcome a clear claim of privilege if he was otherwise entitled to the privilege.”
The testimony referred to is as follows:
“Question: Can you tell me how Daisart Sportswear Inc., arrived at its selling price with respect to the items that it sold?
“Answer: Since it was surplus, it .was sold at the price billed to me plus freight and haulage and less discount allowed to me.
“Question: In other words, Daisart Sportswear Inc., sold at cost plus freight less any discounts, cash or otherwise, received by Daisart Sportswear Inc. ?
“Answer: Correct.”-
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In 1954, this Court held that the concept of “ ‘separate but equal’ ” has no place in the field of public education. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 495 (Brown I). The following year, the Court ordered an end to segregated public education “with all deliberate speed.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 301 (1955) (Brown II). Since these decisions, the Court has had many occasions to evaluate whether a public school district has met its affirmative obligation to dismantle its prior de jure segregated system in elementary and secondary schools. In these cases we decide what standards to apply in determining whether the State of Mississippi has met this obligation in the university context.
I
Mississippi launched its public university system in 1848 by establishing the University of Mississippi, an institution dedicated to the higher education exclusively of white persons. In succeeding decades, the State erected additional postsecondary, single-race educational facilities. Alcorn State University opened its doors in 1871 as “an agricultural college for the education of Mississippi’s black youth.” Ayers v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1523, 1527 (ND Miss. 1987). Creation of four more exclusively white institutions followed: Mississippi State University (1880), Mississippi University for Women (1885), University of Southern Mississippi (1912), and Delta State University (1925). The State added two more solely black institutions in 1940 and 1950: in the former year, Jackson State University, which was charged with training “black teachers for the black public schools,” id., at 1528; and in the latter year, Mississippi Valley State University, whose functions were to educate teachers primarily for rural and elementary schools and to provide vocational instruction to black students.
Despite this Court’s decisions in Brown I and Brown II, Mississippi’s policy of de jure segregation continued. The first black student was not admitted to the University of Mississippi until 1962, and then only by court order. See Meredith v. Fair, 306 F. 2d 374 (CA5), cert. denied, 371 U. S. 828, enf’d, 313 F. 2d 532 (1962) (en bane) (per curiam). For the next 12 years the segregated public university system in the State remained largely intact. Mississippi State University, Mississippi University for Women, University of Southern Mississippi, and Delta State University each admitted at least one black student during these years, but the student composition of these institutions was still almost completely white. During this period, Jackson State and Mississippi Valley State were exclusively black; Alcorn State had admitted five white students by 1968.
In 1969, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) initiated efforts to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000d. HEW requested that the State devise a plan to disestablish the formerly de jure segregated university system. In June 1973, the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (Board) submitted a plan of compliance, which expressed the aims of improving educational opportunities for all Mississippi citizens by setting numerical goals on the enrollment of other-race students at state universities, hiring other-race faculty members, and instituting remedial programs and special recruitment efforts to achieve those goals. App. 898-900. HEW rejected this Plan as failing to comply with Title VI because it did not go far enough in the areas of student recruitment and enrollment, faculty hiring, elimination of unnecessary program duplication, and institutional funding practices to ensure that “a student’s choice of institution or campus, henceforth, will be based on other than racial criteria.” Id., at 205. The Board reluctantly offered amendments, prefacing its reform pledge to HEW with this statement: "With deference, it is the position of the Board of Trustees... that the Mississippi system of higher education is in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Id., at 898. At this time, the racial composition of the State’s universities had changed only marginally from the levels of 1968, which were almost exclusively single race. Though HEW refused to accept the modified Plan, the Board adopted it anyway. 674 F. Supp., at 1530. But even the limited effects of this Plan in disestablishing the prior de jure segregated system were substantially constricted by the state legislature, which refused to fund it until fiscal year 1978, and even then at well under half the amount sought by the Board. App. 896-897, 1444-1445, 1448-1449.
Private petitioners initiated this lawsuit in 1975. They complained that Mississippi had maintained the racially seg-regative effects of its prior dual system of postsecondary education in violation of the Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U. S. C. §§1981 and 1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000d. Shortly thereafter, the United States filed its complaint in intervention, charging that state officials had failed to satisfy their obligation under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI to dismantle Mississippi’s dual system of higher education.
After this lawsuit was filed, the parties attempted for 12 years to achieve a consensual resolution of their differences through voluntary dismantlement by the State of its prior separated system. The board of trustees implemented reviews of existing curricula and program “mission” at each institution. In 1981, the Board issued “Mission Statements” that identified the extant purpose of each public university. These “missions” were clustered into three categories: comprehensive, urban, and regional. “Comprehensive” universities were classified as those with the greatest existing resources and program offerings. All three such institutions (University of Mississippi, Mississippi State, and Southern Mississippi) were exclusively white under the prior de jure segregated system. The Board authorized each to continue offering doctoral degrees and to assert leadership in certain disciplines. Jackson State, the sole urban university, was assigned a more limited research and degree mission, with both functions geared toward its urban setting. It was exclusively black at its inception. The “regional” designation was something of a misnomer, as the Board envisioned those institutions primarily in an undergraduate role, rather than a “regional” one in the geographical sense of serving just the localities in which they were based. Only the universities classified as “regional” included institutions that, prior to desegregation, had been either exclusively white — Delta State and Mississippi University for Women — or exclusively black — Alcorn State and Mississippi Valley State.
By the mid-1980’s, 30 years after Brown, more than 99 percent of Mississippi’s white students were enrolled at University of Mississippi, Mississippi State, Southern Mississippi, Delta State, and Mississippi University for Women. The student bodies at these universities remained predominantly white, averaging between 80 and 91 percent white students. Seventy-one percent of the State’s black students attended Jackson State, Alcorn State, and Mississippi Valley State, where the racial composition ranged from 92 to 99 percent black. Ayers v. Attain, 893 F. 2d 732, 734-735 (CA5 1990) (panel decision).
II
By 1987, the parties concluded that they could not agree on whether the State had taken the requisite affirmative steps to dismantle its prior de jure segregated system. They proceeded to trial. Both sides presented voluminous evidence on a hill range of educational issues spanning admissions standards, faculty and administrative staff recruitment, program duplication, on-campus discrimination, institutional funding disparities, and satellite campuses. Petitioners argued that in various ways the State continued to reinforce historic, race-based distinctions among the universities. Respondents argued generally that the State had fulfilled its duty to disestablish its state-imposed segregative system by implementing and maintaining good-faith, nondiscriminatory race-neutral policies and practices in student admission, faculty hiring, and operations. Moreover, they suggested, the State had attracted significant numbers of qualified black students to those universities composed mostly of white persons. Respondents averred that the mere continued existence of racially identifiable universities was not unlawful given the freedom of students to choose which institution to attend and the varying objectives and features of the State’s universities.
At trial’s end, based on the testimony of 71 witnesses and 56,700 pages of exhibits, the District Court entered extensive findings of fact. The court first offered a historical overview of the higher education institutions in Mississippi and the developments in the system between 1954 and the filing of this suit in 1975. 674 F. Supp., at 1526-1530. It then made specific findings recounting post-1975 developments, including a description at the time of trial, in those areas of the higher education system under attack by plaintiffs: admission requirements and recruitment; institutional classification and assignment of missions; duplication of programs; facilities and finance; the land grant institutions; faculty and staff; and governance. Id., at 1530-1550.
The court’s conclusions of law followed. As an overview, the court outlined the common ground in the action: “Where a state has previously maintained a racially dual system of public education established by law, it assumes an ‘affirmative duty’ to reform those policies and practices which required or contributed to the separation of races.” Id., at 1551. Noting that courts unanimously hold that the affirmative duty to dismantle a racially dual structure in elementary and secondary schools also governs in the higher education context, the court observed that there was disagreement whether Green v. School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430 (1968), applied in all of its aspects to formerly dual systems of higher education, i. e., whether “some level of racial mixture at previously segregated institutions of higher learning is not only desirable but necessary to ‘effectively’ desegregate the system.” 674 F. Supp., at 1552. Relying on a Fifth Circuit three-judge court decision, Alabama State Teachers Assn. (ASTA) v. Alabama Public School and College Authority, 289 F. Supp. 784 (MD Ala. 1968), our -per curiam affirmance of that case, 393 U. S. 400 (1969), and its understanding of our later decision in Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U. S. 385 (1986), the court concluded that in the higher education context, “the affirmative duty to desegregate does not contemplate either restricting choice or the achievement of any degree of racial balance.” 674 F. Supp., at 1553. Thus, the court stated: “While student enrollment and faculty and staff hiring patterns are to be examined, greater emphasis should instead be placed on current state higher education policies and practices in order to insure that such policies and practices are racially neutral, developed and implemented in good faith, and do not substantially contribute to the continued racial identifiability of individual institutions.” Id., at 1554.
When it addressed the same aspects of the university system covered by the findings of fact in light of the foregoing standard, the court found no violation of federal law in any of them. “In summary, the court finds that current actions on the part of the defendants demonstrate conclusively that the defendants are fulfilling their affirmative duty to disestablish the former de jure segregated system of higher education.” Id., at 1564.
The Court of Appeals reheard the action en bane and affirmed the decision of the District Court. Ayers v. Allain, 914 F. 2d 676 (CA5 1990). With a single exception, see infra, at 741, it did not disturb the District Court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. The en banc majority agreed that “Mississippi was... constitutionally required to eliminate invidious racial distinctions and dismantle its dual system.” Id., at 682. That duty, the court held, had been discharged since “the record makes clear that Mississippi has adopted and implemented race neutral policies for operating its colleges and universities and that all students have real freedom of choice to attend the college or university they wish_” Id., at 678.
We granted the respective writs of certiorari filed by the United States and the private petitioners. 499 U. S. 958. (1991).
Ill
The District Court, the Court of Appeals, and respondents recognize and acknowledge that the State of Mississippi had the constitutional duty to dismantle the dual school system that its laws once mandated. Nor is there any dispute that this obligation applies to its higher education system. If the State has not discharged this duty, it remains in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education and its progeny clearly mandate this observation. Thus, the primary issue in these cases is whether the State has met its affirmative duty to dismantle its prior dual university system.
Our decisions establish that a State does not discharge its constitutional obligations until it eradicates policies and practices traceable to its prior de jure dual system that continue to foster segregation. Thus we have consistently asked whether existing racial identifiability is attributable to the State, see, e. g., Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U. S. 467, 496 (1992); Bazemore v. Friday, supra, at 407 (White, J., concurring); Pasadena City Bd. of Ed. v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424, 434 (1976); Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 417 U. S. 556, 566-567 (1974); and examined a wide range of factors to determine whether the State has perpetuated its formerly de jure segregation in any facet of its institutional system. See, e. g., Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 250 (1991); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 18 (1971); Green v. School Bd. of New Kent County, supra, at 435-438.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the State had fulfilled its affirmative obligation to disestablish its prior de jure segregated system by adopting and implementing race-neutral policies governing its college and university system. Because students seeking higher education had “real freedom” to choose the institution of their choice, the State need do no more. Even though neutral policies and free choice were not enough to dismantle a dual system of primary or secondary schools, Green v. School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430 (1968), the Court of Appeals thought that universities “differ in character fundamentally” from lower levels of schools, 914 F. 2d, at 686, sufficiently so that our decision in Bazemore v. Friday, supra, justified the conclusion that the State had dismantled its former dual system.
Like the United States, we do not disagree with the Court of Appeals’ observation that a state university system is quite different in very relevant respects from primary and secondary schools. Unlike attendance at the lower level schools, a student’s decision to seek higher education has been a matter of choice. The State historically has not assigned university students to a particular institution. Moreover, like public universities throughout the country, Mississippi’s institutions of higher learning are not fungible — they have been designated to perform certain missions. Students who qualify for admission enjoy a range of choices of which institution to attend. Thus, as the Court of Appeals stated, “[i]t hardly needs mention that remedies common to public school desegregation, such as pupil assignments, busing, attendance quotas, and zoning, are unavailable when persons may freely choose whether to pursue an advanced education and, when the choice is made, which of several universities to attend.” 914 F. 2d, at 687.
We do not agree with the Court of Appeals or the District Court, however, that the adoption and implementation of race-neutral policies alone suffice to demonstrate that the State has completely abandoned its prior dual system. That college attendance is by choice and not by assignment does not mean that a race-neutral admissions policy cures the constitutional violation of a dual system. In a system based on choice, student attendance is determined not simply by admissions policies, but also by many other factors. Although some of these factors clearly cannot be attributed to state policies, many can be. Thus, even after a State dismantles its segregative admissions policy, there may still be state action that is traceable to the State’s prior de jure segregation and that continues to foster segregation. The Equal Protection Clause is offended by “sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination.” Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 275 (1939). If policies traceable to the de jure system are still in force and have discriminatory effects, those policies too must be reformed to the extent practicable and consistent with sound educational practices. Freeman, supra, at 494; Dowell, supra, at 250; Green, supra, at 439; Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control of Fla., 350 U. S. 413, 414 (1956) (per curiam). We also disagree with respondents that the Court of Appeals and District Court properly relied on our decision in Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U. S. 385 (1986). Bazemore neither requires nor justifies the conclusions reached by the two courts below.
Bazemore raised the issue whether the financing and operational assistance provided by a state university’s extension service to voluntary 4-H and Homemaker Clubs was inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause because of the existence of numerous all-white and all-black clubs. Though prior to 1965 the clubs were supported on a segregated basis, the District Court had found that the policy of segregation had been completely abandoned and that no evidence existed of any lingering discrimination in either services or membership; any racial imbalance resulted from the wholly voluntary and unfettered choice of private individuals. Bazemore, supra, at 407 (White, J., concurring). In this context, we held inapplicable the Green Court’s judgment that a voluntary choice program was insufficient to dismantle a de jure dual system in public primary and secondary schools, but only after satisfying ourselves that the State had not fostered segregation by playing a part in the decision of which club an individual ehose to join.
Bazemore plainly does not excuse inquiry into whether Mississippi has left in place certain aspects of its prior dual system that perpetuate the racially segregated higher education system. If the State perpetuates policies and practices traceable to its prior system that continue to have segre-gative effects — whether by influencing student enrollment decisions or by fostering segregation in other facets of the university system — and such policies are without sound educational justification and can be practicably eliminated, the State has not satisfied its burden of proving that it has dismantled its prior system. Such policies run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause, even though the State has abolished the legal requirement that whites and blacks be educated separately and has established racially neutral policies not animated by a discriminatory purpose. Because the standard applied by the District Court did not make these inquiries, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the District Court’s ruling that the State had brought itself into compliance with the Equal Protection Clause in the operation of its higher education system.
IV
Had the Court of Appeals applied the correct legal standard, it would have been apparent from the undisturbed factual findings of the District Court that there are several surviving aspects of Mississippi’s prior dual system which are constitutionally suspect; for even though such policies may be race neutral on their face, they substantially restrict a person’s choice of which institution to enter, and they contribute to the racial identifiability of the eight public universities. Mississippi must justify these policies or eliminate them.
It is important to state at the outset that we make no effort to identify an exclusive list of unconstitutional remnants of Mississippi’s prior de jure system. In highlighting, as we do below, certain remnants of the prior system that are readily apparent from the findings of fact made by the District Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we by no means suggest that the Court of Appeals need not examine, in light of the proper standard, each of the other policies now governing the State’s university system that have been challenged or that are challenged on remand in light of the standard that we articulate today. With this caveat in mind, we address four policies of the present system: admissions standards, program duplication, institutional mission assignments, and continued operation of all eight public universities.
We deal first with the current admissions policies of Mississippi’s public universities. As the District Court found, the three flagship historically white universities in the sys-tern — University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and University of Southern Mississippi — enacted policies in 1963 requiring all entrants to achieve a minimum composite score of 15 on the test administered by the American College Testing Program (ACT). 674 F. Supp., at 1531. The court described the “discriminatory taint” of this policy, id., at 1557, an obvious reference to the fact that, at the time, the average ACT score for white students was 18 and the average score for blacks was 7. 893 F. 2d, at 735. The District Court concluded, and the en banc Court of Appeals agreed, that present admissions standards derived from policies enacted in the 1970’s to redress the problem of student unpreparedness. 914 F. 2d, at 679; 674 F. Supp., at 1531. Obviously, this midpassage justification for perpetuating a policy enacted originally to discriminate against black students does not make the present admissions standards any less constitutionally suspect.
The present admissions standards are not only traceable to the de jure system and were originally adopted for a discriminatory purpose, but they also have present discriminatory effects. Every Mississippi resident under 21 seeking admission to the university system must take the ACT test. Any applicant who scores at least 15 qualifies for automatic admission to any of the five historically white institutions except Mississippi University for Women, which requires a score of 18 for automatic admission unless the student has a 3.0 high school grade average. Those scoring less than 15 but at least 13 automatically qualify to enter Jackson State University, Alcorn State University, and Mississippi Valley State University. Without doubt, these requirements restrict the range of choices of entering students as to which institution they may attend in a way that perpetuates segregation. Those scoring 13 or 14, with some exceptions, are excluded from the five historically white universities and if they want a higher education must go to one of the historically black institutions or attend junior college with the hope of transferring to a historically white institution. Proportionately more blacks than whites face this choice: In 1985, 72 percent of Mississippi’s white high school seniors achieved an ACT composite score of 15 or better, while less than 30 percent of black high school seniors earned that score. App. 1524-1525. It is not surprising then that Mississippi’s universities remain predominantly identifiable by race.
The segregative effect of this automatic entrance standard is especially striking in light of the differences in minimum automatic entrance scores among the regional universities in Mississippi’s system. The minimum score for automatic admission to Mississippi University for Women is 18; it is 13 for the historically black universities. Yet Mississippi University for Women is assigned the same institutional mission as two other regional universities, Alcorn State and Mississippi Valley State — that of providing quality undergraduate education. The effects of the policy fall disproportionately on black students who might wish to attend Mississippi University for Women; and though the disparate impact is not as great, the same is true of the minimum standard ACT score of 15 at Delta State University — the other “regional” university — as compared to the historically black “regional” universities where a score of 13 suffices for automatic admission. The courts below made little, if any, effort to justify in educational terms those particular disparities in entrance requirements or to inquire whether it was practicable to eliminate them.
We also find inadequately justified by the courts below or by the record before us the differential admissions requirements between universities with dissimilar programmatic missions. We do not suggest that absent a discriminatory purpose different programmatic missions accompanied by different admissions standards would be constitutionally suspect simply because one or more schools are racially identifiable. But here the differential admissions standards are remnants of the dual system with a continuing discriminatory effect, and the mission assignments “to some degree follow the historical racial assignments,” 914 F. 2d, at 692. Moreover, the District Court did not justify the differing admissions standards based on the different mission assignments. It observed only that in the 1970’s, the board of trustees justified a minimum ACT score of 15 because too many students with lower scores were not prepared for the historically white institutions and that imposing the 15 score requirement on admissions to the historically black institutions would decimate attendance at those universities. The District Court also stated that the mission of the regional universities had the more modest function of providing quality undergraduate education. Certainly the comprehensive universities are also, among other things, educating undergraduates. But we think the 15 ACT test score for automatic admission to the comprehensive universities, as compared with a score of 13 for the regionals, requires further justification in terms of sound educational policy.
Another constitutionally problematic aspect of the State’s use of the ACT test scores is its policy of denying automatic admission if an applicant fails to earn the minimum ACT score specified for the particular institution, without also resorting to the applicant’s high school grades as an additional factor in predicting college performance. The United States produced evidence that the American College Testing Program (ACTP), the administering organization of the ACT, discourages use of ACT scores as the sole admissions erite-rion on the ground that it gives an incomplete “picture” of the student applicant’s ability to perform adequately in college. App. 1209-1210. One ACTP report presented into evidence suggests that “it would be foolish” to substitute a 3- or 4-hour test in place of a student’s high school grades as a means of predicting college performance. Id., at 193. The record also indicated that the disparity between black and white students’ high school grade averages was much narrower than the gap between their average ACT scores, thereby suggesting that an admissions formula which included grades would increase the number of black students eligible for automatic admission to all of Mississippi’s public universities.
The United States insists that the State’s refusal to consider information which would better predict college performance than ACT scores alone is irrational in light of most States’ use of high school grades and other indicators along with standardized test scores. The District Court observed that the board of trustees was concerned with grade inflation and the lack of comparability in grading practices and course offerings among the State’s diverse high schools. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found this concern ample justification for the failure to consider high school grade performance along with ACT scores. In our view, such justification is inadequate because the ACT requirement was originally adopted for discriminatory purposes, the current requirement is traceable to that decision and seemingly continues to have segregative effects, and the State has so far failed to show that the “ACT-only” admissions standard is not susceptible to elimination without eroding sound educational policy.
A second aspect of the present system that necessitates. further inquiry is the widespread duplication of programs. “Unnecessary” duplication refers, under the District Court’s definition, “to those instances where two or more institutions offer the same nonessential or noneore program. Under this definition, all duplication at the bachelor’s level of nonbasie liberal arts and sciences course work and all duplication at the master’s level and above are considered to be unnecessary.” 674 F. Supp., at 1540. The District Court found that 34.6 percent of the 29 undergraduate programs at historically black institutions are “unnecessarily duplicated” by the historically white universities, and that 90 percent of the graduate programs at the historically black institutions are unnecessarily duplicated at the historically white institutions. Id., at 1541. In its conclusions of law on this point, the District Court nevertheless determined that “there is no proof” that such duplication “is directly associated with the racial identifiability of institutions,” and that “there is no proof that the elimination of unnecessary program duplication would be justifiable from an educational standpoint or that its elimination would have a substantial effect on student choice.” Id., at 1561.
The District Court’s treatment of this issue is problematic from several different perspectives. First, the court appeared to impose the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to meet a legal standard the court itself acknowledged was not yet formulated. It can hardly be denied that such duplication was part and parcel of the prior dual system of higher education — the whole notion of “separate but equal” required du-plicative programs in two sets of schools — and that the present unnecessary duplication is a continuation of that practice.
Broion and its progeny, however, established that the burden of proof falls on the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system. Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300. The court’s holding that petitioners could not establish the constitutional defect of unnecessary duplication, therefore, improperly shifted the burden away from the State. Second, implicit in the District Court’s finding of “unnecessary” duplication is the absence of any educational justification and the fact that some, if not all, duplication may be practicably eliminated. Indeed, the District Court observed that such duplication “cannot be justified economically or in terms of providing quality education.” 674 F. Supp., at 1541. Yet by stating that “there is no proof” that elimination of unnecessary duplication would decrease institutional racial identifiability, affect student choice, and promote educationally sound policies, the court did not make clear whether it had directed the parties to develop evidence on these points, and if so, what that evidence revealed. See id., at 1561. Finally, by treating this issue in isolation, the court failed to consider the combined effects of unnecessary program duplication with other policies, such as differential admissions standards, in evaluating whether the State had met its duty to dismantle its prior de jure segregated system.
We next address Mississippi’s scheme of institutional mission classification, and whether it perpetuates the State’s formerly de jure dual system. The District Court found that, throughout the period of de jure segregation, University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and University of Southern Mississippi were the flagship institutions in the state system. They received the most funds, initiated the most advanced and specialized programs, and developed the widest range of curricular functions. At their inception, each was restricted for the education solely of white persons. Id., at 1526-1528. The missions of Mississippi University for Women and Delta State University, by contrast, were more limited than their other all-white counterparts during the period of legalized segregation. Mississippi University for Women and Delta State University were each established to provide undergraduate education solely for white students in the liberal arts and such other fields as music, art, education, and home economies. Id., at 1527-1528. When they were founded, the three exclusively black universities were more limited in their assigned academic missions than the five all-white institutions. Alcorn State, for example, was designated to serve as “an agricultural college for the education of Mississippi’s black youth.” Id., at 1527. Jackson State and Mississippi Valley State were established to train black teachers. Id., at 1528. Though the District Court’s findings do not make this point explicit, it is reasonable to infer that state funding and curriculum decisions throughout the period of de jure segregation were based on the purposes for which these institutions were established.
In 1981, the State assigned certain missions to Mississippi’s public universities as they then existed. It classified University of Mississippi, Mississippi State, and Southern Mississippi as “comprehensive” universities having the most varied programs and offering graduate degrees. Two of the historically white institutions, Delta State University and Mississippi University for Women, along with two of the historically black institutions, Alcorn State University and Mississippi Valley State University, were designated as “regional” universities with more limited programs and devoted primarily to undergraduate education. Jackson State University was classified as an “urban” university whose mission was defined by its urban location.
The institutional mission designations adopted in 1981 have as their antecedents the policies enacted to perpetuate racial separation during the de jure segregated regime. The Court of Appeals expressly disagreed with the District Court by recognizing that the “inequalities among the institutions largely follow the mission designations, and the mission designations to some degree follow the historical racial assignments.” 914 F. 2d, at 692. It nevertheless upheld this facet of the system as constitutionally acceptable based on the existence of good-faith racially neutral policies and procedures. That different missions are assigned to the universities surely limits to some extent an entering student’s choice as to which university to seek admittance. While the courts below both agreed that the classification and mission assignments were made without discriminatory purpose, the Court of Appeals found that the record “supports the plaintiffs’ argument that the mission designations had the effect of maintaining the more limited program scope at the historically black universities.” Id., at 690. We do not suggest that absent discriminatory purpose the assignment of different missions to various institutions in a State’s higher education system would raise an equal protection issue where one or more of the institutions become or remain predominantly black or white. But here the issue is whether the State has sufficiently dismantled its prior dual system; and when combined with the differential admission practices and unnecessary program duplication, it is likely that the mission designations interfere with student choice and tend to perpetuate the segregated system. On remand, the court should inquire whether it would be practicable and consistent with sound educational practices to eliminate any such discriminatory effects of the State’s present policy of mission assignments.
Fourth, the State attempted to bring itself into compliance with the Constitution by continuing to maintain and operate all eight higher educational institutions. The existence of eight instead of some lesser number was undoubtedly occasioned by state laws forbidding the mingling of the races. And as the District Court recognized, continuing to maintain all eight universities in Mississippi is wasteful and irrational. The District Court pointed especially to the facts that Delta State and Mississippi Valley State are only 35 miles apart and. that only 20 miles separate Mississippi State and Mississippi University for Women. 674 F. Supp., at 1568-1564. It was evident to the District Court that “the defendants undertake to fund more institutions of higher learning than are justified by the amount of financial resources available to the state,” id., at 1564, but the court concluded that such fiscal irresponsibility was a policy choice of the legislature rather than a feature of a system subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Unquestionably, a larger rather than a smaller number of institutions from which to choose in itself makes for different choices, particularly when examined in the light of other factors present in the operation of the system, such as admissions, program duplication, and institutional mission designations. Though certainly closure of one or more institutions would decrease the discriminatory effects of the present system, see, e. g., United States v. Louisiana, 718 F. Supp. 499, 514 (ED La. 1989), based on the present record we are unable to say whether such action is constitutionally required. Elimination of program duplication and revision of admissions criteria may make institutional closure unnecessary. However, on remand this issue should be carefully explored by inquiring and determining whether retention of all eight institutions itself affects student choice and perpetuates the segregated higher education system, whether maintenance of each of the universities is educationally justifiable, and whether one or more of them can be practicably closed or merged with other existing institutions.
Because the former de jure segregated system of public universities in Mississippi impeded the free choice of prospective students, the State in dismantling that system must take the necessary steps to ensure that this choice now is truly free. The full range of policies and practices must be examined with this duty in mind. That an institution is predominantly white or black does not in itself make out a constitutional violation. But surely the State may not
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The policy of sentencing drug offenders based on the amount of drugs involved, straightforward enough in its simplest formulation, gives rise to complexities, requiring us again to address the methods for calculating the weight of LSD sold by a drug trafficker. We reject petitioner’s contention that the revised system for determining LSD amounts under the United States Sentencing Guidelines requires reconsideration of the method used to determine statutory minimum sentences, and we adhere to our former decision on the subject.
I
LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is such a powerful narcotic that the average dose contains only 0.05 milligrams of the pure drug. The per-dose amount is so minute that in most instances LSD is transferred to a carrier medium and sold at retail by the dose, not by weight. In the typical case, pure LSD is dissolved in alcohol or other solvent, and the resulting solution is applied to paper or gelatin. The solvent evaporates; the LSD remains. The dealer cuts the paper or gel into single-dose squares for sale on the street. Users ingest the LSD by swallowing or licking the squares or drinking a beverage into which the squares have been mixed.
In 1988, petitioner Meirl Neal was arrested for selling 11,456 doses of LSD on blotter paper. The combined weight of the LSD and the paper was 109.51 grams. Following a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, petitioner was convicted of one count of possession of LSD with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 841, and one count of conspiracy to possess LSD with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846. At the initial sentencing, the method for determining the weight of the illegal mixture or substance was the same under the Guidelines and the statute directing minimum sentences. The determinative amount was the whole weight of the blotter paper containing the drug. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2D1.1, Drug Quantity Table, n: * (Nov. 1987) (1987 USSG). Because the total weight of the LSD and blotter paper exceeded 10 grams, the District Court found petitioner subject to the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence specified in 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(v). Under the version of the Sentencing Guidelines then in effect, the indicated sentence was even greater than the statutory minimum: The quantity of the drugs and petitioner’s prior convictions resulted in a Guidelines sentencing range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment, even after an adjustment for petitioner’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime. The District Court imposed concurrent sentences of 192 months’ imprisonment on each count, to be followed by five years of supervised release.
In November 1993, the United States Sentencing Commission revised the method of calculating the weight of LSD in the Sentencing Guidelines. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, App. C., Arndt. 488 (Nov. 1995) (1995 USSG). Departing from its former approach of weighing the entire mixture or substance containing LSD, the amended Guideline instructed courts to give each dose of LSD on a carrier medium a constructive or presumed weight of 0.4 milligrams. Id., §2Dl.l(c), n. (H). The revised Guideline was retroactive, id., App. C, Arndt. 502, and one month later petitioner filed a motion to modify his sentence, see 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(2). He contended that the weight of the LSD attributable to him under the amended Guidelines was 4.58 grams (11,456 doses x 0.4 milligrams). For that amount, the applicable sentencing range under the Guidelines would be 70 to 87 months of imprisonment. The 10-year statutory minimum of § 841(b)(l)(A)(v) was no bar to a reduced sentence, petitioner argued, because the presumptive-weight method of the Guidelines should also control the mandatory minimum calculation. The 4.58 grams attributable to him by the Guidelines method would be well short of the 10 grams necessitating a 10-year minimum sentence.
The District Court, following our recent decision in Chapman v. United States, 500 U. S. 453 (1991), ruled that the blotter paper must be weighed in determining whether petitioner crossed the 10-gram threshold of § 841(b)(l)(A)(v). It held that the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years still applied to petitioner notwithstanding the sentencing range under the Guidelines. Since the Guidelines no longer authorized a sentence above the statutory minimum, the District Court reduced petitioner’s sentence to 120 months on each count.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, agreed with the District Court that a dual system now prevails in calculating LSD weights in cases like this, and it affirmed petitioner’s sentence. 46 F. 3d 1405 (1995).
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals over whether the revised Guideline governs the calculation of the weight of LSD for purposes of § 841(b)(1). 515 U. S. 1141 (1995). Compare United States v. Muschik, 49 F. 3d 512, 518 (CA9 1995) (Guideline method should be used under § 841(b)(1)), cert. pending, No. 95-156, with United States v. Boot, 25 F. 3d 52, 55 (CA1 1994); United States v. Kinder, 64 F. 3d 757, 759 (CA2 1995), cert. pending, No. 95-6746; United States v. Hanlin, 48 F. 3d 121, 124 (CA3 1995); United States v. Pardue, 36 F. 3d 429, 431 (CA5 1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1113 (1995); United States v. Andress, 47 F. 3d 839, 840 (CA6 1995) (per curiam); United States v. Stoneking, 60 F. 3d 399, 402 (CA8 1995) (en banc), cert. pending, No. 95-5410; United States v. Mueller, 27 F. 3d 494, 496-497 (CA10 1994); United States v. Pope, 58 F. 3d 1567, 1570 (CA11 1995).
II
Congress has tried different punishment schemes to combat the menace of drug trafficking. Under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, penalties depended upon whether or not a drug was classified as a narcotic. Chagrined by the resulting sentencing disparities, Congress amended the narcotics laws in 1984 to calculate penalties by the weight of the pure drug involved. See Chapman, 500 U. S., at 460-461. Focusing on the pure drug, however, often allowed retail traffickers, who supplied street markets with mixed or diluted drugs ready for consumption, to receive sentences lighter than what Congress deemed necessary. Id., at 461. In passing the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, “Congress adopted a ‘market-oriented’ approach to punishing drug trafficking, under which the total quantity of what is distributed, rather than the amount of pure drug involved, is used to determine the length of the sentence.” Chapman, supra, at 461; H. R. Rep. No. 99-845, pt. 1, pp. 11-12, 17 (1986). The Act provided for mandatory minimum sentences based on the weight of “a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount” of various controlled substances, including LSD. 21 U. S. C. §§841(b)(1)(A)(i)-(viii) and (B)(i)-(viii). Trafficking in 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing LSD earns the offender at least 10 years in prison. § 841(b)(1)(A)(v).
In Chapman, we interpreted the provision of the Act that provided a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for trafficking in an LSD “mixture or substance” that weighed one gram or more, see § 841(b)(l)(B)(v). We construed “mixture” and “substance” to have their ordinary meaning, observing that the terms had not been defined in the statute or the Sentencing Guidelines and had no distinctive common-law meaning. 500 U. S., at 461-462. Reasoning that the “LSD is diffused among the fibers of the paper . . . [and] cannot be distinguished from the blotter paper, nor easily separated from it,” id., at 462, we held that the actual weight of the blotter paper, with its absorbed LSD, is determinative under the statute, id., at 468.
Petitioner contends that the method approved in Chapman is no longer appropriate. In his view, the Commission intended its dose-based method to supplant the actual-weight method used in Chapman, and we should not presume that the Commission would recognize two inconsistent schemes for sentencing LSD traffickers, cf. 1995 USSG §2D1.1, comment., backg’d (stating purposes of making offense levels in §2D1.1 “proportional to the levels established by statute” and providing “a logical sentencing structure for drug offenses”). Petitioner concedes, as he must, that the Commission does not have the authority to amend the statute we construed in Chapman. He argues, nonetheless, that the Commission is the agency charged with interpretation of penalty statutes and expert in sentencing matters, so its construction of § 841(b)(1) should be given deference. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 887 (1984). Congress intended the Commission’s rulemaking to respond to judicial decisions in developing a coherent sentencing regime, see Braxton v. United States, 500 U. S. 344, 348 (1991), so, petitioner contends, deference is appropriate even though the Commission’s interpretation postdated Chapman. In the alternative, he urges that we reassess Chapman in light of the Commission’s revised method, which was formed from careful study of retail drug markets. Although Chapman established that the weight of the blotter paper must be taken into account, it did not address how courts should do so. The Commission has filled the gap, petitioner maintains, by assigning a constructive weight to the LSD and carrier for each dose.
While acknowledging that the Commission’s expertise and the design of the Guidelines may be of potential weight and relevance in other contexts, we conclude that the Commission’s choice of an alternative methodology for weighing LSD does not alter our interpretation of the statute in Chapman. In any event, principles of stare decisis require that we adhere to our earlier decision.
The Commission was born of congressional disenchantment with the vagaries of federal sentencing and of the parole system. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 366 (1989) (discussing the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and its legislative history). The Commission is directed to “establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system” that meet congressional goals set forth in 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a)(2) and that, within a regime of individualized sentencing, eliminate unwarranted disparities in punishment of similar defendants who commit similar crimes. See 28 U. S. C. §§991(b)(l)(A)-(B). Congress also charged the Commission with the duty to measure and monitor the effectiveness of various sentencing, penal, and correctional practices. § 991(b)(2). In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission has the authority to promulgate, review, and revise binding guidelines to “establish a range of determinate sentences for categories of offenses and defendants according to various specified factors, among others.” Mistretta, supra, at 368 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U. S. C. §§ 994(a), (b), (c), and (o).
Like 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1), the Sentencing Guidelines calibrate the punishment of drug traffickers according to the quantity of drugs involved in the offense. From their inception in 1987, the Guidelines have used a detailed Drug Quantity Table as a first step in determining the sentence. See 1995 USSG §2D1.1(c); 1987 USSG §2D1.1. The current Table has 17 tiers, each with specified weight ranges for different controlled substances. The weight ranges reflect the Commission’s assessment of equivalent culpability among defendants who traffic in different types of drugs, and so all defendants in the same tier are assigned the same base offense level. See 1995 USSG § 2D 1.1(c). Once the base offense level is adjusted for other factors, it yields a specific sentencing range depending on the defendant’s criminal history. See 1995 USSG § 1B1.1.
Although the mandatory-minimum statute and the Guidelines both turn upon drug quantities, the Commission itself has noted that “mandatory mínimums are both structurally and functionally at odds with sentencing guidelines and the goals the guidelines seek to achieve.” United States Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System 26 (Aug. 1991).
“The sentencing guidelines system is essentially a system of finely calibrated sentences. For example, as the quantity of drugs increases, there is a proportional increase in the sentence. In marked contrast, the mandatory mínimums are essentially a flat, tariff-like approach to sentencing. Whereas guidelines seek a smooth continuum, mandatory mínimums result in ‘cliffs.’ The ‘cliffs’ that result from mandatory mínimums compromise proportionality, a fundamental premise for just punishment, and a primary goal of the Sentencing Reform Act.” Id., at iii.
Despite incongruities between the Guidelines and the mandatory sentencing statute, the Commission has sought to make the Guidelines parallel to the scheme of § 841(b)(1) in most instances. See 1995 USSG §2D1.1, comment., n. 10 (“The Commission has used the sentences provided in, and equivalences derived from, the statute (21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)), as the primary basis for the guideline sentences”). As a general rule, the Commission adopts the same approach to weighing drugs as the statute does: “Unless otherwise specified, the' weight of a controlled substance set forth in the table refers to the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance.” 1995 USSG §2D1.1(c), n. (A); see also 1995 USSG §2D1.1, comment., n. 1 (“‘Mixture or substance’ as used in this guideline has the same meaning as in 21 U. S. C. § 841, except as expressly provided”); 1987 USSG §2D1.1, n. * (weighing rule intended to be “[consistent with the provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act”). For most narcotics, there will be no inconsistency in the calculations of drug quantities.
After study of the LSD trade, however, the Commission in 1993 decided it could no longer follow that general rule for LSD offenses and fulfill the statutory directive to promote proportionate sentencing. The Commission determined that “[bjecause the weights of LSD carrier media vary widely and typically far exceed the weight of the controlled substance itself,... basing offense levels on the entire weight of the LSD and carrier medium would produce unwarranted disparity among offenses involving the same quantity of actual LSD (but different carrier weights), as well as sentences disproportionate to those for other, more dangerous controlled substances, such as PCP.” 1995 USSG §2D1.1, comment., backg’d. To remedy the problem, the Commission revised its Guideline to provide:
“In the case of LSD on a carrier medium (e. g., a sheet of blotter paper), do not use the weight of the LSD/carrier medium. Instead, treat each dose of LSD on the carrier medium as equal to 0.4 mg of LSD for the purposes of the Drug Quantity Table.” 1995 USSG §2Dl.l(c), n. (H).
Under the amendment, a court determines the defendant’s base offense level in the Drug Quantity Table by multiplying the number of doses of LSD involved by 0.4 milligrams. The Commission submitted the amendment to Congress, which did not disapprove it in the 180 days allotted by statute. See 28 U. S. C. § 994(p). The amended Guideline took effect on November 1,1993, and was in force when petitioner was resentenced.
As a threshold matter, it is doubtful that the Commission intended the constructive-weight method of the Guidelines to displace the actual-weight method that Chapman requires for statutory minimum sentences. The commentary, which is the authoritative construction of the Guidelines absent plain inconsistency or statutory or constitutional infirmity, Stinson v. United States, 508 U. S. 36, 38 (1993), states that the new method is to be used “for purposes of determining the base offense level.” 1995 USSG §2D1.1, comment., backg’d. The next paragraph of the commentary repeats the point: The new method will make “the offense level for LSD on a carrier medium . . . [less than] that for the same number of doses of PCP,” “harmonize offense levels for LSD offenses with those for other controlled substances,” and “avoid an undue influence of varied carrier weight on the applicable offense level.” Ibid. This would be obscure language to choose if the Commission were attempting an interpretation of the statute as well as a revision of the Guidelines, for offense levels are not relevant to the mandatory-minimum calculation.
Furthermore, after a catalog of reasons for adopting the dose-based method, the Commission ends with the observation that “[Nonetheless, this approach does not override the applicability of ‘mixture or substance’ for the purpose of applying any mandatory minimum sentence (see Chapman; §5Gl.l(b)).” Ibid. The citation of Chapman in tandem with § 5G1.1(b), which advises that “[w]here a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence,” suggests that the Guidelines calculation is independent of the statutory calculation, and that the statute controls if they conflict. The Commission seems to do no more than acknowledge that, whether or not its method would be preferable for the statute and Guideline alike, it has no authority to override the statute as we have construed it.
Were we, for argument’s sake, to adopt petitioner’s view that the Commission intended the commentary as an interpretation of § 841(b)(1), and that the last sentence of the commentary states the Commission’s view that the dose-based method is consistent with the term “mixture or substance” in the statute, he still would not prevail. The Commission’s dose-based method cannot be squared with Chapman. The Guideline does take into account some of the weight of the carrier medium (because the average weight of an LSD dose is 0.05 milligrams, 0.35 of the Commission’s constructive weight per dose of 0.4 milligrams is attributable to the medium, see 1995 USSG §2D1.1, comment., backg’d), but we held in Chapman that § 841(b)(1) requires “the entire mixture or substance ... to be weighed when calculating the sentence.” 500 U. S., at 459. In these circumstances, we need not decide what, if any, deference is owed the Commission in order to reject its alleged contrary interpretation. Once we have determined a statute’s meaning, we adhere to our ruling under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we assess an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against that settled law. Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U. S. 527, 536-537 (1992); Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116, 131 (1990).
Our reluctance to overturn precedents derives in part from institutional concerns about the relationship of the Judiciary to Congress. One reason that we give great weight to stare decisis in the area of statutory construction is that “Congress is free to change this Court’s interpretation of its legislation.” Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720, 736 (1977). We have overruled our precedents when the intervening development of the law has “removed or weakened the conceptual underpinnings from the prior decision, or where the later law has rendered the decision irreconcilable with competing legal doctrines or policies.” Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 173 (1989) (citations omitted). Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Congress’ original intent, NLRB v. Longshoremen, 473 U. S. 61, 84 (1985), our system demands that we adhere to our prior interpretations of statutes. Entrusted within its sphere to make policy judgments, the Commission may abandon its old methods in favor of what it has deemed a more desirable “approach” to calculating LSD quantities, cf. 1995 USSG §2D1.1, comment., backg’d. We, however, do not have the same latitude to forsake prior interpretations of a statute. True, there may be little in logic to defend the statute’s treatment of LSD; it results in significant disparity of punishment meted out to LSD offenders relative to other narcotics traffickers. (Although the number of doses petitioner sold seems high, the quantities of other narcotics a defendant would have to sell to receive a comparable sentence under the statute yield far more doses, see United States v. Marshall, 908 F. 2d 1312, 1334 (CA7 1990) (Posner, J., dissenting), aff’d sub nom. Chapman v. United States, 500 U. S. 453 (1991).) Even so, Congress, not this Court, has the responsibility for revising its statutes. Were we to alter our statutory interpretations from case to case, Congress would have less reason to exercise its responsibility to correct statutes that are thought to be unwise or unfair.
Like Chapman, this case involves a petitioner who sold LSD on blotter paper, the “carrier of choice” involved in “the vast majority of cases.” 500 U. S., at 466. Just as we declined in Chapman to entertain “hypothetical cases ... involving very heavy carriers and very little LSD” in resolving a due process challenge, ibid., we do not address how § 841(b)(1) should be applied in those cases.
We hold that § 841(b)(1) directs a sentencing court to take into account the actual weight of the blotter paper with its absorbed LSD, even though the Sentencing Guidelines require a different method of calculating the weight of an LSD mixture or substance. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether Forest Service regulations, federal land use statutes and regulations, or the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U. S. C. § 1451 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), pre-empt the California Coastal Commission’s imposition of a permit requirement on operation of an unpatented mining claim in a national forest.
I
Granite Rock Company is a privately owned firm that mines chemical and pharmaceutical grade white limestone. Under the Mining Act of 1872, 17 Stat. 91, as amended, 30 U. S. C. § 22 et seq., a private citizen may enter federal lands to explore for mineral deposits. If a person locates a valuable mineral deposit on federal land, and perfects the claim by properly staking it and complying with other statutory requirements, the claimant “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations,” 30 U. S. C. §26, although the United States retains title to the land. The holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by corn-plying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, see 43 CFR §3861.1 et seq. (1986), and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patent holder. Granite Rock holds unpatented mining claims on federally owned lands on and around Mount Pico Blanco in the Big Sur region of Los Padres National Forest.
From 1959 to 1980, Granite Rock removed small samples of limestone from this area for mineral analysis. In 1980, in accordance with federal regulations, see 36 CFR §228.1 et seq. (1986), Granite Rock submitted to the Forest Service a 5-year plan of operations for the removal of substantial amounts of limestone. The plan discussed the location and appearance of the mining operation, including the size and shape of excavations, the location of all access roads, and the storage of any overburden. App. 27-34. The Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment of the plan. Id., at 38-53. The Assessment recommended modifications of the plan, and the responsible Forest Service Acting District Ranger approved the plan with the recommended modifications in 1981. Id., at 54. Shortly after Forest Service approval of the modified plan of operations, Granite Rock began to mine.
Under the California Coastal Act (CCA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code Ann. §30000 et seq. (West 1986), any person undertaking any development, including mining, in the State’s coastal zone must secure a permit from the California Coastal Commission. §§30106, 30600. According to the CCA, the Coastal Commission exercises the State’s police power and constitutes the State’s coastal zone management program for purposes of the federal CZMA, described infra, at 589-590. In 1983 the Coastal Commission instructed Granite Rock to apply for a coastal development permit for any mining undertaken after the date of the Commission’s letter.
Granite Rock immediately filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to enjoin officials of the Coastal Commission from compelling Granite Rock to comply with the Coastal Commission permit requirement and for declaratory relief under 28 U. S. C. §2201 (1982 ed., Supp. III). Granite Rock alleged that the Coastal Commission permit requirement was preempted by Forest Service regulations, by the Mining Act of 1872, and by the CZMA. Both sides agreed that there were no material facts in dispute. The District Court denied Granite Rock’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. 590 F. Supp. 1361 (1984). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 768 F. 2d 1077 (1985). The Court of Appeals held that the Coastal Commission permit requirement was pre-empted by the Mining Act of 1872 and Forest Service regulations. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the statute and regulations do not “go so far as to occupy the field of establishing environmental standards,” specifically noting that Forest Service regulations “recognize that a state may enact environmental regulations in addition to those established by federal agencies,” and that the Forest Service “will apply [the state standards] in exercising its permit authority.” 768 F. 2d, at 1083. However, the Court of Appeals held that “an independent state permit system to enforce state environmental standards would undermine the Forest Service’s own permit authority and thus is preempted.” Ibid.
The Coastal Commission appealed to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2). We postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits, 475 U. S. 1094 (1986).
II
First we address two jurisdictional issues. In the course of this litigation, Granite Rock’s 5-year plan of operations expired. The controversy between Granite Rock and the Coastal Commission remains a live one, however, for two reasons. First, the Coastal Commission’s 1983 letter instructed Granite Rock that a Coastal Commission permit was required for work undertaken after the date of the letter. App. 22-24. Granite Rock admitted that it has done work after that date. Id., at 83. Because the Coastal Commission asserts that Granite Rock needed a Coastal Commission permit for the work undertaken after the date of the Commission’s letter, the Commission may require “reclamation for the mining that [has] occurred, measures to prevent pollution into the Little Sur River.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. Granite Rock disputes the Coastal Commission’s authority to require reclamation efforts. Second, Granite Rock stated in answer to interrogatories that its “investments and activities regarding its valid and unpatented mining claims require continuing operation beyond the present Plan of Operations,” and that it intended to conduct mining operations on the claim at issue “as long as [Granite Rock] can mine an economically viable and valuable mining deposit under applicable federal laws.” App. 83-84. Therefore it is likely that Granite Rock will submit new plans of operations in the future. Even if future participation by California in the CZMA consistency review process, see infra, at 590-591, or requirements placed on Granite Rock by the Forest Service called for compliance with the conditions of the Coastal Commission’s permit, dispute would continue over whether the Coastal Commission itself, rather than the Federal Government, could enforce the conditions placed on the permit. This controversy is one capable of repetition yet evading review. See Wisconsin Dept. of Industry v. Gould Inc., 475 U. S. 282, 285, n. 3 (1986); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 333, n. 2 (1972). Accordingly, this case is not moot.
The second jurisdictional issue we must consider is whether this case is properly within our authority, under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2), to review the decision of a federal court of appeals by appeal if a state statute is “held by a court of appeals to be invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States... Statutes authorizing appeals are to be strictly construed. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 247 (1984); Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 43 (1983). As noted in Silkwood, supra, at 247, “we have consistently distinguished between those cases in which a state statute is expressly struck down” as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and those cases in which “an exercise of authority under state law is invalidated without reference to the state statute.” This latter group of cases do not fall within this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
In the present case, the Court of Appeals held that the particular exercise of the Coastal Commission permit requirement over Granite Rock’s operation in a national forest was pre-empted by federal law. The Court of Appeals did not invalidate any portion of the CCA. In fact, it did not discuss whether the CCA itself actually authorized the imposition of a permit requirement over Granite Rock. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code Ann. §30008 (West 1986) (limiting jurisdiction over federal lands to that which is “consistent with applicable federal... laws”). Accordingly this case is one in which “an exercise of authority under state law is invalidated without reference to the state statute,” Silkwood, supra, at 247, and not within our § 1254(2) appellate jurisdiction. We therefore treat the jurisdictional statement as a petition for certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103, and having done so, grant the petition and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I — ( I — I
Granite Rock does not argue that the Coastal Commission has placed any particular conditions on the issuance of a permit that conflict with federal statutes or regulations. Indeed, the record does not disclose what conditions the Coastal Commission will place on the issuance of a permit. Rather, Granite Rock argues, as it must given the posture of the case, that there is no possible set of conditions the Coastal Commission could place on its permit that would not conflict with federal law — that any state permit requirement is per se pre-empted. The only issue in this case is this purely facial challenge to the Coastal Commission permit requirement.
The Property Clause provides that “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. IV, §3, cl. 2. This Court has “repeatedly observed” that “ ‘[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.’” Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529, 539 (1976), quoting United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29 (1940). Granite Rock suggests that the Property Clause not only invests unlimited power in Congress over the use of federally owned lands, but also exempts federal lands from state regulation whether or not those regulations conflict with federal law. In Kleppe, 426 U. S., at 543, we considered “totally unfounded” the assertion that the Secretary of the Interior had even proposed such an interpretation of the Property Clause. We made clear that “the State is free to enforce its criminal and civil laws” on federal land so long as those laws do not conflict with federal law. Ibid. The Property Clause itself does not automatically conflict with all state regulation of federal land. Rather, as we explained in Kleppe:
“Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.” Ibid, (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).
We agree with Granite Rock that the Property Clause gives Congress plenary power to legislate the use of the federal land on which Granite Rock holds its unpatented mining claim. The question in this case, however, is whether Congress has enacted legislation respecting this federal land that would pre-empt any requirement that Granite Rock obtain a California Coastal Commission permit. To answer this question we follow the pre-emption analysis by which the Court has been guided on numerous occasions:
“[S]tate law can be pre-empted in either of two general ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that field is preempted. [Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190,] 203-204 [(1983)]; Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 153 (1982); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law is still pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941).” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., supra, at 248.
A
Granite Rock and the United States as amicus have made basically three arguments in support of a finding that any possible state permit requirement would be pre-empted. First, Granite Rock alleges that the Federal Government’s environmental regulation of unpatented mining claims in national forests demonstrates an intent to pre-empt any state regulation. Second, Granite Rock and the United States assert that indications that state land use planning over unpatented mining claims in national forests is pre-empted should lead to the conclusion that the Coastal Commission permit requirement is pre-empted. Finally, Granite Rock and the United States assert that the CZMA, by excluding federal lands from its definition of the coastal zone, declared a legislative intent that federal lands be excluded from all state coastal zone regulation. We conclude that these federal statutes and regulations do not, either independently or in combination, justify a facial challenge to the Coastal Commission permit requirement.
Granite Rock concedes that the Mining Act of 1872, as originally passed, expressed no legislative intent on the as yet rarely contemplated subject of environmental regulation. Brief for Appellee 31-32. In 1955, however, Congress passed the Multiple Use Mining Act, 69 Stat. 367, 30 U. S. C. §601 et seq., which provided that the Federal Government would retain and manage the surface resources of subsequently located unpatented mining claims. 30 U. S. C. § 612(b). Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to make “rules and regulations” to “regulate [the] occupancy and use” of national forests. 16 U. S. C. §551. Through this delegation of authority, the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service has promulgated regulations so that “use of the surface of National Forest System lands” by those such as Granite Rock, who have un-patented mining claims authorized by the Mining Act of 1872, “shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources.” 36 CFR §§228.1, 228.3(d) (1986). It was pursuant to these regulations that the Forest Service approved the Plan of Operations submitted by Granite Rock. If, as Granite Rock claims, it is the federal intent that Granite Rock conduct its mining unhindered by any state environmental regulation, one would expect to find the expression of this intent in these Forest Service regulations. As we explained in Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 718 (1985), it is appropriate to expect an administrative regulation to declare any intention to pre-empt state law with some specificity:
“[B]ecause agencies normally address problems in a detailed manner and can speak through a variety of means,... we can expect that they will make their intentions clear if they intend for their regulations to be exclusive. Thus, if an agency does not speak to the question of preemption, we will pause before saying that the mere volume and complexity of its regulations indicate that the agency did in fact intend to pre-empt.”
Upon examination, however, the Forest Service regulations that Granite Rock alleges pre-empt any state permit requirement not only are devoid of any expression of intent to pre-empt state law, but rather appear to assume that those submitting plans of operations will comply with state laws. The regulations explicitly require all operators within the national forests to comply with state air quality standards, 36 CFR §228.8(a) (1986), state water quality standards, § 228.8(b), and state standards for the disposal and treatment of solid wastes, § 228.8(c). The regulations also provide that, pending final approval of the plan of operations, the Forest Service officer with authority to approve plans of operation “will approve such operations as may be necessary for timely compliance with the requirements of Federal and State laws....” § 228.5(b) (emphasis added). Finally, the final subsection of §228.8, “[rjequirements for environmental protection,” provides:
“(h) Certification or other approval issued by State agencies or other Federal agencies of compliance with laws and regulations relating to mining operations will be accepted as compliance with similar or parallel requirements of these regulations.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is impossible to divine from these regulations, which expressly contemplate coincident compliance with state law as well as with federal law, an intention to pre-empt all state regulation of unpatented mining claims in national forests. Neither Granite Rock nor the United States contends that these Forest Service regulations are inconsistent with their authorizing statutes.
Given these Forest Service regulations, it is unsurprising that the Forest Service team that prepared the Environmental Assessment of Granite Rock’s plan of operation, as well as the Forest Service officer that approved the plan of operation, expected compliance with state as well as federal law. The Los Padres National Forest Environmental Assessment of the Granite Rock plan stated that “Granite Rock is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits which may be required by the California Coastal Commission.” App. 46. The Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact issued by the Acting District Ranger accepted Granite Rock’s plan of operation with modifications, stating:
“The claimant, in exercising his rights granted by the Mining Law of 1872, shall comply with the regulations of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. The claimant is further responsible for obtaining any necessary permits required by State and/or county laws, regulations and/or ordinance.” Id., at 54.
B
The second argument proposed by Granite Rock is that federal land management statutes demonstrate a legislative intent to limit States to a purely advisory role in federal land management decisions, and that the Coastal Commission permit requirement is therefore pre-empted as an impermissible state land use regulation.
In 1976 two pieces of legislation were passed that called for the development of federal land use management plans affecting unpatented mining claims in national forests. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 90 Stat. 2744, 43 U. S. C. § 1701 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management is responsible for managing the mineral resources on federal forest lands; under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 90 Stat. 2949, 16 U. S. C. §§1600-1614 (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), the Forest Service under the Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for the management of the surface impacts of mining on federal forest lands. Granite Rock, as well as the Solicitor General, point to aspects of these statutes indicating a legislative intent to limit States to an advisory role in federal land management decisions. For example, the NFMA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to “develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and resource management planning processes of State and local governments and other Federal agencies,” 16 U. S. C. § 1604(a). The FLPMA directs that land use plans developed by the Secretary of the Interior “shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent [the Secretary] finds consistent with Federal law,” and calls for the Secretary, “to the extent he finds practical,” to keep apprised of state land use plans, and to “assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans.” 43 U. S. C. § 1712(c)(9).
For purposes of this discussion and without deciding this issue, we may assume that the combination of the NFMA and the FLPMA pre-empts the extension of state land use plans onto unpatented mining claims in national forest lands. The Coastal Commission asserts that it will use permit conditions to impose environmental regulation. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code Ann. § 30233 (West 1986) (quality of coastal waters); § 30253(2) (erosion); § 30253(3) (air pollution); § 30240(b) (impact on environmentally sensitive habitat areas).
While the CCA gives land use as well as environmental regulatory authority to the Coastal Commission, the state statute also gives the Coastal Commission the ability to limit the requirements it will place on the permit. The CCA declares that the Coastal Commission will “provide maximum state involvement in federal activities allowable under federal law or regulations....” Cal. Pub. Res. Code Ann. § 30004 (West 1986). Since the state statute does not detail exactly what state standards will and will not apply in connection with various federal activities, the statute must be understood to allow the Coastal Commission to limit the regulations it will impose in those circumstances. In the present case, the Coastal Commission has consistently maintained that it does not seek to prohibit mining of the unpat-ented claim on national forest land. See 768 F. 2d, at 1080 (“The Coastal Commission also argues that the Mining Act does not preempt state environmental regulation of federal land unless the regulation prohibits mining altogether...”) (emphasis supplied); 590 F. Supp., at 1373 (“The [Coastal Commission] seeks not to prohibit or Veto,’ but to regulate [Granite Rock’s] mining activity in accordance with the detailed requirements of the CCA.... There is no reason to find that the [Coastal Commission] will apply the CCA’s regulations so as to deprive [Granite Rock] of its rights under the Mining Act”); Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in No. C-83-5137 (ND Cal.), pp. 41-42. (“Despite Granite Rock’s characterization of Coastal Act regulation as a ‘veto’ or ban of mining, Granite Rock has not applied for any coastal permit, and the State... has not indicated that it would in fact ban such activity.... [T]he question presented is merely whether the state can regulate uses rather than 'prohibit them. Put another way, the state is not seeking to determine basic uses of federal land: rather it is seeking to regulate a given mining use so that it is carried out in a more environmentally sensitive and resource-protective fashion”).
The line between environmental regulation and land use planning will not always be bright; for example, one may hypothesize a state environmental regulation so severe that a particular land use would become commercially impracticable. However, the core activity described by each phrase is undoubtedly different. Land use planning in essence chooses particular uses for the land; environmental regulation, at its core, does not mandate particular uses of the land but requires only that, however the land is used, damage to the environment is kept within prescribed limits. Congress has indicated its understanding of land use planning and environmental regulation as distinct activities. As noted above, 43 U. S. C. § 1712(c)(9) requires that the Secretary of the Interior’s land use plans be consistent with state plans only “to the extent he finds practical.” The immediately preceding subsection, however, requires that the Secretary’s land use plans “provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans.” § 1712(c)(8). Congress has also illustrated its understanding of land use planning and environmental regulation as distinct activities by delegating the authority to regulate these activities to different agencies. The stated purpose of part 228, subpart A of the Forest Service regulations, 36 CFR § 228.1 (1986), is to “set forth rules and procedures” through which mining on unpatented claims in national forests “shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources.” The next sentence of the subsection, however, declares that “[i]t is not the purpose of these regulations to provide for the management of mineral resources; the responsibility for managing such resources is in the Secretary of the Interior.” Congress clearly envisioned that although environmental regulation and land use planning may hypothetically overlap in some instances, these two types of activity would in most cases be capable of differentiation. Considering the legislative understanding of environmental regulation and land use planning as distinct activities, it would be anomalous to maintain that Congress intended any state environmental regulation of unpatented mining claims in national forests to be per se pre-empted as an impermissible exercise of state land use planning. Congress’ treatment of environmental regulation and land use planning as generally distinguishable calls for this Court to treat them as distinct, until an actual overlap between the two is demonstrated in a particular case.
Granite Rock suggests that the Coastal Commission’s true purpose in enforcing a permit requirement is to prohibit Granite Rock’s mining entirely. By choosing to seek injunc-tive and declaratory relief against the permit requirement before discovering what conditions the Coastal Commission would have placed on the permit, Granite Rock has lost the possibility of making this argument in this litigation. Granite Rock’s case must stand or fall on the question whether any possible set of conditions attached to the Coastal Commission’s permit requirement would be pre-empted. As noted in the previous section, the Forest Service regulations do not indicate a federal intent to pre-empt all state environmental regulation of unpatented mining claims in national forests. Whether or not state land use planning over unpatented mining claims in national forests is pre-empted, the Coastal Commission insists that its permit requirement is an exercise of environmental regulation rather than land use planning. In the present posture of this litigation, the Coastal Commission’s identification of a possible set of permit conditions not pre-empted by federal law is sufficient to rebuff Granite Rock’s facial challenge to the permit requirement. This analysis is not altered by the fact that the Coastal Commission chooses to impose its environmental regulation by means of a permit requirement. If the Federal Government occupied the field of environmental regulation of unpatented mining claims in national forests — concededly not the case — then state environmental regulation of Granite Rock’s mining activity would be pre-empted, whether or not the regulation was implemented through a permit requirement. Conversely, if reasonable state environmental regulation is not pre-empted, then the use of a permit requirement to impose the state regulation does not create a conflict with federal law where none previously existed. The permit requirement itself is not talismanic.
C
Granite Rock’s final argument involves the CZMA, 16 U. S. C. §1451 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), through which financial assistance is provided to States for the development of coastal zone management programs. Section 304(a) of the CZMA, 16 U. S. C. § 1453(1), defines the coastal zone of a State, and specifically excludes from the coastal zone “lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents.” The Department of Commerce, which administers the CZMA, has interpreted § 1453(1) to exclude all federally owned land from the CZMA definition of a State’s coastal zone. 15 CFR § 923.33(a) (1986).
Granite Rock argues that the exclusion of “lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents” excludes all federally owned land from the CZMA definition of a State’s coastal zone, and demonstrates a congressional intent to pre-empt any possible Coastal Commission permit requirement as applied to the mining of Granite Rock’s unpatented claim in the national forest land.
According to Granite Rock, because Granite Rock mines land owned by the Federal Government, the Coastal Commission’s regulation of Granite Rock’s mining operation must be limited to participation in a consistency review process detailed in the CZMA. Under the CZMA, once a state coastal zone management program has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce for federal administrative grants, “any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the application... a certification that the proposed activity complies with the state’s approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the [state] program.” 16 U. S. C. § 1456(c)(3)(A). At the same time, the applicant must provide the State a copy of the certification. The State, after public notice and appropriate hearings, is to notify the federal agency concerned that the State concurs or objects to the certification. If the State fails to notify the federal agency within six months of receiving notification, it is presumed that the State concurs. If the State neither concurs nor is presumed to concur, the federal agency must reject the application, unless the Secretary of Commerce finds that the application is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or is “otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.” Ibid.
In order for an activity to be subject to CZMA consistency review, the activity must be on a list that the State provides federal agencies, which describes the type of federal permit and license applications the State wishes to review. 15 CFR §930.53 (1986). If the activity is unlisted, the State must within 30 days of receiving notice of the federal permit application inform the federal agency and federal permit applicant that the proposed activity requires CZMA consistency review. § 930.54. If the State does not provide timely notification, it waives the right to review the unlisted activity. In the present case, it appears that Granite Rock’s proposed mining operations were not listed pursuant to §930.53, and that the Coastal Commission did not timely notify the Forest Service or Granite Rock that Granite Rock’s plan of operations required consistency review. App. 17. Therefore, the Coastal Commission waived its right to consistency review of the 1981-1986 plan of operations.
Absent any other expression of congressional intent regarding the pre-emptive effect of the CZMA, we would be required to decide, first, whether unpatented mining claims in national forests were meant to be excluded from the §1453(1) definition of a State’s coastal zone, and, second, whether this exclusion from the coastal zone definition was intended to pre-empt state regulations that were not preempted by any other federal statutes or regulations. Congress has provided several clear statements of its intent regarding the pre-emptive effect of the CZMA; those statements, which indicate that Congress clearly intended the CZMA not to be an independent cause of pre-emption except in cases of actual conflict, end our inquiry.
Title 16 U. S. C. § 1456(e)(1) provides:
“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed —
“(1) to diminish either Federal or state jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters; nor to displace, supersede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of two or more states or of two or more states and the Federal Government; nor to limit the authority of Congress to authorize and fund projects....”
The Senate Report describes the above section as “a standard clause disclaiming intent to diminish Federal or State authority in the fields affected by the Act,” or “to change interstate agreements.” S. Rep. No. 92-753, p. 20 (1972). The Conference Report stated, “[t]he Conferees also adopted language which would make certain that there is no intent in this legislation to change Federal or state jurisdiction or rights in specified fields, including submerged lands.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1544, p. 14 (1972). While the land at issue here does not appear to fall under the categories listed in 16 U. S. C. § 1456(e)(1), the section and its legislative history demonstrate Congress’ refusal to use the CZMA to alter the balance between state and federal jurisdiction.
The clearest statement of congressional intent as to the pre-emptive effect of the CZMA appears in the “Purpose” section of the Senate Report, quoted in full:
“[The CZMA] has as its main purpose the encouragement and assistance of States in preparing and implementing management programs to preserve, protect, develop and whenever possible restore the resources of the coastal zone of the United States. The bill authorizes Federal grants-in-aid to coastal states to develop coastal zone management programs. Additionally, it authorizes grants to help coastal states implement these management programs once approved, and States would be aided in the acquisition and operation of estuarine sanctuaries. Through the system of providing grants-in-aid, the States are provided financial incentives to undertake the responsibility for setting up management programs in the coastal zone. There is no attempt to diminish state authority through federal preemption. The intent of this legislation is to enhance state authority by encouraging and assisting the states to assume planning and regulatory powers over their coastal zones.” S. Rep. No. 92-753, supra, at 1 (emphasis supplied).
Because Congress specifically disclaimed any intention to pre-empt pre-existing state authority in the CZMA, we conclude that even if all federal lands are excluded from the CZMA definition of “coastal zone,” the CZMA does not automatically pre-empt all state regulation of activities on federal lands.
IV
Granite Rock’s challenge to the California Coastal Commission’s permit requirement was broad and absolute; our rejection of that challenge is correspondingly narrow. Granite Rock argued that any state permit requirement, whatever its conditions, was per se pre-empted by federal law. To defeat Granite Rock’s facial challenge, the Coastal Commission needed merely to identify a possible set of permit conditions not in conflict with federal law. The Coastal Commission alleges that it will use its permit requirement to impose reasonable environmental regulation. Rather than evidencing an intent to pre-empt such state regulation, the Forest Service regulations appear to assume compliance with state laws. Federal land use statutes and regulations, while arguably expressing an intent to pre-empt state land use planning, distinguish environmental regulation from land use planning. Finally, the language and legislative history of the CZMA expressly disclaim an intent to pre-empt state regulation.
Following an examination of the “almost impenetrable maze of arguably relevant legislation,” post, at 606, Justice Powell concludes that “[i]n view of the Property Clause..., as well as common sense, federal authority must control....” Ibid. As noted above, the Property Clause gives Congress plenary power over the federal land at issue; however, even within the sphere of the Property Clause, state law is pre-empted only when it conflicts with the operation or objectives of federal law, or when Congress “evidences an intent to occupy a given field,” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S., at 248. The suggestion that traditional pre-emption analysis is inapt in this context can be justified, if at all, only by the assertion that the state regulation in this case would be “duplicative.” The description of the regulation as duplicative, of course, is based on Justice Powell’s conclusions that land use regulation and environmental regulation are indistinguishable, post, at 600-601, and that any state permit requirement, by virtue of being a permit requirement rather than some other form of regulation, would duplicate federal permit requirements, post, at 604-605. Because we disagree with these assertions, see supra, at 587-588, 589, we apply the traditional pre-emption analysis which requires an actual conflict between state
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider in this case the scope and continued viability of the rule announced by this Court in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625 (1986), forbidding police to initiate interrogation of a criminal defendant once he has requested counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding.
I
Petitioner Jesse Montejo was arrested on September 6, 2002, in connection with the robbery and murder of Lewis Ferrari, who had been found dead in his own home one day earlier. Suspicion quickly focused on Jerry Moore, a disgruntled former employee of Ferrari’s dry cleaning business. Police sought to question Montejo, who was a known associate of Moore.
Montejo waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and was interrogated at the sheriff’s office by police detectives through the late afternoon and evening of September 6 and the early morning of September 7. During the interrogation, Montejo repeatedly changed his account of the crime, at first claiming that he had only driven Moore to the victim’s home, and ultimately admitting that he had shot and killed Ferrari in the course of a botched burglary. These police interrogations were videotaped.
On September 10, Montejo was brought before a judge for what is known in Louisiana as a “72-hour hearing” — a preliminary hearing required under state law. Although the proceedings were not transcribed, the minute record indicates what transpired: “The defendant being charged with First Degree Murder, Court ordered N[o] Bond set in this matter. Further, Court ordered the Office of Indigent Defender be appointed to represent the defendant.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 63a.
Later that same day, two police detectives visited Montejo back at the prison and requested that he accompany them on an excursion to locate the murder weapon (which Montejo had earlier indicated he had thrown into a lake). After some back-and-forth, the substance of which remains in dispute, Montejo was again read his Miranda rights and agreed to go along; during the excursion, he wrote an inculpatory letter of apology to the victim’s widow. Only upon their return did Montejo finally meet his court-appointed attorney, who was quite upset that the detectives had interrogated his client in his absence.
At trial, the letter of apology was admitted over defense objection. The jury convicted Montejo of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to death.
The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. 06-1807 (1/16/08), 974 So. 2d 1238 (2008). As relevant here, the court rejected Monte jo’s argument that under the rule of Jackson, supra, the letter should have been suppressed. 974 So. 2d, at 1261. Jackson held that “if police initiate interrogation after a defendant’s assertion, at an arraignment or similar proceeding, of his right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant’s right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid.” 475 U. S., at 636.
Citing a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Montoya v. Collins, 955 F. 2d 279 (1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court reasoned that the prophylactic protection of Jackson is not triggered unless and until the defendant has actually requested a lawyer or has otherwise asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 974 So. 2d, at 1260-1261, and n. 68. Because Montejo simply stood mute at his 72-hour hearing while the judge ordered the appointment of counsel, he had made no such request or assertion. So the proper inquiry, the court ruled, was only whether he had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to have counsel present during the interaction with the police. Id., at 1261. And because Montejo had been read his Miranda rights and agreed to waive them, the Court answered that question in the affirmative, 974 So. 2d, at 1262, and upheld the conviction.
We granted certiorari. 554 U. S. 944 (2008).
II
Montejo and his amici raise a number of pragmatic objections to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s interpretation of Jackson. We agree that the approach taken below would lead either to an unworkable standard, or to arbitrary and anomalous distinctions between defendants in different States. Neither would be acceptable.
Under the rule adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, a criminal defendant must request counsel, or otherwise “assert” his Sixth Amendment right at the preliminary hearing, before the Jackson protections are triggered. If he does so, the police may not initiate further interrogation in the absence of counsel. But if the court on its own appoints counsel, with the defendant taking no affirmative action to invoke his right to counsel, then police are free to initiate further interrogations provided that they first obtain an otherwise valid waiver by the defendant of his right to have counsel present.
This rule would apply well enough in States that require the indigent defendant formally to request counsel before any appointment is made, which usually occurs after the court has informed him that he will receive counsel if he asks for it. That is how the system works in Michigan, for example, Mich. Ct. Rule 6.005(A) (2009), whose scheme produced the factual background for this Court’s decision in Michigan v. Jackson. Jackson, like all other represented indigent defendants in the State, had requested counsel in accordance with the applicable state law.
But many States follow other practices. In some two dozen, the appointment of counsel is automatic upon a finding of indigency, e. g., Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-4503(c) (2007); and in a number of others, appointment can be made either upon the defendant’s request or sua sponte by the court, e. g., Del. Code Ann., Tit. 29, § 4602(a) (2003). See App. to Brief for National Legal Aid & Defender Assn, et al. as Amici Curiae la-21a. Nothing in our Jackson opinion indicates whether we were then aware that not all States require that a defendant affirmatively request counsel before one is appointed; and of course we had no occasion there to decide how the rule we announced would apply to these other States.
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s answer to that unresolved question is troublesome. The central distinction it draws— between defendants who “assert” their right to counsel and those who do not — is exceedingly hazy when applied to States that appoint counsel absent request from the defendant. How to categorize a defendant who merely asks, prior to appointment, whether he will be appointed counsel? Or who inquires, after the fact, whether he has been? What treatment for one who thanks the court after the appointment is made? And if the court asks a defendant whether he would object to appointment, will a quick shake of his head count as an assertion of his right?
To the extent that the Louisiana Supreme Court’s rule also permits a defendant to trigger Jackson through the “acceptance” of counsel, that notion is even more mysterious: How does one affirmatively accept counsel appointed by court order? An indigent defendant has no right to choose his counsel, United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U. S. 140, 151 (2006), so it is hard to imagine what his “acceptance” would look like, beyond the passive silence that Monte jo exhibited.
In practice, judicial application of the Louisiana rule in States that do not require a defendant to make a request for counsel could take either of two paths. Courts might ask on a case-by-case basis whether a defendant has somehow invoked his right to counsel, looking to his conduct at the preliminary hearing — his statements and gestures — and the totality of the circumstances. Or, courts might simply determine as a categorical matter that defendants in these States — over half of those in the Union — simply have no opportunity to assert their right to counsel at the hearing and are therefore out of luck.
Neither approach is desirable. The former would be particularly impractical in light of the fact that, as amici describe, preliminary hearings are often rushed, and are frequently not recorded or transcribed. Brief for National Legal Aid & Defender Assn, et al. 25-30. The sheer volume of indigent defendants, see id., at 29, would render the monitoring of each particular defendant’s reaction to the appointment of counsel almost impossible. And sometimes the defendant is not even present. E. g., La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 230.1(A) (West Supp. 2009) (allowing court to appoint counsel if defendant is “unable to appear”). Police who did not attend the hearing would have no way to know whether they could approach a particular defendant; and for a court to adjudicate that question ex post would be a fact-intensive and burdensome task, even if monitoring were possible and transcription available. Because “clarity of... command” and “certainty of... application” are crucial in rules that govern law enforcement, Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 146, 151 (1990), this would be an unfortunate way to proceed. See also Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 425-426 (1986).
The second possible course fares no better, for it would achieve clarity and certainty only at the expense of introducing arbitrary distinctions: Defendants in States that automatically appoint counsel would have no opportunity to invoke their rights and trigger Jackson, while those in other States, effectively instructed by the court to request counsel, would be lucky winners. That sort of hollow formalism is out of place in a doctrine that purports to serve as a practical safeguard for defendants’ rights.
III
But if the Louisiana Supreme Court’s application of Jackson is unsound as a practical matter, then Montejo’s solution is untenable as a theoretical and doctrinal matter. Under his approach, once a defendant is represented by counsel, police may not initiate any further interrogation. Such a rule would be entirely untethered from the original rationale of Jackson.
A
It is worth emphasizing first what is not in dispute or at stake here. Under our precedents, once the adversary judicial process has been initiated, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to have counsel present at all “critical” stages of the criminal proceedings. United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 227-228 (1967); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 57 (1932). Interrogation by the State is such a stage. Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, 204-205 (1964); see also United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 274 (1980).
Our precedents also place beyond doubt that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be waived by a defendant, so long as relinquishment of the right is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U. S. 285,292, n. 4 (1988); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 404 (1977); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938). The defendant may waive the right whether or not he is already represented by counsel; the decision to waive need not itself be counseled. Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U. S. 344, 352-353 (1990). And when a defendant is read his Miranda rights (which include the right to have counsel present during interrogation) and agrees to waive those rights, that typically does the trick, even though the Miranda rights purportedly have their source in the Fifth Amendment:
“As a general matter... an accused who is admonished with the warnings prescribed by this Court in Miranda... has been sufficiently apprised of the nature of his Sixth Amendment rights, and of the consequences of abandoning those rights, so that his waiver on this basis will be considered a knowing and intelligent one.” Patterson, supra, at 296.
The only question raised by this case, and the only one addressed by the Jackson rule, is whether courts must presume that such a waiver is invalid under certain circumstances. 475 U. S., at 630, 633. We created such a presumption in Jackson by analogy to a similar prophylactic rule established to protect the Fifth Amendment-based Miranda right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (1981), decided that once “an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation... [he] is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available,” unless he initiates the contact. Id., at 484-485.
The Edwards rule is “designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights,” Harvey, supra, at 350. It does this by presuming his postassertion statements to be involuntary, “even where the suspect executes a waiver and his statements would be considered voluntary under traditional standards.” McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U. S. 171, 177 (1991). This prophylactic rule thus “protects] a suspect’s voluntary choice not to speak outside his lawyer’s presence.” Texas v. Cobb, 532 U. S. 162, 175 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Jackson represented a “wholesale importation of the Edwards rule into the Sixth Amendment.” Cobb, supra, at 175. The Jackson Court decided that a request for counsel at an arraignment should be treated as an invocation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel “at every critical stage of the prosecution,” 475 U. S., at 633, despite doubt that defendants “actually inten[d] their request for counsel to encompass representation during any further questioning,” id., at 632-633, because doubts must be “resolved in favor of protecting the constitutional claim,” id., at 633. Citing Edwards, the Court held that any subsequent waiver would thus be “insufficient to justify police-initiated interrogation.” 475 U. S., at 635. In other words, we presume such waivers involuntary “based on the supposition that suspects who assert their right to counsel are unlikely to waive that right voluntarily” in subsequent interactions with police. Harvey, supra, at 350.
In his dissent, Justice Stevens presents us with a revisionist view of Jackson. The defendants' request for counsel, he contends, was important only because it proved that counsel had been appointed. Such a non sequitur (nowhere alluded to in the case) hardly needs rebuttal. Proceeding from this fanciful premise, he claims that the decision actually established “a rule designed to safeguard a defendant's right to rely on the assistance of counsel,” post, at 807 (hereinafter dissent), not one “designed to prevent police badgering,” ibid. To safeguard the right to assistance of counsel from what? From a knowing and voluntary waiver by the defendant himself? Unless the dissent seeks to prevent a defendant altogether from waiving his Sixth Amendment rights, i. e., to “imprison a man in his privileges and call it the Constitution,” Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 280 (1942) — a view with zero support in reason, history, or case law — the answer must be: from police pressure, i. e., badgering. The antibadgering rationale is the only way to make sense of Jackson’s repeated citations of Edwards, and the only way to reconcile the opinion with our waiver jurisprudence.
B
With this understanding of what Jackson stands for and whence it came, it should be clear that Montejo’s interpretation of that decision — that no represented defendant can ever be approached by the State and asked to consent to interrogation — is off the mark. When a court appoints counsel for an indigent defendant in the absence of any request on his part, there is no basis for a presumption that any subsequent waiver of the right to counsel will be involuntary. There is no “initial election” to exercise the right, Patterson, 487 U. S., at 291, that must be preserved through a prophylactic rule against later waivers. No reason exists to assume that a defendant like Montejo, who has done nothing at all to express his intentions with respect to his Sixth Amendment rights, would not be perfectly amenable to speaking with the police without having counsel present. And no reason exists to prohibit the police from inquiring. Edwards and Jackson are meant to prevent police from badgering defendants into changing their minds about their rights, but a defendant who never asked for counsel has not yet made up his mind in the first instance.
The dissent’s argument to the contrary rests on a flawed a fortiori: “If a defendant is entitled to protection from police-initiated interrogation under the Sixth Amendment when he merely requests a lawyer, he is even more obviously entitled to such protection when he has secured a lawyer.” Post, at 804. The question in Jackson, however, was not whether respondents were entitled to counsel (they unquestionably were), but “whether respondents validly waived their right to counsel,” 475 U. S., at 630; and even if it is reasonable to presume from a defendant's request for counsel that any subsequent waiver of the right was coerced, no such presumption can seriously be entertained when a lawyer was merely “secured” on the defendant’s behalf, by the State itself, as a matter of course. Of course, reading the dissent’s analysis, one would have no idea that Montejo executed any waiver at all.
In practice, Montejo’s rule would prevent police-initiated interrogation entirely once the Sixth Amendment right attaches, at least in those States that appoint counsel promptly without request from the defendant. As the dissent in Jackson pointed out, with no expressed disagreement from the majority, the opinion “most assuredly [did] not hold that the Edwards per se rule prohibiting all police-initiated interrogations applies from the moment the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, with or without a request for counsel by the defendant.” 475 U. S., at 640 (opinion of Rehnquist, J.). That would have constituted a “shockingly dramatic restructuring of the balance this Court has traditionally struck between the rights of the defendant and those of the larger society.” Ibid.
Montejo’s rule appears to have its theoretical roots in codes of legal ethics, not the Sixth Amendment. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (which nearly all States have adopted into law in whole or in part) mandate that “a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of [a] representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.” Model Rule 4.2 (2008). But the Constitution does not codify the ABA’s Model Rules, and does not make investigating police officers lawyers. Montejo’s proposed rule is both broader and narrower than the Model Rule. Broader, because Montejo would apply it to all agents of the State, including the detectives who interrogated him, while the ethical rule governs only lawyers. And narrower, because he agrees that if a defendant initiates contact with the police, they may talk freely — whereas a lawyer could be sanctioned for interviewing a represented party even if that party “initiates” the communication and consents to the interview. Model Rule 4.2, Comment 3.
Monte jo contends that our decisions support his interpretation of the Jackson rule. We think not. Many of the eases he cites concern the substantive scope of the Sixth Amendment — e. g., whether a particular interaction with the State constitutes a “critical” stage at which counsel is entitled to be present — not the validity of a Sixth Amendment waiver. See Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159 (1985); Henry, 447 U. S. 264; Massiah, 377 U. S. 201; see also Moran, 475 U. S. 412. Since everyone agrees that absent a valid waiver, Monte jo was entitled to a lawyer during the interrogation, those cases do not advance his argument.
Montejo also points to descriptions of the Jackson holding in two later cases. In one, we noted that “analysis of the waiver issue changes” once a defendant “obtains or even requests counsel.” Harvey, 494 U. S., at 352. But elsewhere in the same opinion, we explained that Jackson applies “after a defendant requests assistance of counsel,” 494 U. S., at 349; “when a suspect charged with a crime requests counsel outside the' context of interrogation,” id., at 350; and to “suspects who assert their right to counsel,” ibid. The accuracy of the “obtains” language is thus questionable. Anyway, since Harvey held that evidence obtained in violation of the Jackson rule could be admitted to impeach the defendant’s trial testimony, 494 U. S., at 346, the Court’s varying descriptions of when the rule was violated were dicta. The dictum from the other decision, Patterson, supra, at 290, n. 3, is no more probative.
The upshot is that even on Jackson’s own terms, it would be completely unjustified to presume that a defendant’s consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because he had previously been appointed a lawyer.
IV
So on the one hand, requiring an initial “invocation” of the right to counsel in order to trigger the Jackson presumption is consistent with the theory of that decision, but (as Montejo and his amici argue, see Part II, swpra) would be unworkable in more than half the States of the Union. On the other hand, eliminating the invocation requirement would render the rule easy to apply but depart fundamentally from the Jackson rationale.
We do not think that stare decisis requires us to expand significantly the holding of a prior decision — fundamentally revising its theoretical basis in the process — in order to cure its practical deficiencies. To the contrary, the fact that a decision has proved “unworkable” is a traditional ground for overruling it. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991). Accordingly, we called for supplemental briefing addressed to the question whether Michigan v. Jackson should be overruled.
Beyond workability, the relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to the principle of stare decisis include the antiquity of the precedent, the reliance interests at stake, and of course whether the decision was well reasoned. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 234-235 (2009). The first two cut in favor of abandoning Jackson: The opinion is only two decades old, and eliminating it would not upset expectations. Any criminal defendant learned enough to order his affairs based on the rule announced in Jackson would also be perfectly capable of interacting with the police on his own. Of course it is likely true that police and prosecutors have been trained to comply with Jackson, see generally Supplemental Brief for Larry D. Thompson et al. as Amici Curiae, but that is hardly a basis for retaining it as a constitutional requirement. If a State wishes to abstain from requesting interviews with represented defendants when counsel is not present, it obviously may continue to do so.
Which brings us to the strength of Jackson’s reasoning. When this Court creates a prophylactic rule in order to protect a constitutional right, the relevant “reasoning” is the weighing of the rule’s benefits against its costs. “The value of any prophylactic rule... must be assessed not only on the basis of what is gained, but also on the basis of what is lost.” Minnick, 498 U. S., at 161 (Scalia, J., dissenting). We think that the marginal benefits of Jackson (viz., the number of confessions obtained coercively that are suppressed by its bright-line rule and would otherwise have been admitted) are dwarfed by its substantial costs (viz., hindering “society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law,” Moran, supra, at 426).
What does the Jackson rule actually achieve by way of preventing unconstitutional conduct? Recall that the purpose of the rule is to preclude the State from badgering defendants into waiving their previously asserted rights. See Harvey, 494 U. S., at 350; see also McNeil, 501 U. S., at 177. The effect of this badgering might be to coerce a waiver, which would render the subsequent interrogation a violation of the Sixth Amendment. See Massiah, 377 U. S., at 204. Even though involuntary waivers are invalid even apart from Jackson, see Patterson, 487 U. S., at 292, n. 4, mistakes are of course possible when courts conduct case-by-case voluntariness review. A bright-line rule like that adopted in Jackson ensures that no fruits of interrogations made possible by badgering-induced involuntary waivers are ever erroneously admitted at trial.
But without Jackson, how many would be? The answer is few if any. The principal reason is that the Court has already taken substantial other, overlapping measures toward the same end. Under Miranda's prophylactic protection of the right against compelled self-incrimination, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation has the right to have a lawyer present if he so requests, and to be advised of that right. 384 U. S., at 474. Under Edwards' prophylactic protection of the Miranda right, once such a defendant “has invoked his right to have counsel present,” interrogation must stop. 451 U. S., at 484. And under Minnick’s prophylactic protection of the Edwards right, no subsequent interrogation may take place until counsel is present, “whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney.” 498 U. S., at 153.
These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. Under the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick line of eases (which is not in doubt), a defendant who does not want to speak to the police without counsel present need only say as much when he is first approached and given the Miranda warnings. At that point, not only must the immediate contact end, but “badgering” by later requests is prohibited. If that regime suffices to protect the integrity of “a suspect’s voluntary choice not to speak outside his lawyer’s presence” before his arraignment, Cobb, 532 U. S., at 175 (Kennedy, J., concurring), it is hard to see why it would not also suffice to protect that same choice after arraignment, when Sixth Amendment rights have attached. And if so, then Jackson is simply superfluous.
It is true, as Montejo points out in his supplemental brief, that the doctrine established by Miranda and Edwards is designed to protect Fifth Amendment, not Sixth Amendment, rights. But that is irrelevant. What matters is that these cases, like Jackson, protect the right to have counsel during custodial interrogation — which right happens to be guaranteed (once the adversary judicial process has begun) by two sources of law. Since the right under both sources is waived using the same procedure, Patterson, supra, at 296, doctrines ensuring voluntariness of the Fifth Amendment waiver simultaneously ensure the voluntariness of the Sixth Amendment waiver.
Montejo also correctly observes that the Miranda-Edwards regime is narrower than Jackson in one respect: The former applies only in the context of custodial interrogation. If the defendant is not in custody then those decisions do not apply; nor do they govern other, noninterrogative types of interactions between the defendant and the State (like pretrial lineups). However, those uncovered situations are the least likely to pose a risk of coerced waivers. When a defendant is not in custody, he is in control, and need only shut his door or walk away to avoid police badgering. And noninterrogative interactions with the State do not involve the “inherently compelling pressures,” Miranda, supra, at 467, that one might reasonably fear could lead to involuntary waivers.
Jackson was policy driven, and if that policy is being adequately served through other means, there is no reason to retain its rule. Miranda and the cases that elaborate upon it already guarantee not simply noncoercion in the traditional sense, but what Justice Harlan referred to as “voluntariness with a vengeance,” 384 U. S., at 505 (dissenting opinion). There is no need to take Jackson’s further step of requiring voluntariness on stilts.
On the other side of the equation are the costs of adding the bright-line Jackson rule on top of Edwards and other extant protections. The principal cost of applying any exclusionary rule “is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous criminals go free....” Herring v. United States, 555 U. S. 135, 141 (2009). Jackson not only “operates to invalidate a confession given by the free choice of suspects who have received proper advice of their Miranda rights but waived them nonetheless,” Cobb, supra, at 174-175 (Kennedy, J., concurring), but also deters law enforcement officers from even trying to obtain voluntary confessions. The “ready ability to obtain uncoerced confessions is not an evil but an unmitigated good.” McNeil, supra, at 181. Without these confessions, crimes go unsolved and criminals unpunished. These are not negligible costs, and in our view the Jackson Court gave them too short shrift.
Notwithstanding this calculus, Montejo and his amici urge the retention of Jackson. Their principal objection to its elimination is that the Edwards regime which remains will not provide an administrable rule. But this Court has praised Edwards precisely because it provides “‘clear and unequivocal’ guidelines to the law enforcement profession,” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U. S. 675, 682 (1988). Our cases make clear which sorts of statements trigger its protections, see Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452, 459 (1994), and once triggered, the rule operates as a bright line. Monte jo expresses concern that courts will have to determine whether statements made at preliminary hearings constitute Edwards invocations — thus implicating all the practical problems of the Louisiana rule we discussed above, see Part II, supra. That concern is misguided. “We have in fact never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than ‘custodial interrogation’....” McNeil, 501 U. S., at 182, n. 3. What matters for Miranda and Edwards is what happens when the defendant is approached for interrogation, and (if he consents) what happens during the interrogation — not what happened at any preliminary hearing.
In sum, when the marginal benefits of the Jackson rule are weighed against its substantial costs to the truth-seeking process and the criminal justice system, we readily conclude that the rule does not “pay its way,” United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907-908, n. 6 (1984). Michigan v. Jackson should be and now is overruled.
Y
Although our holding means that the Louisiana Supreme Court correctly rejected Montejo’s claim under Jackson, we think that Monte jo should be given an opportunity to contend that his letter of apology should still have been suppressed under the rule of Edwards. If Monte jo made a clear assertion of the right to counsel when the officers approached him about accompanying them on the excursion for the murder weapon, then no interrogation should have taken place unless Monte jo initiated it. Davis, supra, at 459. Even if Montejo subsequently agreed to waive his rights, that waiver would have been invalid had it followed an “unequivocal election of the right,” Cobb, 532 U. S., at 176 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Montejo understandably did not pursue an Edwards objection, because Jackson served as the Sixth Amendment analogy to Edwards and offered broader protections. Our decision today, overruling Jackson, changes the legal landscape and does so in part based on the protections already provided by Edwards. Thus we think that a remand is appropriate so that Montejo can pursue this alternative avenue for relief. Montejo may also seek on remand to press any claim he might have that his Sixth Amendment waiver was not knowing and voluntary, e. g., his argument that the waiver was invalid because it was based on misrepresentations by police as to whether he had been appointed a lawyer, cf. Moran, 475 U. S., at 428-429. These matters have heightened importance in light of our opinion today.
We do not venture to resolve these issues ourselves, not only because we are a court of final review, “not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005), but also because the relevant facts remain unclear. Montejo and the police gave inconsistent testimony about exactly what took place on the afternoon of September 10, 2002, and the Louisiana Supreme Court did not make an explicit credibility determination. Moreover, Monte jo’s testimony came not at the suppression hearing, but rather only at trial, and we are unsure whether under state law that testimony came too late to affect the propriety of the admission of the evidence. These matters are best left for resolution on remand.
We do reject, however, the dissent’s revisionist legal analysis of the “knowing and voluntary” issue. Post, at 810-814. In determining whether a Sixth Amendment waiver was knowing and voluntary, there is no reason categorically to distinguish an unrepresented defendant from a represented one. It is equally true for each that, as we held in Patterson, the Miranda warnings adequately inform him “of his right to have counsel present during the questioning,” and make him “aware of the consequences of a decision by him to waive his Sixth Amendment rights,” 487 U. S., at 293. Somewhat surprisingly for an opinion that extols the virtues of stare decisis, the dissent complains that our “treatment of the waiver question rests entirely on the dubious decision in Patterson,” post, at 812. The Court in Patterson did not consider the result dubious, nor does the Court today.
* * *
This case is an exemplar of Justice Jackson’s oft quoted warning that this Court “is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added.” Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 181 (1943) (opinion concurring in result). We today remove Michigan v. Jackson’s fourth story of prophylaxis.
The judgment of. the Louisiana Supreme Court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito, with whom Justice Kennedy joins, concurring.
Earlier this Term, in Arizona v. Gant, ante, p. 332, the Court overruled New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), even though that case had been on the books for 28 years, had not been undermined by subsequent decisions, had been recently reaffirmed and extended, had proved to be eminently workable (indeed, had been adopted for precisely that reason), and had engendered substantial law enforcement reliance. See Gant, ante, at 358 (Alito, J., dissenting). The Court took this step even though we were not asked to overrule Belton, and this new rule is almost certain to lead to a host of problems. See Gant, ante, at 363-365 (Alito, J., dissenting); Megginson v. United States, post, p. 1230; Grooms v. United States, post, p. 1231 (same).
Justice Scalia,
who cast the deciding vote to overrule Belton, dismissed stare decisis concerns with the following observation: “[I]t seems to me ample reason that the precedent was badly reasoned and produces erroneous... results.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent was convicted of selling and of possessing and concealing forged and altered obligations of the United States with intent to defraud. The question presented here is the reasonableness of a search without a search warrant of a place of business consisting of a one-room office, incident to a valid arrest.
On February 1, 1943, a printer who possessed plates for forging “overprints” on canceled stamps was taken into custody. He disclosed that respondent, a dealer in stamps, was one of the customers to whom he had delivered large numbers of stamps bearing forged overprints. On Saturday, February 6, 1943, with this information concerning respondent and his activities in the hands of Government officers, a postal employee was sent to respondent’s place of business to buy stamps bearing overprints. He bought four stamps. On Monday, February 8, the stamps were sent to an expert to determine whether the overprints were genuine. On February 9 the report was received showing the overprints to be forgeries, having been placed upon the stamps after cancellation, and not before as was the Government’s practice. On February 11 a further statement was obtained from the printer who had made the overprints. On February 16, 1943, a warrant for the arrest of respondent was obtained.
In 1941 respondent had been convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on a plea of guilty to a two-count indictment charging the alteration of obligations of the United States, that is, of overprinting Government postage stamps, and the possession of a plate from which a similitude of a United States obligation had been printed. Thus, when the warrant for arrest was obtained, the officers had reliable information that respondent was an old offender, that he had sold four forged and altered stamps to an agent of the Government, and that he probably possessed several thousand altered stamps bearing forged overprints. While the warrant of arrest was not put in evidence it contained, as a Government witness testified on cross-examination, authority to arrest for more than the sale of the four stamps; it covered all the Government officers’ information.
Armed with this valid warrant for arrest, the Government officers, accompanied by two stamp experts, went to respondent’s place of business, a one-room office open to the public. The officers thereupon arrested the respondent, and over his objection searched the desk, safe, and file cabinets in the office for about an hour and a half. They found and seized 573 stamps, on which it was later determined that overprints had been forged, along with some other stamps which were subsequently returned to respondent.
Respondent was indicted on two counts. He was charged in count one with selling four forged and altered stamps, knowing they were forged and altered and with the intent that they be passed as genuine. The second count charged that he did keep in his possession and conceal, with intent to defraud, the 573 forged and altered stamps.
Respondent made timely motions for suppression and to strike the evidence pertaining to the 573 stamps, all of which were eventually denied. Respondent was convicted on both counts after trial before a jury in which he offered no evidence. Relying on Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699, the Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, reversed on the ground that since the officers had had time in which to procure a search warrant and had failed to do so the search was illegal, and the evidence therefore should have been excluded. 176 F. 2d 732. We granted certiorari to determine the validity of the search because of the question’s importance in the administration of the law of search and seizure. 338 U. S. 884.
Were the 573 stamps, the fruits of this search, admissible in evidence? If legally obtained, these stamps were competent evidence to show intent under the first count of the indictment, and they were the very things the possession of which was the crime charged in the second count.
The Fourth Amendment provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It is unreasonable searches that are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 147. It was recognized by the framers of the Constitution that there were reasonable searches for which no warrant was required. The right of the “people to be secure in their persons” was certainly of as much concern to the framers of the Constitution as the property of the person. Yet no one questions the right, without a search warrant, to search the person after a valid arrest. The right to search the person incident to arrest always has been recognized in this country and in England. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392. Where one had been placed in the custody of the law by valid action of officers, it was not unreasonable to search him.
Of course, a search without warrant incident to an arrest is dependent initially on a valid arrest. Here the officers had a warrant for respondent’s arrest which was, as far as can be ascertained, broad enough to cover the crime of possession charged in the second count, and consequently respondent was properly arrested. Even if the warrant of arrest were not sufficient to authorize the arrest for possession of the stamps, the arrest therefor was valid because the officers had probable cause to believe that a felony was being committed in their very presence. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 156-57.
The arrest was therefore valid in any event, and respondent’s person could be lawfully searched. Could the officers search his desk, safe and file cabinets, all within plain sight of the parties, and all located under respondent’s immediate control in his one-room office open to the public?
Decisions of this Court have often recognized that there is a permissible area of search beyond the person proper. Thus in Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30, this Court stated:
“The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody, is not to be doubted.”
The right “to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed” seems to have stemmed not only from the acknowledged authority to search the person, but also from the longstanding practice of searching for other proofs of guilt within the control of the accused found upon arrest. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392. It became accepted that the premises where the arrest was made, which premises were under the control of the person arrested and where the crime was being committed, were subject to search without a search warrant. Such a search was not “unreasonable.” Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30; Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 158; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 623-24.
In Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192, the officers had a warrant to search for liquor, but the warrant did not describe a certain ledger and invoices pertaining to the operation of the business. The latter were seized during the search of the place of business but were not returned on the search warrant as they were not described therein. The offense of maintaining a nuisance under the National Prohibition Act was being committed in the room by the arrested bartender in the officers’ presence. The search warrant was held not to cover the articles seized, but the arrest for the offense being committed in the presence of the officers was held to authorize the search for and seizure of the ledger and invoices, this Court saying:
"The officers were authorized to arrest for crime being committed in their presence, and they lawfully arrested Birdsall. They had a right without a warrant contemporaneously to search the place in order to find and seize the things used to carry on the criminal enterprise. . . . The closet in which liquor and the ledger were found was used as a part of the saloon. And, if the ledger was not as essential to the maintenance of the establishment as were bottles, liquors and glasses, it was none the less a part of the outfit or equipment actually used to commit the offense. And, while it was not on Bird-sail’s person at the time of his arrest, it was in his immediate possession and control. The authority of officers to search and seize the things by which the nuisance was being maintained, extended to all parts of the premises used for the unlawful purpose.” Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192, 198-199.
We do not understand the Marron case to have been drained of contemporary vitality by Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, and United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452. Those cases condemned general exploratory searches, which cannot be undertaken by officers with or without a warrant. In the instant case the search was not general or exploratory for whatever might be turned up. Specificity was the mark of the search and seizure here. There was probable cause to believe that respondent was conducting his business illegally. The search was for stamps overprinted illegally, which were thought upon the most reliable information to be in the possession of and concealed by respondent in the very room where he was arrested, over which room he had immediate control and in which he had been selling such stamps unlawfully. Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145, which has not been overruled, is ample authority for the more limited search here considered. In all the years of our Nation’s existence, with special attention to the Prohibition Era, it seems never to have been questioned seriously that a limited search such as here conducted as incident to a lawful arrest was a reasonable search and therefore valid. It has been considered in the same pattern as search of the person after lawful arrest.
What is a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula. The Constitution does not define what are “unreasonable” searches and, regrettably, in our discipline we have no ready litmus-paper test. The recurring questions of the reasonableness of searches must find resolution in the facts and circumstances of each case. Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357. Reasonableness is in the first instance for the District Court to determine. We think the District Court’s conclusion that here the search and seizure were reasonable should be sustained because: (1) the search and seizure were incident to a valid arrest; (2) the place of the search was a business room to which the public, including the officers, was invited; (3) the room was small and under the immediate and complete control of respondent; (4) the search did not extend beyond the room used for unlawful purposes; (6) the possession of the forged and altered stamps was a crime, just as it is a crime to possess burglars’ tools, lottery tickets or counterfeit money.
Assuming that the officers had time to procure a search warrant, were they bound to do so? We think not, because the search was otherwise reasonable, as previously concluded. In a recent opinion, Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699, this Court first enunciated the requirement that search warrants must be procured when “practicable” in a case of search incident to arrest. On the occasion of the previous suggestion of such a test, Taylor v. United States, 286 U. S. 1, the Court had been scrupulous to restrict the opinion to the familiar situation there presented. Prohibition agents, having received complaints for about a year, went at 2:30 a. m. to a garage adjacent to a house, flashed a light through a small opening, and then broke in and seized liquor. The Court emphasized that “No one was within the place and there was no reason to think otherwise.” Id. at 5. Lest the holding that such a search of an unoccupied building was unreasonable be thought to have broader significance the Court carefully stated in conclusion: “This record does not make it necessary for us to discuss the rule in respect of searches in connection with an arrest. No offender was in the garage; the action of the agents had no immediate connection with an arrest. The purpose was to secure evidence to support some future arrest.” Id. at 6.
A rule of thumb requiring that a search warrant always be procured whenever practicable may be appealing from the vantage point of easy administration. But we cannot agree that this requirement should be crystallized into a sine qua non to the reasonableness of a search. It is fallacious to judge events retrospectively and thus to determine, considering the time element alone, that there was time to procure a search warrant. Whether there was time may well be dependent upon considerations other than the ticking off of minutes or hours. The judgment of the officers as to when to close the trap on a criminal committing a crime in their presence or who they have reasonable cause to believe is committing a felony is not determined solely upon whether there was time to procure a search warrant. Some flexibility will be accorded law officers engaged in daily battle with criminals for whose restraint criminal laws are essential.
It is appropriate to note that the Constitution does not say that the right of the people to be secure in their persons should not be violated without a search warrant if it is practicable for the officers to procure one. The mandate of the Fourth Amendment is that the people shall be secure against unreasonable searches. It is not disputed that there may be reasonable searches, incident to an arrest, without a search warrant. Upon acceptance of this established rule that some authority to search follows from lawfully taking the person into custody, it becomes apparent that such searches turn upon the reasonableness under all the circumstances and not upon the practicability of procuring a search warrant, for the warrant is not required. To the extent that Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699, requires a search warrant solely upon the basis of the practicability of procuring it rather than upon the reasonableness of the search after a lawful arrest, that case is overruled. The relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable. That criterion in turn depends upon the facts and circumstances— the total atmosphere of the case. It is a sufficient precaution that law officers must justify their conduct before courts which have always been, and must be, jealous of the individual’s right of privacy within the broad sweep of the Fourth Amendment.
We do not treat additional questions raised by respondent in his brief to support the judgment of the Court of Appeals. We consider it appropriate to dispose of these issues on the basis of the excellent discussion below.
The motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied by the District Court. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The stamps involved were genuine postage stamps. At certain times the Government has printed the name of a particular state or possession on stamps prior to post office sale. Canceled stamps bearing these overprints have an unusual value for stamp collectors.
“Q. Now, when you went to Mr. Rabinowitz’s place of business, all you had with you was a warrant to arrest him in connection with the alleged sale of those four stamps; is that correct?
“A. And all information contained in the arrest warrant; yes.
“Q. I didn’t hear the last part of your answer.
“A. In our questions a few minutes back, I stated that the four stamps were specifically mentioned in the application for the warrant for arrest, but that there was other information in my possession that was included in that warrant for arrest.
“Q. Well, wasn’t the warrant of arrest issued solely on the charge that Mr. Rabinowitz had sold four stamps containing false or altered overprints? Wasn’t that what the warrant of arrest was issued for?
“A. Primarily, yes, but not completely.”
18 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) §268.
18 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 265. All of these stamps are defined by statute as obligations of the United States. 18 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) §261.
When construing state safeguards similar to the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, state courts have shown little hesitancy in holding that incident to a lawful arrest upon premises within the control of the arrested person, a search of the premises at least to the extent conducted in the instant case is not unreasonable. See, e. g.: Argetakis v. State, 24 Ariz. 599, 212 P. 372; Italiano v. State, 141 Fla. 249, 193 So. 48; State v. Conner, 59 Idaho 695, 89 P. 2d 197; State v. Carenza, 357 Mo. 1172, 212 S. W. 2d 743; State ex rel. Wong You v. District Court, 106 Mont. 347, 78 P. 2d 353; Davis v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 61, 234 P. 787; State ex rel. Fong v. Superior Court, 29 Wash. 2d 601, 188 P. 2d 125; State v. Adams, 103 W.Va. 77, 136 S. E. 703.
There is no dispute that the objects searched for and seized here, having been utilized in perpetrating a crime for which arrest was made, were properly subject to seizure. Such objects are to be distinguished from merely evidentiary materials which may not be taken into custody. United States v. Lefkowitz, supra, at 464-66; Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 309-11. This is a distinction of importance, for “limitations upon the fruit to be gathered tend to limit the quest itself . . . .” United States v. Poller, 43 F. 2d 911, 914.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Pro se petitioner Fertel-Rust seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Fertel-Rust is allowed until July 12, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit her petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Fertel-Rust in noncriminal matters unless she pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Fertel-Rust has abused this Court’s certiorari process. Four times in the last five years, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Fertel-Rust in forma pauperis status. See Fertel-Rust v. Dane County Social Servs., 513 U. S. 1145 (1995); Fertel-Rust v. Ambassador Hotel, 513 U. S. 1013 (1994); Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Dept., 513 U. S. 1013 (1994); Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Dept., 513 U. S. 945 (1994). Before these four denials, Fertel-Rust had filed three petitions for certiorari, all of which were both patently frivolous and denied without recorded dissent. The instant petition for certiorari thus brings Fertel-Rust’s total number of frivolous filings to eight.
We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Fertel-Rust’s abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noneriminal eases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Fertel-Rust from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on her, nor will it prevent her from filing appropriate petitions for an extraordinary writ. The order, however, will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In 1978, petitioner Earl Allen, a black man, was indicted for murdering his girlfriend and her brother. During selection of the petit jurors at petitioner’s trial, the prosecutor exercised 9 of the State’s 17 peremptory challenges to strike 7 black and 2 Hispanic veniremen. Defense counsel moved to discharge the jury on the ground that the “ ‘State’s use of peremptory challenges undercut [petitioner’s] right to an impartial jury selected from a cross-section of the community by systematically excluding minorities from the petit jury.’” People v. Allen, 96 Ill. App. 3d 871, 875, 422 N. E. 2d 100, 104 (1981). The trial judge denied the motion. The jury convicted petitioner on both counts, and the judge sentenced him to two concurrent prison terms of from 100 to 300 years.
On appeal, petitioner repeated his argument concerning the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges. Relying on Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202 (1965), and on Illinois case law decided under Swain, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected the argument. The court reasoned that in the absence of a showing that prosecutors in the jurisdiction systematically were using their challenges to strike members of a particular racial group, “a prosecutor’s motives may not be inquired into when he excludes members of that group from sitting on a particular case by the use of peremptory challenges.” 96 Ill. App. 3d, at 875, 422 N. E. 2d, at 104. The record in this case did not establish systematic exclusion as required by Swain. 96 Ill. App. 3d, at 876, 422 N. E. 2d, at 104. The court therefore affirmed petitioner’s convictions. Id.. at 880. 422 N. E. 2d. at 107.
Petitioner then filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on which he renewed his argument concerning the State’s use of peremptory challenges. Construing this argument as alleging only that prosecutors in the jurisdiction systematically excluded minorities from juries, the District Court denied petitioner’s motion for discovery to support the claim, and denied relief. United States ex rel. Allen v. Hardy, 577 F. Supp. 984 (1984). Petitioner’s failure at trial “to make even an offer of proof” to satisfy the evidentiary standard of Swain constituted a procedural default for which petitioner had offered no excuse. Id., at 986; see United States ex rel. Allen v. Hardy, 583 F. Supp. 562 (1984). In a subsequent opinion, the District Court also considered and rejected petitioner’s contention that the State’s exercise of its peremptory challenges at his trial violated the Sixth Amendment. United States ex rel. Allen v. Hardy, 586 F. Supp. 103, 104-106 (1984). Moreover, noting that the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had “twice within the past 60 days reconfirmed the continuing validity of Swain,” the decision on which the orders in this case rested, the District Court declined to issue a certificate of probable cause.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit construed as an application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Finding that petitioner failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a federal right” or that the questions he sought to raise “deserve[d] further proceedings,” the court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
In his petition for certiorari, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals’ refusal to issue a certificate of probable cause was erroneous in view of the fact that Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), was pending before us at the time of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The thrust of petitioner’s argument is that the rule in Batson should be available to him as a ground for relief on remand. We conclude that our decision in Batson should not be applied retroactively on collateral review of convictions that became final before our opinion was announced. Accordingly, we grant petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis, grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
In deciding the extent to which a decision announcing a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure should be given retroactive effect, the Court traditionally has weighed three factors. They are “ ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.’” Solem v. Stumes, 465 U. S. 638, 643 (1984) (quoting Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297 (1967)); see Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 636 (1965). While a decision on retroactivity requires careful consideration of all three criteria, the Court has held that a decision announcing a new standard “is almost automatically nonretroactive” where the decision “has explicitly overruled past precedent.” Solem v. Stumes, supra, at 646, 647. The rule in Batson v. Kentucky is an explicit and substantial break with prior precedent. In Swain v. Alabama, the Court held that, although the use of peremptory challenges to strike black jurors on account of race violated the Equal Protection Clause, a defendant could not establish such a violation solely on proof of the prosecutor’s action at his own trial. 380 U. S., at 220-226. Batson overruled that portion of Swain, changing the standard for proving unconstitutional abuse of peremptory challenges. Against that background, we consider whether the standard announced in Batson should be available on habeas review of petitioner’s murder convictions.
The first factor concerns the purpose to be served by the new rule. Retroactive effect is “appropriate where a new constitutional principle is designed to enhance the accuracy of criminal trials,” Solem v. Stumes, 465 U. S., at 643, but the fact that a rule may have some impact on the accuracy of a trial does not compel a finding of retroactivity. Id., at 643-645. Instead, the purpose to be served by the new standard weighs in favor of retroactivity where the standard “goes to the heart of the truthfinding function.” Id., at 645. By serving a criminal defendant’s interest in neutral jury selection procedures, the rule in Batson may have some bearing on the truthfinding function of a criminal trial. But the decision serves other values as well. Our holding ensures that States do not discriminate against citizens who are summoned to sit in judgment against a member of their own race and strengthens public confidence in the administration of justice. The rule in Batson, therefore, was designed “to serve multiple ends,” only the first of which may have some impact on truthfinding. See Brown v. Louisiana, 447 U. S. 323, 329 (1980); see also Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 414 (1966). Significantly, the new rule joins other procedures that protect a defendant’s interest in a neutral factfinder. Those other mechanisms existed prior to our decision in Batson, creating a high probability that the individual jurors seated in a particular case were free from bias. Accordingly, we cannot say that the new rule has such a fundamental impact on the integrity of factfinding as to compel retroactive application.
Moreover, the factors concerning reliance on the old rule and the effect of retroactive application on the administration of justice weigh heavily in favor of nonretroactive effect. As noted above, Batson not only overruled the evidentiary standard of Swain, it also announced a new standard that significantly changes the burden of proof imposed on both defendant and prosecutor. There is no question that prosecutors, trial judges, and appellate courts throughout our state and federal systems justifiably have relied on the standard of Swain. Indeed, the decisions of the Illinois Appellate Court affirming petitioner’s convictions and of the District Court denying habeas corpus relief clearly illustrate the reliance lower courts placed on Swain. Under these circumstances, the reliance interest of law enforcement officials is “compelling” and supports a decision that the new rule should not be retroactive. Solem v. Stumes, supra, at 650.
Similarly, retroactive application of the Batson rule on collateral review of final convictions would seriously disrupt the administration of justice. Retroactive application would require trial courts to hold hearings, often years after the conviction became final, to determine whether the defendant’s proof concerning the prosecutor’s exercise of challenges established a prima facie case of discrimination. Where a defendant made out a prima facie case, the court then would be required to ask the prosecutor to explain his reasons for the challenges, a task that would be impossible in virtually every case since the prosecutor, relying on Swain, would have had no reason to think such an explanation would someday be necessary. Many final convictions therefore would be vacated, with retrial “hampered by problems of lost evidence, faulty memory, and missing witnesses.” Solem v. Stumes, supra, at 650; see also Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S., at 637.
Our weighing of the pertinent criteria compels the conclusion that the rule in Batson should not be available to petitioner on federal habeas corpus review of his convictions. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Justice Blackmun would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for oral argument.
“By final we mean where the judgment of conviction was rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for petition for certiorari had elapsed before our decision in” Batson v. Kentucky. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 622, n. 5 (1965). We express no view on the question whether our decision in Batson should be applied to cases that were pending on direct appeal at the time our decision was announced. See Griffith v. Kentucky, No. 85-5221 (cert. granted, 476 U. S. 1157 (1986)), and Brown v. United States, No. 85-5731 (cert. granted, 476 U. S. 1157 (1986)).
Voir dire examination is designed to identify veniremen who are biased so that those persons may be excused through challenges for cause. Moreover, the jury charge typically includes instructions emphasizing that the jurors must not rest their decision on any impermissible factor, such as passion or prejudice.
The substantial reliance by lower courts on the standard in Swain has been fully documented elsewhere. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, 82, n. 1 (1986); McCray v. Abrams, 750 F. 2d 1113, 1120, n. 2 (CA2 1984), vacated and remanded, post, p. 1001.
In his petition for certiorari, petitioner also argues that the District Court erroneously denied him discovery on his claim that prosecutors systematically had excluded minorities from petit juries in the jurisdiction. In effect, the District Court held that, by making no offer of proof on this claim, petitioner’s bare objection failed to preserve the claim for review. Since petitioner points to no Illinois authority casting doubt on the District Court’s conclusion that, at the least, an offer of proof was necessary to preserve the issue, we have no reason to question the District Court’s conclusion that the claim was waived. Similarly, the District Court properly determined that petitioner was required to, and did not, establish cause and prejudice excusing his default. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (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: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Pursuant to the provisions of the National Housing Act of 1934, as amended, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is authorized, in certain instances, to insure the partial repayment of loans secured by mortgages executed to finance the purchase of private residential properties. When duly requested to do so by a qualified lender, the FHA, through its appraisal staff, makes an inspection of property offered for sale in order to determine whether the property is eligible for FHA mortgage insurance, and to assign an appraised value establishing the maximum amount of mortgage insurance obtainable.
The question for decision in this case is whether the United States may be held liable, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b), to a purchaser of residential property who has been furnished a statement reporting the results of an inaccurate FHA inspection and appraisal, and who, in reliance thereon, has been induced by the seller to pay a purchase price in excess of the property’s fair market value. The answer turns upon the correct interpretation of 28 U. S. C. § 2680 (h), which precludes recovery under the Tort Claims Act upon “[a]ny claim arising out of . . . misrepresentation.” The material facts giving rise to the controversy are not in dispute, and may be summarized as follows.
Early in 1957, the property in question, consisting of a 16-year-old single-family brick house and lot located in Alexandria, Virginia, was offered for sale by its owners. To assure that FHA mortgage insurance would be available to secure a loan in the event that the purchaser, when ascertained, might desire to finance the purchase by that method, the owners requested a qualified lending institution to take the necessary steps to have the property inspected and appraised by the FHA; and pursuant to the lending agent’s application, an FHA appraiser visited and inspected the premises. On the basis of that inspection, which disclosed no defects that would disqualify the property for mortgage insurance, the FHA issued to the lending agency a “conditional commitment,” stating that the property had been approved for mortgage insurance and, for that purpose, had been assigned an appraised value of $22,750. Under § 203 (b) (2) of the National Housing Act, the maximum amount of mortgage insurance obtainable on an appraised value of $22,750 was $18,800.
Shortly thereafter, the respondents,- Mr. and Mrs. Stanley S. Neustadt, examined the property and became interested in buying it. After negotiations extending over the period of a month, in the course of which respondents were advised by the sellers that the property had been appraised by the FHA at a value of $22,750 for mortgage insurance purposes, respondents entered into a conditional contract to purchase the property at a price of $24,000. The contract was conditioned upon the respondents’ obtaining a loan secured by an FHA-insured mortgage in the amount of $18,800. In accordance with § 226 of the National Housing Act, the contract also provided that the sellers would deliver to respondents, prior to the sale of the property, a written statement setting forth the FHA-appraised value. Both conditions were fulfilled, and on the settlement date, July 2, 1957, respondents took title to the property, and acknowledged by their signatures that they had been furnished with a written “Statement of FHA Appraisal.” This was an official FHA document, stating that the FHA “has appraised the property identified . . . and for mortgage insurance purposes has placed an FHA-appraised value of $22,750 on such property as of the date of this statement. (The FHA appraised value does not establish sales price.)” (Emphasis in original.)
Respondents moved into the house on July 10, 1957. According to their testimony, they had previously inspected the house “quite carefully,” and had found “absolutely nothing which would indicate the necessity for any redecoration at all.” The house was “immaculately clean” and the walls and ceilings “looked fine.” However, within a month after respondents moved in, substantial cracks developed in the ceilings and in the interior and exterior walls throughout the house. When building repair contractors were unable to ascertain the cause of the cracks, the original builder of the house and four FHA field inspectors were summoned, and a thorough investigation was made by them. By drilling a hole through the concrete floor of the basement, it was discovered that the subsoil was composed of a type of clay which becomes pliable when moist. Due to poor drainage conditions on the surface, water had seeped into the clay, causing it to shift beneath the foundations of the house and to produce the cracks which had appeared in the walls and ceilings.
Ten months thereafter, respondents commenced this action against the Government, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking recovery of the difference between the fair market value of the property and the purchase price of $24,000. The complaint alleged that the FHA’s inspection and appraisal of the property for mortgage insurance purposes had been conducted negligently; that respondents were justified in relying upon the results of that inspection and appraisal; and that they “would not have purchased the property for $24,000 but for the carelessness and negligence of [FHA].”
After trial, the District Court found that respondents “in good faith relied upon the [FHA’s] appraisal in consummating their contract of purchase,” and that “reasonable care by a qualified appraiser would have warned” respondents of the “serious structural defects” in the house which had been “preponderantly proved.” On that basis, the court adjudged the Government liable in the amount of $8,000, which it found to be the difference between the property’s fair market value at the time of sale ($16,000) and the purchase price ($24,000).
On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 281 F. 2d 596, over the Government’s sedulous objection that recovery was barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2680 (h), which excepts from the coverage of the Tort Claims Act “[a]ny claim arising out of . . . misrepresentation.” Because of- the importance of the question, and to resolve an apparent conflict between the Fourth Circuit’s decision and the holdings of other Circuits uniformly construing the “misrepresentation” exception of § 2680 (h) to preclude recovery on closely analogous facts, we granted certiorari. 364 U. S. 926. We have concluded that the interpretation adopted by the Fourth Circuit is erroneous, and that the Government must be absolved from liability.
In its complete form, § 2680 (h) excludes recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act upon “[a]ny claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.” (Emphasis added.) The Government’s position is that, since Congress employed both the terms “misrepresentation” and “deceit” in § 2680 (h), it clearly meant to exclude claims arising out of negligent, as well as deliberate, misrepresentation; and therefore, even assuming that the District Court correctly found that the inaccurate FHA appraisal in this case resulted from a negligent inspection, and that respondents relied upon that appraisal to their detriment, the claim must nevertheless fail as one “arising out of . . . [negligent] misrepresentation. ”
We are in accord with the view urged by the Government, and unanimously adopted by all Circuits which have previously had occasion to pass on the question, that § 2680 (h) comprehends claims arising out of negligent, as well as willful, misrepresentation.
The leading precedent has been the Second Circuit’s decision in Jones v. United States, 207 F. 2d 563, which involved, a statement issued to the plaintiffs-by the United States Geological Survey erroneously estimating the oil-producing capacity of certain land. In reliance upon that statement, plaintiffs sold securities representing oil and gas rights in the land for less than their actual value, and later sought to recoup their loss from the Government under the Tort Claims Act on a complaint alleging negligent misrepresentation. Affirming a dismissal of the complaint, the -Second Circuit tersely, pointed out that § 2680 (h) applies to both “misrepresentation” and “deceit,” and, “[a]s ‘deceit’ means fraudulent misrepresentation, ‘misrepresentation’ must have been meant to include negligent misrepresentation, since otherwise the word ‘misrepresentation’ would be duplicative.” 207 F. 2d, at 564. Following this interpretation, in an unbroken line, are the cases of National Mfg. Co. v. United States, 210 F. 2d 263 (C. A. 8th Cir.); Clark v. United States, 218 F. 2d 446 (C. A. 9th Cir.); Miller Harness Co. v. United States, 241 F. 2d 781 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Anglo-American Corp. v. United States, 242 F. 2d 236 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Hall v. United States, 274 F. 2d 69 (C. A. 10th Cir.). In accord also are Social Security Adm’n v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 639 (D. C. D. Md.), and United States v. Van Meter, 149 F. Supp. 493 (D. C. N. D. Cal.).
Throughout this line of decisions, the argument has been made by plaintiffs, and consistently rejected by the courts, until this case, that the bar of § 2680 (h) does not apply when the gist of the claim lies in negligence underlying the inaccurate representation, i. e., when the claim is phrased as one “arising out of” negligence rather than “misrepresentation.” But this argument, as was forcefully demonstrated by the Tenth Circuit in Hall v. United States, supra, is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent § 2680 (h) by denying that it applies to negligent misrepresentation. In the Hall case, it was alleged that agents of the Department of Agriculture had negligently inspected the plaintiff’s cattle and, as a result, mistakenly reported that the cattle were diseased. Relying upon that report, plaintiff sold the cattle at less than their fair value, and sought recovery from the Government of his loss on the ground that it had been caused by the negligent inspection underlying the agents’ report, rather than by the report itself. The Tenth Circuit rejected the claim, stating:
“We must then look beyond the literal meaning of the language to ascertain the real cause of complaint. . . . Plaintiff’s loss came about when the Government agents misrepresented the condition of the cattle, telling him they were diseased when, in fact, they were free from disease. . . . This stated a cause of action predicated on a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation as used in the exclusionary provision [of § 2680 (h)] was meant to include negligent misrepresentation.” 274 F. 2d, at 71.
In the instant case, the Fourth Circuit took the opposite view, and held that respondents could recover on the sole basis of the underlying negligence. Although it agreed that § 2680 (h) embraces both “negligent” and “willful” misrepresentation, and that respondents’ claim “might form the basis of an action for misrepresentation under general common-law principlés,” 281 F. 2d, at 601, it deemed § 2680 (h) inapplicable here for the reason that the misrepresentation was “merely incidental” to the “gravamen” of the claim, i. e., “the careless making of an excessive appraisal so that [respondents were] . . . deceived and suffered substantial loss.” Id., at 602. Since § 226 of the National Housing Act requires that a seller of property approved for FHA mortgage insurance “shall agree to deliver, prior to the sale of the property, to the person purchasing such [property], a written statement setting forth the amount of the [FHA] appraised value . . . ,” the Fourth Circuit reasoned that the FHA appraisal procedure was designed to protect prospective home' purchasers; that the Government (through the FHA) therefore “owed a specific duty” to respondents to make a careful appraisal; and that “if the government assumes a duty and negligently performs it, a party injured thereby may recover damages from the United States even though the careless performance of the duty may have been accompanied by some misrepresentation of fact.” Id., at 599.
Whether or not this analysis accords with the law of States which have seen fit to allow recovery under analogous circumstances, it does not meet the question of whether this claim is outside the intended scope of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which depends solely upon what Congress meant by the language it used in §2680 (h).
To say, as the Fourth Circuit did, that a claim arises out of “negligence,” rather than “misrepresentation,” when the loss suffered by the injured party is caused by the breach of a “specific duty” owed by the Government to him, i. e., the duty to use due care in obtaining and communicating information upon which that party may reasonably be expected to rely in the conduct of his economic affairs, is only to state the traditional and commonly understood legal definition of the tort of “negligent misrepresentation,” as is clearly, if not conclusively, shown by the authorities set forth in the margin, and which there is every reason to believe Congress had in mind when it placed the word “misrepresentation” before the word “deceit” in § 2680 (h). As the Second Circuit observed in Jones v. United States, supra, “deceit” alone would have been sufficient had Congress intended only to except deliberately false representations. Certainly there is no warrant for assuming that Congress was unaware of established tort definitions when it enacted the Tort Claims Act in 1946, after spending “some twenty-eight years of congressional drafting and redrafting, amendment and counter-amendment.” United States v. Spelar, 338 U. S. 217, 219-220. Moreover, as we have said in considering other aspects of the Act: “There is nothing in the Tort Claims Act which shows that Congress intended to draw distinctions so finespun and capricious as to be almost incapable of being held in the mind for adequate formulation.” Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61, 68.
Regarding the Court of Appeals’ assertion that the Government owed respondents a “specific duty” to make and communicate an accurate appraisal of the property, by virtue of the provisions of the National Housing Act, we have carefully examined the rather extensive legislative history of that statute, giving particular attention to § 226 thereof, and have found nothing from which we may reasonably infer that Congress intended, in a case such as this, to limit or suspend the application of the “misrepresentation” exception of the Tort Claims Act. Long before § 226 was added to the National Housing Act, in 1954, requiring sellers to inform prospective buyers of FHA-appraised value, it had been recognized in Congress that FHA appraisals would be a matter of public record, and would thus inure, incidentally, to the benefit of prospective home purchasers, by affording them the “benefit of knowing the appraised value set upon the property ... by a trained valuator acting in accordance with a procedure designed to reduce to a minimum, errors that might result from casual or hasty conclusions.” But at the same time, it was repeatedly emphasized that the primary and predominant objective of the appraisal system was the “protection of the Government and its insurance funds”; that the mortgage insurance program was not designed to insure anything other than the repayment of loans made by lender-mortgagees; and that “there is no legal relationship between the FHA and the individual mortgagor.” Never once was it even intimated that, by an FHA appraisal, the Government would, in any sense, represent or guarantee to the purchaser that he was receiving a certain value for his money.
Nor is there any indication that Congress intended, by its 1954 addition of § 226, to modify the legislation's fundamental design from a system of mortgage repayment insurance to one of guaranty or warranty to the purchaser of value received. On its face, § 226 goes no further than to require that a seller of property approved for FHA mortgage insurance shall furnish to the buyer, prior to sale, a written statement disclosing the FHA-appraised value. That Congress did not thereby intend to convert the FHA appraisal into a warranty of value, or otherwise to extend to the purchaser any actionable right of redress against the Government in the event of a faulty appraisal, was made irrefutably clear in the Committee Hearings in both Houses of Congress, the pertinent excerpts from which are set forth in the margin. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to suppose that, at the time § 226 was adopted, Congress was aware of the “misrepresentation” exception in the Tort Claims Act, and that it had been construed by the courts to include “negligent misrepresentation.”
The compulsory disclosure provision of § 226 is but one of numerous instances in which Congress has relegated to a governmental agency the duty either to disclose directly', or to require private persons to disclose, information for the assistance and guidance of other persons in the conduct of their economic and commercial affairs. In practically all such instances, it may be said that the Government owes a “specific duty” to obtain and communicate information carefully, lest the intended recipient be misled to his financial harm. While we do not condone carelessness by government employees in gathering and promulgating such information, neither can we justifiably ignore the plain words Congress has used in limiting the scope of the Government’s tort liability.
It follows that respondents’ claim is one “arising out of . . . misrepresentation,” within the meaning of § 2680 (h), and hence is not actionable against the Government under the Tort Claims Act. Accordingly, the judgment below must be
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
48 Stat. 1246, 12 U. S. C. §§ 1701 et seq.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act of 1934, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1709, provided at the times here pertinent that:
“(a) . . . The [Federal Housing] Commissioner is authorized, upon application by the mortgagee, to insure as hereinafter provided any mortgage offered to him which is eligible for insurance as hereinafter provided, and, upon such terms as the Commissioner may prescribe, to make commitments for the insuring of such mortgages prior to the date of their execution or disbursement thereon ....
“(b) . . . To be eligible for insurance under this section a mortgage shall—
“(2) Involve a principal obligation . . . not to exceed an amount equal to the sum of (i) 95 per centum ... of $9,000. of the [FHA] appraised value (as of the date the mortgage is accepted for insurance), and (ii) 75 per centum of such value in excess of $9,000 . . .
24 CFR §§200.145, 200.146, 200.148 (1959 ed.).
“[T]he district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages ... for injury or loss of property . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
An application for FHA mortgage insurance may be made only by a financial institution approved as a mortgagee by the FHA. §203 (a), National Housing Act, supra, 12 U. S. C. § 1709 (a). Applications may be, and commonly are, made in advance of actual sale and execution of the mortgage, 24 CFR §221.9 (1959 ed.), in order that the seller may have the property inspected, approved, and appraised for mortgage insurance while the purchaser is still unknown.
The commitment to insure a mortgage is conditioned upon the mortgagor’s being found financially able to carry the mortgage. 24 CFR §§200.147, 200.148 (1) (1959 ed.).
Note 2, supra.
Under § 203 (b) (2), the maximum insurable amount was $18,862.50 (95% of $9,000, plus 75% of $13,750). By FHA regulations, mortgages were insurable only in multiples of $100. 24 CFR § 221.17 (a) (1958 Supp.).
Section 226 was enacted in 1954 (68 Stat. 607, 12 U. S. C. § 1715q) and provides in pertinent part as follows:
“The Commissioner is hereby authorized and directed to require that, in connection with any property . . . approved for mortgage insurance . . . the seller or builder . . . shall agree to deliver, prior to the sale of the property, to the person purchasing such dwelling for his own occupancy, a written statement setting forth the amount of the appraised value of the property as determined by the Commissioner. . . .”
There is no right to a jury trial under the Tort Claims Act. 28 U. S. C. § 2402.
The cases are cited and discussed at pp. 702-705, infra.
Neither in the Court of Appeals, nor in this Court, has the Government chosen to contest these findings.
In Anglo-American & Overseas Corp. v. United States, 242 F. 2d 236, the Second Circuit analyzed a similar claim and exposed its true basis: “[Plaintiff] contracted to sell tomato paste to the United States, which required as a condition precedent to its acceptance of the paste that it satisfy the standards of the Food and Drug Administration. The paste was imported; and the Food and Drug Administration, after sampling it, issued ‘release notices’ that notified Customs officers that the tomato paste could enter the country. [Plaintiff] then accepted delivery. When it in turn delivered the paste to the government, federal officials once again inspected the paste, found that it did not satisfy the standards of the Food and Drug Administration, and ordered it destroyed. [Plaintiff] sues now on the ground that the negligence of officials of the Food and Drug Administration in sampling the tomato paste and in issuing the ‘release notices’ induced it to accept the paste and thus suffer damages.
“This claim, it is clear, ‘arose out of’ the assertedly negligent representation of the quality of the tomato paste by federal employees. Such a claim is barred by . . . Section 2680 (h) . . . [which excepts] from liability negligent as well as intentional misrepresentation.” Id., at 237.
Note 9, supra.
The Fourth Circuit sought primary support from the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N. Y. 236, 135 N. E. 275, in which the defendants, who were public weighers, were requested by a vendor to weigh certain goods and to issue a certificate of weight to the buyer. The goods were weighed inaccurately, and on the strength of the erroneous weight certificate, the buyer paid an excessive purchase price. In allowing the buyer to recover from defendants, the New York court looked primarily to the negligence in performing the act of weighing, and stated that defendants were liable both for their “careless words” and their “careless performance of a service.” The case has been widely discussed by tort authorities as epitomizing “negligent misrepresentation.” See, e. g., 1 Harper and James, Torts, 546-548 (1956); Prosser, Torts, 734, 737 (1941 ed.); Bohlen, Should Negligent Misrepresentations Be Treated as Negligence or Fraud? 18 Va. L. Rev. 703, 708 (1932). Glanzer has been followed in a number of States which have broken from the earlier, virtually unanimous, American view subscribing to the English case of Derry v. Peek, L. R. 14 App. Cas. 337, 58 L. J. Rep. Ch. 864 (1889) (refusing to allow recovery for negligent misrepresentation). See cases cited in 1 Harper and James, Torts, 546, n. 5 (1956). Cf. Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N. Y. 170, 174 N. E. 441.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, when a claim is not barred by one of the Act’s exclusionary provisions, the liability of the Government must be determined “in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b). The Fourth Circuit’s opinion, although it concluded that § 2680 (h) did not bar respondents’ claim, did not indicate whether Virginia law follows the New York rule of Glanzer v. Shepard, supra. In view of our conclusion that § 2680 (h) applies, we need not explore this question.
The American Law Institute’s Restatement of Torts (1938), c. 22, “Deceit: Business Transactions,” Topic 3, “Negligent Misrepresentations,” states as follows:
Ҥ 552. Information Negligently Supplied for the Guidance of Others.
“One who in the course of his business or profession supplies information for the guidance of others in their business transactions is subject to liability for harm caused to them by their reliance upon the information if
“(a) he fails to exercise that care and competence in obtaining and communicating the information which its recipient is justified in expecting, and
“(b) the harm is suffered
“ (i) by the person or one of the class of persons for whose guidance the information was supplied, and
“(ii) because of his justifiable reliance upon it in a transaction in which it was intended to influence his conduct or in a transaction substantially identical therewith.”
Prosser, Torts (1941 ed.), c. 16, “Misrepresentation,” §87, “Basis of Responsibility,” states:
“Responsibility for misrepresentation may be divided into the usual tort classifications. It may rest upon:
“a. An intent to deceive, consisting of belief that the representation is false .... [S]uch an intent is required for the action of deceit.
“b. Negligence in obtaining information or in making the representation. . . .
“c. A policy holding the maker strictly responsible for the truth of the representation
See also Bohlen, Misrepresentation as Deceit, Negligence, or Warranty, 42 Harv. L. Rev. 733, 735-739 (1929); 23 Am. Jur., Fraud and Deceit, §126, “Negligent Representations” (1939).
See 2 Harper and James, Torts, § 29.13, The Federal Tort Claims Act: Exceptions to Liability, p. 1655 (1956).
78 Cong. Rec. 11980 et seq.; 1st Annual Report of FHA (1935) (passim); 100 Cong. Rec. 12349-12360; S. Rep. No. 1472, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1429, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2271, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.; Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on the Housing Act of 1954, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.; Hearings Before the House Committee on Banking and Currency on Housing Act of 1954, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.
First Annual Report of FHA 17 (1935). See also 90 Cong. Rec. A2985; 78 Cong. Rec. 11981.
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2271, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 66.
78 Cong. Rec. 11981; 1st Annual Report of FHA 15 (1935).
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2271, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 66-67.
Note 9, supra.
It was stated by Representative Dollinger, in the Hearings before the Subcommittee on Housing of the House Committee on Banking and Currency on “Housing Constructed Under VA and FHA Programs,” 82d Cong., 2d Sess., at 163:
“The Government did not guarantee, on your getting the home, that the home would be in good condition. As I pointed out before, there has been a misconception of the idea. The Government never approved the building. All it says is that the FHA loans are guaranteed to the builder or to the bank.”
In the Hearings before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on Housing Act of 1954, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., at 1402-1403, the following colloquy was recorded between Senator Bennett and Home Finance Administrator Cole:
“Mr. Cole: ... I agree with the Senator that the home buyer should understand that the Federal Government is not guaranteeing his home.
“Senator Bennett: That is correct. . . . The idea of the inspection service under title II is to protect the Federal Government, which undertakes to insure the'loan. The fact that the inspection is made, provides collateral benefits to the property owner. There is no question about that. But in the last analysis the property owner cannot say to the Federal Government, ‘Well, your inspector inspected my house, and now look what’s happened; therefore, you are responsible; therefore, you must come down here and fix it up.’ ”
Jones v. United States, supra, and National Mfg. Co. v. United States, supra, had both been decided, by the Second and Eighth Circuits, respectively, when Congress enacted § 226 in 1954.
Our conclusion neither conflicts with nor impairs the authority of Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61, which held cognizable a Torts Act claim for property damages suffered when a vessel ran aground as a result of the Coast Guard’s allegedly negligent failure to maintain the beacon lamp in a lighthouse. Such a claim does not “arise out of . . . misrepresentation,” any more than does one based upon a motor vehicle operator’s negligence in giving a misleading turn signal. As Dean Prosser has observed, many familiar forms of negligent conduct may be said to involve an element of “misrepresentation,” in the generic sense of that word, but “[s]o far as misrepresentation has been treated as giving rise in and of itself to a distinct cause of action in tort, it has been identified with the common law action of deceit,” and has been confined “very largely to the invasion of interests of a financial or commercial character, in the course of business dealings.” Prosser, Torts, § 85, “Remedies for Misrepresentation,” at 702-703 (1941 ed.). See also 2 Harper and James, Torts, §29.13, at 1655 (1956).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These proceedings present for determination the proper federal rule to be followed on a motion by a defendant to vacate a United States District Court judgment, obtained by a plaintiff after removal from a state court by defendant, and to remand the suit to the state court. Petitioner, the movant, urges that 28 U. S. C. § 1441 did not permit this removal and therefore the District Court was without jurisdiction to render the judgment which respondent, the plaintiff below, seeks to retain. The issue arose in this way:
Petitioner, the American Fire and Casualty Company, a Florida corporation, and its codefendant, the Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, an Indiana corporation, removed, in accordance with 28 U. S. C. § 1446, a suit brought by respondent Finn in a Texas state court against the two corporations and an individual, Reiss, local agent of both corporations and a resident of Texas. The suit was for a fire loss on Texas property suffered by respondent, a resident of Texas. Respondent tried to have the case remanded before trial but was unsuccessful. After special issues were found by the jury, judgment was entered against petitioner for the amount of insurance claimed and costs, and in favor of the other two defendants. The District Court denied the motion to vacate the judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 181 F. 2d 845. The latter court concluded there were causes of action against the foreign insurance companies “separate and independent” from that stated against the resident individual. Since the causes against the companies would have been removable if sued on alone, the entire suit was removable. 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (c). That ruling required consideration of the changes concerning removal made by § 1441 (c), which superseded 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 71. The Court of Appeals said:
“The difference, if any, between separable controversies under the old statute and separate and independent claims under the new one is in degree, not in kind. It is difficult to distinguish between the two concepts, but it is not necessary to attempt it in a case like this, which would be removable under either statute.” 181 F. 2d 846.
Consideration of the ruling on the motion to vacate the judgment requires a determination of whether the suit contained separate and independent causes of action under § 1441 (c), and, if the conclusion is that it did not, a ruling on the effect of a judgment after a removal without right, initiated by the party against whom the judgment was ultimately rendered. As prompt, economical and sound administration of justice depends to a large degree upon definite and finally accepted principles governing important areas of litigation, such as the respective jurisdictions of federal and state courts, we granted cer-tiorari. 340 U. S. 849. See also Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corporation, 184 F. 2d 537; Bentley v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 174 F. 2d 788.
I.
The removal took place after September 1, 1948, the effective date of the revision of the laws relating to judicial procedure. 62 Stat. 992. The former provision governing removal, 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 71, read:
“And when in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different States, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the district court of the United States for the proper district.”
The new section, 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (c), states:
“(c) Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within its original jurisdiction.”
One purpose of Congress in adopting the “separate and independent claim or cause of action” test for removability by § 1441 (c) of the 1948 revision in lieu of the provision for removal of 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 71, was by simplification to avoid the difficulties experienced in determining the meaning of that provision. Another and important purpose was to limit removal from state courts. Section 71 allowed removal when a controversy was wholly between citizens of different states and fully determinable between them. Such a controversy was said to be "separable.” The difficulties inherent in old § 71 show plainly in the majority and concurring opinions in Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U. S. 534, 542. See Note, 41 Harv. L. Rev. 1048. Often plaintiffs in state actions joined other state residents as defendants with out-of-state defendants so that removable controversies wholly between citizens of different states would not be pleaded. The effort frequently failed, see Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, at 538, and removal was allowed. Our consideration of the meaning and effect of 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (c) should be carried out in the light of the congressional intention. Cf. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, supra, at 547; Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 250.
The Congress, in the revision, carried out its purpose to abridge the right of removal. Under the former provision, 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 71, separable controversies authorized removal of the suit. “Controversy” had long been associated in legal thinking with “case.” It covered all disputes that might come before federal courts for adjudication. In § 71 the removable “controversy” was interpreted as any possible separate suit that a litigant might properly bring in a federal court so long as it was wholly between citizens of different states. So, before the revision, when a suit in a state court had such a separable federally cognizable controversy, the entire suit might be removed to the federal court.
A separable controversy is no longer an adequate ground for removal unless it also constitutes a separate and independent claim or cause of action. Compare Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 212, with the revised § 1441. Congress has authorized removal now under § 1441 (c) only when there is a separate and independent claim or cause of action. Of course, “separate cause of action” restricts removal more than “separable controversy.” In a suit covering multiple parties or issues based on a single claim, there may be only one cause of action and yet be separable controversies. The addition of the word “independent” gives emphasis to congressional intention to require more complete disassociation between the federally cognizable proceedings and those cognizable only in state courts before allowing removal.
The effectiveness of the restrictive policy of Congress against removal depends upon the meaning ascribed to “separate and independent . . . cause of action.” §1441. Although “controversy” and “cause of action” are treated as synonymous by the courts in situations where the present considerations are absent, here it is obvious different concepts are involved. We are not unmindful that the phrase “cause of action” has many meanings. To accomplish its purpose of limiting and simplifying removal, Congress used the phrase “cause of action” in an accepted meaning to obtain that result. By interpretation we should not defeat that purpose.
In a suit turning on the meaning of “cause of action,” this Court announced an accepted description. Balti more S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316. This Court said, p. 321:
“Upon principle, it is perfectly plain that the respondent suffered but one actionable wrong and was entitled to but one recovery, whether his injury was due to one or the other of several distinct acts of alleged negligence or to a combination of some or all of them. In either view, there would be but a single wrongful invasion of a single primary right of the plaintiff, namely, the right of bodily safety, whether the acts constituting such invasion were one or many, simple or complex.
“A cause of action does not consist of facts, but of the unlawful violation of a right which the facts show.”
See Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U. S. 430, 443. Considering the previous history of “separable controversy,” the broad meaning of “cause of action,” and the congressional purpose in the revision resulting in 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (c), we conclude that where there is a single wrong to plaintiff, for which relief is sought, arising from an interlocked series of transactions, there is no separate and independent claim or cause of action under § 1441 (c).
In making this determination we look to the plaintiff’s pleading, which controls. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U. S. 534, 538. The single wrong for which relief is sought is the failure to pay compensation for the loss on the property. Liability lay among three parties, but it was uncertain which one was responsible. Therefore, all were joined as defendants in one petition. First, facts were stated that made the petitioner, American Fire and Casualty Company, liable. It was alleged that the company, through its agent Reiss, insured the property destroyed for the amount claimed, that Reiss gave plaintiff credit for the premium, controlled her insurance, agreed to keep the property insured at all times. She further alleged that the Company issued the policy but Reiss retained the document in his possession and refused to deliver it after the fire. Then followed a prayer for judgment against the Company.
The next portion of the complaint stated, in the alternative, an obligation by the Indiana Lumbermens Insurance Company to pay the same loss. The policy with Lumber-mens was attached as an exhibit, and allegations concerning Reiss similar to those in the first portion were made. A second prayer was added for recovery against Lumbermens.
The last portion of the complaint, alternative to both the preceding, alleged that Reiss, American Fire and Casualty Company and Indiana Lumbermens Insurance Company were jointly and severally liable for the loss. Reiss was said to be plaintiff’s insurance broker, responsible for keeping her house insured. Plaintiff alleged Reiss insured her property with Lumbermens and never notified her of any cancellation or expiration. Reiss was alleged to have agreed later to insure her property with American, to have promised after the fire to deliver the policy, to have failed to make the promised delivery. She claimed that Reiss was responsible for “anything that results in the defeat of her recovery on either one of said policies” and that he was “the direct cause of the condition, of said insurance, and the proximate cause of all of plaintiff’s troubles and confusion.” The pleader then asserted:
“That such acts and conduct on the part of said Joe Reiss as agent for the said two insurance companies, renders said Joe Reiss, agent, the Joe Reiss Insurance Agency and the American Fire and Casualty Insurance Company of Orlando, Florida, and the Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the damages that plaintiff has suffered by reason of said fire in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars.”
The petition concluded with a prayer for joint and several judgment against all three defendants, based on the third set of allegations.
The past history of removal of “separable” controversies, the effort of Congress to create a surer test, and the intention of Congress to restrict the right of removal leads us to the conclusion that separate and independent causes of action are not stated. The facts in each portion of the complaint involve Reiss, the damage comes from a single incident. The allegations in which Reiss is a defendant involve substantially the same facts and transactions as do the allegations in the first portion of the complaint against the foreign insurance companies. It cannot be said that there are separate and independent claims for relief as § 1441 (c) requires. Therefore, we conclude there was no right to removal.
II.
There are cases which uphold judgments in the district courts even though there was no right to removal. In those cases the federal trial court would have had original jurisdiction of the controversy had it been brought in the federal court in the posture it had at the time of the actual trial of the cause or of the entry of the judgment. That is, if the litigation had been initiated in the federal court on the issues and between the parties that comprised the case at the time of trial or judgment, the federal court would have had cognizance of the case. This circumstance was relied upon as the foundation of the holdings. The defendant who had removed the action was held to be estopped from protesting that there was no right to removal. Since the federal court could have had jurisdiction originally, the estoppel did not endow it with a jurisdiction it could not possess.
In this case, however, the District Court would not have had original jurisdiction of the suit, as first stated in the complaint, because of the presence on each side of a citizen of Texas. 28 U. S. C. § 1332. The posture of this case even at the time of judgment also barred federal jurisdiction. A Texas citizen was and remained a party defendant. The trial court judgment, after decreeing recovery against American Fire and Casualty Company on the jury’s verdict, added, over American’s objection,
“It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Plaintiff take nothing as against Defendants, Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company and Joe Reiss, individually and doing business as the Joe Reiss Insurance Agency, and that such Defendants go hence without day with their costs.”
By this decree the merits of the litigation against Reiss were finally adjudicated. The request of respondent to dismiss Reiss after the judgment was not acted upon by the trial court.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation or by prior action or consent of the parties. To permit a federal trial court to enter a judgment in a case removed without right from a state court where the federal court could not have original jurisdiction of the suit even in the posture it had at the time of judgment, would by the act of the parties work a wrongful extension of federal jurisdiction and give district courts power the Congress has denied them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate the judgment entered and, if no further steps are taken by any party to affect its jurisdiction, to remand the case to the District Court of Harris County, Texas, with costs against petitioner. Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 464.
It is so ordered.
See Reviser’s Notes with H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., April 25, 1947, to accompany the revision bill, H. R. 3214. (U. S. C., Cong. Serv., for Title 28, 1948, pp. 1697, 1699, 1855.) The Reviser’s Note is reprinted at 28 U. S. C. § 1441. See United States v. National City Lines, 337 U. S. 78, 81.
28 U. S. C. § 1441, Reviser’s Note:
“Subsection (c) permits the removal of a separate cause of action but not of a separable controversy unless it constitutes a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the original jurisdiction of United States District Courts. In this respect it will somewhat decrease the volume of Federal litigation.”
Congress had enacted other restrictions on removal in special acts such as the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 71; 28 U. S. C. § 1445.
Care was taken to maintain opportunity for state trial of non-federal matters.
28 U. S. C. § 1441, Reviser’s Note:
“Rules 18, 20, and 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the most liberal joinder of parties, claims, and remedies in civil actions. Therefore there will be no procedural difficulty occasioned by the removal of the entire action. Conversely, if the court so desires, it may remand to the State court all nonremovable matters.” See McFadden v. Grace Line, 82 F. Supp. 494.
Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, is a good illustration. This Court held that there were separable controversies in a state court suit against a local corporation and nonresident individuals for an accounting on land sales. One group of sales was by the nonresidents before conveyance to the corporation; the other by the corporation after conveyance.
See also Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U. S. 534. There a suit was instituted in a California court for damages for a conductor’s death caused by a drunken Pullman passenger. The defendants were the passenger (a Californian), the railroad (a Kentucky corporation, allegedly negligent for letting the passenger pass its gates), the Pullman Company (an Illinois corporation), and its porter (a Californian), the latter two allegedly negligent for letting the passenger on the Pullman. Had the porter not been a Californian, the Pullman Company could have removed on the ground of a separable controversy because no facts were alleged as to other defendants’ negligence upon which its liability could be predicated. P.539. “[A] 11 persons interested in a separable controversy must be able to remove.” Discussed in Moore’s Commentary on the U. S. Judicial Code, p. 247.
We think the “claim” set out in a petition states the facts upon which the “cause of action” rests. For the purpose of removal, the words cover the same allegations.
Since the Pullman case and the Barney case do not contain separate and independent causes of action, they would not now be removable under 28 U. S. C. § 1441.
See note 4, supra.
E. g., Tolbert v. Jackson, 99 F. 2d 513, 514 (a valuable case); Des Moines Elevator & Grain Co. v. Underwriters’ Grain Assn., 63 F. 2d 103; Nichols v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 195 F. 913.
See note 1, supra.
United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U. S. 62, 67—69; Bemis Bro. Bag Co. v. United States, 289 U. S. 28, 33; Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U. S. 238, 247.
There a sailor filed a libel in admiralty and recovered for negligence in failing to provide a safe place- to work, in failing to use reasonable care to avoid striking libellant, for unseaworthiness, incompetency of officers and failure to instruct plaintiff, an inexperienced sailor, in his duties. Later he sought further damages for the same accident, for negligence of officers and employees in the operation of the vessel. Recovery was denied in the second suit on the ground that it was the same cause of action as the first.
In Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 311, we accepted a like state rule: “The state courts seem to have treated the complaint as setting up several bases for a single common-law cause of action in tort which had been remanded for retrial at the time the new statute was enacted. We must regard it in that same light.” So in Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U. S. 238, 246: “The bill alleges the violation of a single right, namely, the right to protection of the copyrighted play. And it is this violation which constitutes the cause of action. Indeed, the claims of infringement and unfair competition so precisely rest upon identical facts as to be little more than the equivalent of different epithets to characterize the same group of circumstances. The primary relief sought is an injunction to put an end to an essentially single wrong, however differently characterized, not to enjoin distinct wrongs constituting the basis for independent causes of action.” See Behrens v. Skelly, 173 F. 2d 715, 719; Cope v. Anderson, 331 U. S. 461, 466.
See a discussion of cause of action in code pleading. Clark on Code Pleading (2d ed.), 137 et seq.
Moore’s Commentary on the U. S. Judicial Code, supra, pp. 251-252: “But where the plaintiff joins two or more defendants to recover damages for one injury, and even though he charges them with joint and several liability or only several liability, or charges them with liability in the alternative, there is no joinder of separate and independent causes of action within the meaning of § 1441 (c). At most a separable controversy is presented where several or alternative liability is alleged, and is no longer the basis for removal.” Compare the opinion in Bentley v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 81 F. Supp. 323, with the reversing opinion in 174 F. 2d 788.
Baggs v. Martin, 179 U. S. 206; Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co. v. Perenchio, 205 F. 472; Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co., 2 F. 2d 435; Bailey v. Texas Co., 47 F. 2d 153.
E. g., in Baggs v. Martin, 179 U. S. 206, the federal court had jurisdiction over the property in the hands of the receiver and it was not a proceeding wherein “mere consent, or even voluntary action by the parties, . . . [conferred] jurisdiction upon a court which would not have possessed it without such consent or action.” P. 209.
See Burton-Lingo Co. v. Lay, 142 S. W. 2d 448; Spann Brothers Auto Supply Co. v. Miles, 135 S. W. 2d 1016, 1017.
People’s Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256, 260-261: “It needs no citation of authorities to show that the mere consent of parties cannot confer upon a court of the United States the jurisdiction to hear and decide a case. If this were once conceded, the Federal courts would become the common resort of persons who have no right, either under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, to litigate in those courts.”
Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 383, quoting with approval an excerpt from the dissent in the Dred Scott Case: “It is true ... as a general rule, that the court will not allow a party to rely on anything as cause for reversing a judgment, which was for his advantage. In this, we follow an ancient rule of the common law. But so careful was that law of the preservation of the course of its courts, that it made an exception out of that general rule, and allowed a party to assign for error that which was for his advantage, if it were a departure by the court itself from its settled course of procedure.”
Also see, e. g., Wabash R. Co. v. Barbour, 73 F. 513, 516; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126.
Issues not raised in the records or briefs are not passed upon, such as the propriety of the District Court’s allowing, after vacation of judgment, a motion to dismiss Reiss, the resident defendant; or the associated problem: whether, if such a dismissal is allowed, a new judgment can be entered on the old verdict without a new trial. These questions and like matters are for the consideration and decision of the District Court. See, e. g., Dollar S. S. Lines v. Merz, 68 F. 2d 594; International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. Donnelly Garment Co., 121 F. 2d 561.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the California Automobile Franchise Act, a motor vehicle manufacturer must secure the approval of the California New Motor Vehicle Board before opening a retail motor vehicle dealership within the market area of an existing franchisee, if and only if that existing franchisee protests the establishment of the competing dealership. The Act also directs the Board to notify the manufacturer of this statutory requirement upon the filing of a timely protest by an existing franchisee. The Board is not required to hold a hearing on the merits of the dealer protest before sending the manufacturer the notice of the requirement.
A three-judge District Court for the Central District of California entered a judgment declaring that the absence of such a prior-hearing requirement denied manufacturers and their proposed franchisees the procedural due process mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment, 440 F. Supp. 436 (1977). We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeals in both No. 77-837 and No. 77-849, 434 U. S. 1060 (1978). We now reverse.
I
The disparity in bargaining power between automobile manufacturers and their dealers prompted Congress and some 25 States to enact legislation to protect retail car dealers from perceived abusive and oppressive acts by the manufacturers. California’s version is its Automobile Franchise Act. Among its other safeguards, the Act protects the equities of existing dealers by prohibiting automobile manufacturers from adding dealerships to the market areas of its existing franchisees where the effect of such intrabrand competition would be injurious to the existing franchisees and to the public interest.
To enforce this prohibition, the Act requires an automobile manufacturer who proposes to establish a new retail automobile dealership in the State, or to relocate an existing one, first to give notice of such intention to the California New Motor Vehicle Board and to each of its existing franchisees in the same “line-make” of automobile located within the “relevant market area,” defined as “any area within a radius of 10 miles from the site of [the] potential new dealership.” If any existing franchisee within the market area protests to the Board within 15 days, the Board is required to convene a hearing within 60 days to determine whether there is good cause for refusing to permit the establishment or relocation of the dealership. The Board is also required to inform the franchisor, upon the filing of a timely protest,
“that a timely protest has been filed, that a hearing is required . . . , and that the franchisor shall not establish or relocate the proposed dealership until the board has held a hearing . . . , nor thereafter, if the board has determined that there is good cause, for not permitting such dealership.”
Violation of the statutory requirements by a franchisor is a misdemeanor and ground for suspension or revocation of a license to do business.
Appellee General Motors Corp. manufactures, among other makes, Buick and Chevrolet cars. Appellee Orrin W. Fox Co. signed a franchise agreement with appellee General Motors in May 1975 to establish a new Buick dealership in Pasadena. Appellee Muller Chevrolet agreed with appellee General Motors to transfer its existing Chevrolet franchise from Glendale to La Canada, Cal., in December 1975. The proposed establishment of Fox and relocation of Muller were protested respectively by existing Buick and Chevrolet dealers. The New Motor Vehicle Board responded, as required by the Act, by notifying appellees that the protests had been filed and that therefore they were not to establish or relocate the dealerships until the Board had held the hearings required by the Act, nor thereafter if the Board determined that there was good cause for not permitting such dealerships. Before either protest proceeded to a Board hearing, however, appellees General Motors, Fox, and Muller brought the instant action.
II
At the outset it is important to clarify the nature of the due process challenge before us. Appellees and the dissent characterize the statute as entitling a protesting dealership to a summary administrative adjudication in the-form of a notice having the effect of a temporary injunction restraining appellee General Motors’ exercise of its right to franchise at will. We disagree.
The Board’s notice has none of the attributes of an injunction. It creates no duty, violation of which would constitute contempt. Nor does it restrain appellee General Motors from exercising any right that it had previously enjoyed; General Motors had no interest in franchising that was immune from state regulation. It was the Act, not the Board’s notice, that curtailed General Motors’ right to franchise at will. The California Vehicle Code explicitly conditions a motor vehicle manufacturer’s right to terminate, open, or relocate a dealership upon the manufacturer’s compliance with the procedural requirements enacted in the Automobile Franchise Act and, if necessary, upon the approval of the New Motor Vehicle Board. The Board’s notice served only to inform appellee General Motors of this statutory scheme and to advise it of the status, pending the Board’s determination, of its franchise permit applications.
Moreover, the Board’s notice can hardly be characterized as an administrative order. Issuance of the notice did not involve the exercise of discretion. The notice neither found nor assumed the existence of any adjudicative facts. The notice did not terminate or suspend any right or interest that General Motors was then enjoying. The notice did not deprive General Motors of any personal property, or terminate any of the incidents of its license to do business.
Thus, this is not a case like Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972), and Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971), relied upon by appellees, in which a state official summarily finds or assumes the existence of certain adjudicative facts and based thereon suspends the enjoyment of an entitlement. There has not yet been either the determination of adjudicative facts, the exercise of discretion, or a suspension.
Notwithstanding all this, appellees argue that the state scheme deprives them of their liberty to pursue their lawful occupation without due process of law. Appellees contend that absent a prior individualized trial-type hearing they are constitutionally entitled to establish or relocate franchises while their applications for approval of such proposals are awaiting Board determination. Appellees’ argument rests on the assumption that General Motors has a due process protected interest right to franchise at will — which asserted right survived the passage of the California Automobile Franchise Act.
The narrow question before us, then, is whether California may, by rule or statute, temporarily delay the establishment or relocation of automobile dealerships pending the Board’s adjudication of the protests of existing dealers. Or stated conversely, the issue is whether, as the District Court held and the dissent argues, the right to franchise without delay is the sort of interest that may be suspended only on a case-by-case basis through prior individualized trial-type hearings.
We disagree with the District Court and the dissent. Even if the right to franchise had constituted a protected interest when California enacted the Automobile Franchise Act, California’s Legislature was still constitutionally empowered to enact a general scheme of business regulation that imposed reasonable restrictions upon the exercise of the right. “[T]he fact that a liberty cannot be inhibited without due process of law does not mean that it can under no circumstances be inhibited.” Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 14 (1965). At least since the demise of the concept of “substantive due process” in the area of economic regulation, this Court has recognized that, “[¡legislative bodies have broad scope to experiment with economic problems . . . .” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 730 (1963). States may, through general ordinances, restrict the commercial use of property, see Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926), and the geographical location of commercial enterprises, see Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 491 (1955). Moreover, “[c]ertain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. . . . [S]tatutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do enter into agreements, are within the state’s competency.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, 528 (1934).
In particular, the California Legislature was empowered to subordinate the franchise rights of automobile manufacturers to the conflicting rights of their franchisees where necessary to prevent unfair or oppressive trade practices. “[Sjtates have power to legislate against what are found to be injurious practices in their internal commercial and business affairs, so long as their laws do not run afoul of some specific federal constitutional prohibition, or of some valid federal law. . . . [T]he due process clause is [not] to be so broadly construed that the Congress and state legislatures are put in a straitjacket when they attempt to suppress business and industrial conditions which they regard as offensive to the public welfare.” Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U. S. 525, 536-537 (1949). See also North Dakota Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U. S. 156 (1973); Ferguson v. Skrupa, supra; Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., supra.
Further, the California Legislature had the authority to protect the conflicting rights of the motor vehicle franchisees through customary and reasonable procedural safeguards, i. e., by providing existing dealers with notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal — the New Motor Vehicle Board — before their franchisor is permitted to inflict upon them grievous loss. Such procedural safeguards cannot be said to deprive the franchisor of due process. States may, as California has done here, require businesses to secure regulatory approval before engaging in specified practices. See, e. g., North Dakota Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, supra (pharmacy-operating permit); St. Louis Poster Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 249 U. S. 269 (1919) (billboard permits) ; Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U. S. 539 (1917) (securities registration); Adams v. Milwaukee, 228 U. S. 572 (1913) (milk inspection); Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183 (1900) (cigarette sales license).
These precedents compel the conclusion that the District Court erred in holding that the California Legislature was powerless temporarily to delay appellees’ exercise of the right to grant or undertake a Buick or Chevrolet dealership and the right to move one’s business facilities from one location to another without providing a prior individualized trial-type hearing. Once having enacted a reasonable general scheme of business regulation, California was not required to provide for a prior individualized hearing each and every time the provisions of the Act had the effect of delaying consummation of the business plans of particular individuals. In the area of business regulation “[g]eneral 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.” Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. Colorado, 239 U. S. 441, 445 (1915).
Ill
Appellees and the dissent argue that the California scheme constitutes an impermissible delegation of state power to private citizens because the Franchise Act requires the Board to delay franchise establishments and relocations only when protested by existing franchisees who have unfettered discretion whether or not to protest.
The argument has no merit. Almost any system of private or quasi-private law could be subject to the same objection. Court approval of an eviction, for example, becomes necessary only when the tenant protests his eviction, and he alone decides whether he will protest. An otherwise valid regulation is not rendered invalid simply because those whom the regulation is designed to safeguard may elect to forgo its protection. See Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U. S. 526 (1917).
IV
Appellees next contend that the Automobile Franchise Act conflicts with the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. They argue that by delaying the establishment of automobile dealerships whenever competing dealers protest, the state scheme gives effect to privately initiated restraints on trade, and thus is invalid under Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384 (1951).
The dispositive answer is that the Automobile Franchise Act’s regulatory scheme is a system of regulation, clearly articulated and afflrmatively expressed, designed to displace unfettered business freedom in the matter of the establishment and relocation of automobile dealerships. The regulation is therefore outside the reach of the antitrust laws under the “state action” exemption. Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977). See also City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U. S. 389 (1978).
The Act does not lose this exemption simply because, as part of its regulatory framework, it accords existing dealers notice and an opportunity to be heard before their franchisor is permitted to locate a dealership likely to subject them to injurious and possibly illegal competition. Protests serve only to trigger Board action. They do not mandate significant delay. On the contrary, the Board has the authority to order an immediate hearing on a dealer protest if it concludes that the public interest so requires. The duration of interim restraint is subject to ongoing regulatory supervision.
Appellees’ reliance upon Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., supra, is misplaced. In Schwegmann, the State attempted to authorize and immunize private conduct viola-tive of the antitrust laws. California has not done that here. Protesting dealers who invoke in good faith their statutory right to governmental action in the form of a Board determination that there is good cause for not permitting a proposed dealership do not violate the Sherman Act, Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127 (1961), and Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U. S. 657, 670 (1965)
Appellees also argue conflict with the Sherman Act because the Automobile Franchise Act permits auto dealers to invoke state power for the purpose of restraining intrabrand competition. “This is merely another way of stating that the . . . statute will have an anticompetitive effect. In this sense, there is a conflict between the statute and the central policy of the Sherman Act — ‘our charter of economic liberty.’ . . . Nevertheless, this sort of conflict cannot itself constitute a sufficient reason for invalidating the . . . statute. For if an adverse effect on competition were, in and of itself, enough to render a state statute invalid, the States’ power to engage in economic regulation would be effectively destroyed.” Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U. S. 117, 133 (1978).
Reversed.
The pertinent provisions of the Automobile Franchise Act are as follows:
“3062. Establishing or relocating dealerships
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), in the event that a franchisor seeks to enter into a franchise establishing an additional motor vehicle dealership within a relevant market area where the same line-make is then represented, or relocating an existing motor vehicle dealership the franchisor shall in writing first notify the Board and each franchisee in such line-make in the relevant market area of his intention to establish an additional dealership or to relocate an existing dealership within or into that market area. Within 15 days of receiving such notice or within 15 days after the end of any appeal procedure provided by the franchisor, any such franchisee may file with the board a protest to the establishing or relocating of the dealership. When such a protest is filed, the board shall inform the franchisor that a timely protest has been filed, that a hearing is required pursuant to Section 3066, and that the franchisor shall not establish or relocate the proposed dealership until the board has held a hearing as provided in Section 3066, nor thereafter, if the board has determined that there is good cause for not permitting such dealership. In the event of multiple protests, hearings may be consolidated to expedite the disposition of the issue.
“For the purposes of this section, the reopening in a relevant market area of a dealership that has not been in operation for one year or more shall be deemed the establishment of an additional motor vehicle dealership.
“3063. Good cause
“In determining whether good cause has been established for not entering into or relocating an additional franchise for the same line-make, the board shall take into consideration the existing circumstances, including, but not limited to:
“(1) Permanency of the investment.
“(2) Effect on the retail motor vehicle business and the consuming public in the relevant market area.
“(3) Whether it is injurious to the public welfare for an additional franchise to be established.
“(4) Whether the franchisees of the same line-make in that relevant market area are providing adequate competition and convenient consumer care for the motor vehicles of the line-make in the market area which shall include the adequacy of motor vehicle sales and service facilities, equipment, supply of vehicle parts, and qualified service personnel.
“(5) Whether the establishment of an additional franchise would increase competition and therefore be in the public interest.” Cal. Veh. Code Ann. §§ 3062, 3063 (West Supp. 1978).
Appellants in No. 77-849 were made defendants in intervention by uneontested order of the District Court.
On application of appellants in No. 77-837, Mr. Justice RehNQüist stayed the District Court judgment, 434 U. S. 1345, (1977) (in chambers).
Appellants in No. 77-837 argue that the District Court should have abstained under the rule of Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941), arguing that the state courts might have construed the Automobile Franchise Act so as to limit or avoid the federal constitutional question. The District Court correctly refused to abstain. Abstention may appropriately be denied where, as here, there is no ambiguity in the challenged state statute. See Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433, 439 (1971).
A congressional Committee reported in 1956:
“Automobile production is one of the most highly concentrated industries in the United States, a matter of grave concern to officers of the Government charged with enforcement of the antitrust laws. Today there exist only 5 passenger-ear manufacturers, 3 of which produce in excess of 95 percent of all passenger cars sold in the United States. There are approximately 40,000 franchised automobile dealers distributing to the public cars produced by these manufacturers. Dealers have an average investment of about $100,000. This vast disparity in economic power and bargaining strength has enabled the factory to determine arbitrarily the rules by which the two parties conduct their business affairs. These rules are incorporated in the sales agreement or franchise which the manufacturer has prepared for the dealer’s signature.
“Dealers are with few exceptions completely dependent on the manufacturer for their supply of cars. When the dealer has invested to the extent required to secure a franchise, he becomes in a real sense the economic captive of his manufacturer. The substantial investment of his own personal funds by the dealer in the business, the inability to convert easily the facilities to other uses, the dependence upon a single manufacturer for supply of automobiles, and the difficulty of obtaining a franchise from another manufacturer all contribute toward making the dealer an easy prey for domination by the factory. On the other hand, from the standpoint of the automobile manufacturer, any single dealer is expendable. The faults of the factory-dealer system are directly attributable to the superior market position of the manufacturer.” S. Rep. No. 2073, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1956). See also S. Macaulay, Law and the Balance of Power: The Automobile Manufacturers and Their Dealers (1966).
See Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1221-1225; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-1304.02 (1976); Cal. Veh. Code Ann. §3060 et seq. (West Supp. 1978); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-6-120 (1973); Fla. Stat. §320.641 (1977); Ga. Code § 84-6610 (f) (Supp. 1977); Haw. Rev. Stat. §437-33 (1976); Idaho Code §49-1901 et seq. (1967); Iowa Code § 322A.2 (1977); Md. Transp. Code Ann. § 15-207 (1977); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 93B, § 4 (3) (West Supp. 1978-1979); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-1422 (1974); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 357-B:4 III (c) (Supp. 1977); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 64-37-5 (Supp. 1975); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 20-305 (5) (1978); N. D. Cent. Code §51-07-01.1 (Supp. 1977); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4517.41 (Supp. 1977); Okla. Stat., Tit. 47, §565 (j) (Supp. 1978); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 63, § 805 (Purdon Supp. 1978-1979); R. I. Gen. Laws §31-5.1-4 (Supp. 1977); S. C. Code § 56-15-40 (3) (c) (1977); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 32-6A-5 (1976); Tenn. Code Ann. § 59-1714 (c) (Supp. 1978); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 9, § 4074 (Supp. 1977-1978); Va. Code § 46.1-547 (Supp. 1978); W. Va. Code § 47-17-5 (Supp. 1978); Wis. Stat. Ann. §218.01 (1957 and Supp. 1978-1979).
California first adopted special regulations applicable to dealers and manufacturers of automobiles in 1923. 1923 Cal. Stats., ch. 266, §§ 46 (a), (b). These required dealers and manufacturers to apply for certification and special identifying license plates as a condition of exemption from generally applicable registration requirements. In 1957 the former certification procedure became a licensing provision, and all automobile dealers were required to apply for licenses to qualify for and continue to hold the registration exemption. 1957 Cal. Stats., ch. 1319, § 7. In addition, it became unlawful on and after October 1, 1957, to act as a dealer without having procured a license. Ibid. The prohibition on unlicensed activity was extended to manufacturers and motor vehicle transporters by 1967 Cal. Stats., ch. 557, § 1. That statute made it unlawful for any person to act as a dealer, manufacturer, or transporter of motor vehicles without a valid license and certificate issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. §2. The 1967 statute also created the New Motor Vehicle Board, originally empowered to handle licensing of new automobile retail dealerships and to review decisions of the Department of Motor Vehicles disciplining dealers. Its powers were expanded in 1973 by the Automobile Franchise Act to empower the Board to deal with the establishment of new franchises and the relocation of existing franchises. The California Legislature expressly stated that this Act was passed “in order to avoid undue control of the independent new motor vehicle dealer by the vehicle manufacturer or distributor and to insure that dealers fulfill their obligations under their franchises and provide adequate and sufficient service to consumers generally.” 1973 Cal. Stats., ch. 996, § 1. The Act also sets forth rules and procedures governing franchise cancellations, delivery and preparation obligations and warranty reimbursement. See Cal. Veh. Code Ann. §§ 3060, 3061, 3064, and 3065 (West Supp. 1978).
For a helpful discussion of the purpose served by such laws — the promotion of fair dealing and the protection of small business — see Forest Home Dodge, Inc. v. Karns, 29 Wis. 2d 78, 138 N. W. 2d 214 (1965). This concern has prompted at least 18 other States to enact statutes which, like the Automobile Franchise Act, prescribe conditions under which new or additional dealerships may be permitted in the territory of the existing dealership. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-1304.02 (1976); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-6-120 (1973); Fla. Stat. §320.642 (1977); Ga. Code §§84-6610 (f)(8), (10) (Supp. 1977); Haw. Rev. Stat. §§437-28 (a), (b) (22) (1976); Iowa Code § 322A.4 (1977); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 93B, § 4 (3) (e) (1) (West Supp. 1978-1979); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-1422 (1974); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §357-B:4 III (c) (Supp. 1977); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 64-37-5 (Supp. 1975); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 20-305 (5) (1978) ; R. I. Gen. Laws § 31-5.1-4 (C) (11) (Supp. 1977); S. D. Comp.'Laws Ann. §§ 32-6A-3 to 32-6A-4 (1976); Tenn. Code Ann. § 59-1714 (Supp. 1978); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 9, § 4074 (c) (9) (Supp. 1977-1978); Va. Code § 46.1-547 (d) (Supp. 1978); W. Va. Code § 47-17-5 (i) (Supp. 1978); Wis. Stat. Ann. §§218.01 (3), (8) (1957 and Supp. 1978-1979).
See Cal. Veh. Code Ann. § 507 (West Supp. 1978).
Within 30 days after the hearing, or of a decision of a hearing officer, the Board must render its decision, or the establishment or relocation of the proposed franchise is deemed approved. See Cal. Veh. Code Ann. §3067 (West Supp. 1978).
See n. 1, supra.
California Veh. Code Ann. § 11713.2 (West Supp. 1978) provides:
“It shall be unlawful and a violation of this code for any manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch licensed under this code:
“(1) To modify, replace, enter into, relocate, terminate or refuse to renew a franchise in violation of Article 4 (commencing with Section 3060) of Chapter 6 of Division 2.”
The California Legislature expressly identified the state interests being served by the Franchise Act as “the general economy of the state and the public welfare . . which made it “necessary to regulate and to license vehicle dealers [and] manufacturers . . . .” The statute states:
“[T]he distribution and sale of new motor vehicles in the State of California vitally affects the general economy of the state and the public welfare and ... in order to promote the public welfare and in the exercise of its police power, it is necessary to regulate and to license vehicle dealers, manufacturers, manufacturer branches, distributors, distributor branches, and representatives of vehicle manufacturers and distributors doing business in California in order to avoid undue control of the independent new motor vehicle dealer by the vehicle manufacturer or distributor and to insure that dealers fulfill their obligations under their franchises and provide adequate and sufficient service to consumers generally.” 1973 Cal. Stats., ch. 996, § 1.
The District Court did not pass upon this contention. We choose to address it because the underlying facts are undisputed and the question presented is purely one of law.
Appellees state, without challenge by appellants: “117 protests have been filed under § 3062 since the Act became effective (July 1, 1974). Of these, only 42 have gone to a hearing on the merits, and only one has been sustained by the Board .... Thus, of 117 automatic temporary injunctions issued by the Board, only one ever matured into a permanent injunction.” Brief for Appellees 10 n. 13.
Dealers who press sham protests before the New Motor Vehicle Board for the sole purpose of delaying the establishment of competing dealerships may be vulnerable to suits under the federal antitrust laws. See California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508 (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: | 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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Certain provisions of the Social Security Act in effect between 1979 and 1983 authorized payment of survivor’s benefits from a wage earner’s account to a widowed spouse who remarried after age 60, but not to a similarly situated divorced widowed spouse. The question in this case is whether those provisions violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
I
The Social Security Act (Act) originally provided only primary benefits to qualified wage earners. Congress later provided secondary benefits to wives, widows, dependent children, and surviving parents of the wage earner. At that time, widows and other secondary beneficiaries would lose their entitlement to survivor’s benefits upon a subsequent marriage. In 1950, Congress extended secondary benefits to dependent husbands and widowers, subject to the same restriction. In 1958, Congress created an exception to this remarriage rule so that if a widow or widower married an individual who received benefits under the Act, neither would forfeit survivor’s benefits.
Until 1965, divorced wives, including those who had outlived their former spouse (divorced widows), were not eligible for the same benefits provided to wives and widows. In that year, Congress amended § 202(b) of the Act to extend wife’s benefits to a divorced wife and survivor’s benefits to a divorced widow if the recipient had been married to her former husband for at least 20 years, and had received more than one-half of her support from him or an agreement or court order required him to make substantial contributions to her support. Pub. L. 89-97, § 308(a), 79 Stat. 375-376. Divorced wives and divorced widows were also subject to the same remarriage rule that had been applied to widows and widowers. In these amendments, however, Congress changed the remarriage rule as it applied to widows and widowers. The new rule provided that if a widow or widower over age 60 married someone who was not entitled to receive certain benefits under the Act, she or he would not completely forfeit survivor’s benefits. Instead, the benefits were reduced to half of the primary wage earner’s benefits. §§ 333(a)(1) and (b)(1), 79 Stat. 403, 404.
In 1977, Congress again relaxed the remarriage provision for widows and widowers, allowing them to receive unreduced survivor’s benefits if they remarried after age 60. The effective date of that amendment was 1979. Pub. L. 95-216, §§ 336(a)(3), (b)(3), (c)(1), 91 Stat. 1547. But Congress retained until 1983 the provision that generally barred a divorced wife or divorced widow from receiving benefits upon remarriage. See §§ 202(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), §§ 202(e)(1)(A), (e)(1)(F). The present case involves this temporary disparity in benefits received upon remarriage.
As a result of a pair of District Court sex discrimination opinions that invalidated portions of the Act, Ambrose v. Califano, CCH Unempl. Ins. Rep. ¶ 17,702 (Ore. 1980); Oli ver v. Califano, CCH Unempl. Ins. Rep. ¶ 15,244 (ND Cal. 1977), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) promulgated regulations providing that divorced husbands and divorced widowers would receive husband’s benefits and survivor’s benefits to the same extent as divorced wives and divorced widows received wife’s benefits and survivor’s benefits. 44 Fed. Reg. 34480, 34483-34484 (1979); see 20 CFR §§404.331, 404.336 (1985). In 1983 Congress amended the Act to incorporate these regulatory changes. Pub. L. 98-21, § 301(b)(1), 97 Stat. 111. In the same bill, Congress provided that divorced widowed spouses who remarry after age 60 are eligible to receive survivor’s benefits in the same manner as widows and widowers.
II
Appellee Buenta Owens married Russell Judd in 1937 and was divorced from him in 1968. In 1978, when she was 61, she married appellee Kenneth Owens. Judd died on June 19,1982. On July 30,1982, Owens applied for widow’s benefits on Judd’s earnings account as a divorced widow. Her claim was denied on August 27,1982, because she had remarried. She sought administrative reconsideration, contending that the statutory provision denying benefits because of her remarriage was unconstitutional. Her claim again was denied. Subsequently, Owens and the Secretary entered into an agreement stipulating that the only disputed issue was the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act that at that time denied widow’s benefits to divorced widows who remarried. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 402(e)(1)(A), (e)(4). The parties also stipulated that, but for the relevant provisions, Owens’ right to the benefits had been established. Based on that agreement, the parties waived any further administrative review. On April 19, 1983, Owens filed this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and sought to represent a nationwide class of divorced widowed spouses.
On December 23, 1983, the District Court rejected Owens’ constitutional challenge. Applying the rational-basis standard of review, the court reasoned that Congress was justified in taking one step at a time in extending benefits to spouses who had remarried. While Owens’ motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 was pending, the 1983 amendments to the Act went into effect, so that all otherwise eligible members of the class became entitled to receive monthly survivor’s benefits beginning in January 1984. Subsequently, the court certified a nationwide plaintiffs’ class, consisting of all divorced widowed spouses who remarried after age 60 and who were denied benefits between December 1978 and January 1984.
On October 5, 1984, the District Court reversed its prior ruling on the merits and held the challenged provisions unconstitutional. The court agreed with the Secretary that Congress rationally could assume that widowed spouses are generally more dependent on income from the deceased wage earner than are divorced widowed spouses. It reasoned, however, that because Congress in 1977 had chosen to treat surviving divorced spouses and widowed spouses in the same manner upon the death of the wage earner, there was no logical basis for distinguishing between the two classes of individuals upon their subsequent remarriage. The Secretary appealed directly to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252. We noted probable jurisdiction, Heckler v. Owens, 474 U. S. 1046 (1985). We now reverse.
Ill
Congress faces an unusually difficult task in providing for the distribution of benefits under the Act. The program is a massive one, and requires Congress to make many distinctions among classes of beneficiaries while making allocations from a finite fund. In that context, our review is deferential. “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.’” Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S. 181, 185 (1976), quoting Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 640 (1937). As this Court explained in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 611 (1960):
“Particularly when we deal with a withholding of a non-contractual benefit under a social welfare program such as [Social Security], we must recognize that the Due Process Clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification.”
When the challenged classification in this case is examined in the light of these principles, it cannot be said that the distinctions Congress made were arbitrary or irrational.
A
We have previously noted that “[t]he entitlement of any secondary beneficiary is predicated on his or her relationship to a contributing wage earner.” Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 52 (1977). In determining who is eligible for such benefits, the scope of the program does not allow for “individualized proof on a case-by-case basis.” Ibid. Congress “has elected to use simple criteria, such as age and marital status, to determine probable dependency.” Ibid. In particular, Congress has used marital status as a general guide to dependency on the wage earner: “The idea that marriage changes dependency is expressed throughout the Social Security Act.” Id., at 52, n. 8. One example of this assumption is Congress’ original decision to terminate the benefits of all secondary beneficiaries, including widowed spouses, who remarried. When Congress subsequently made divorced widowed spouses eligible for survivor’s benefits, it also imposed on them the rule that remarriage terminated benefits. This remarriage rule was based on the assumption that remarriage altered the status of dependency on the wage earner. This Court upheld the validity of that general assumption in Jobst. Id., at 53.
Congress was not constitutionally obligated to continue to extend benefits to any remarried secondary beneficiary. It nevertheless chose to do so, but in gradual steps. In 1965, Congress provided that if a widow or widower remarried after age 60, she or he would receive reduced benefits. In 1977, Congress provided that if a widow or widower remarried after age 60, she or he would continue to receive full survivor’s benefits. Finally, in 1983, Congress amended the Act to provide that divorced widowed spouses who remarry after age 60 may receive survivor’s benefits in the same manner as widows and widowers. Appellees complain that Congress’ failure in 1977 to extend benefits to divorced widowed spouses who had remarried was irrational.
This Court consistently has recognized that in addressing complex problems a legislature “may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.” Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489 (1955). That is precisely what Congress has done in this case. When Congress decided to create some exceptions to the remarriage rule, it was not required to take an all-or-nothing approach. Instead, it chose to proceed more cautiously. It had valid reasons for doing so.
The House version of the 1977 bill contained a complete elimination of the general rule terminating benefits upon a subsequent marriage. H. R. Rep. No. 95-702, pt. 1, pp. 47-48 (1977). The House version would have created in the first year of operation alone 670,000 more beneficiaries than under the pre-1977 system, costing $1.3 billion in additional benefits each year. Ibid,. Faced with these concerns, Congress reasonably could decide to “concentrate limited funds where the need [was] likely to be greatest.” Califano v. Boles, 443 U. S. 282, 296 (1979). It chose only to create an exception for widows and widowers, who presumably were more likely to depend on their spouses for financial support than were divorced widows and widowers. While it may have been feasible to have extended benefits to divorced widowed spouses in 1979 rather than 1983, Congress was not constitutionally obligated to do so.
Congress’ adjustments of this complex system of entitlements necessarily create distinctions among categories of beneficiaries, a result that could be avoided only by making sweeping changes in the Act instead of incremental ones. A constitutional rule that would invalidate Congress’ attempts to proceed cautiously in awarding increased benefits might deter Congress from making any increases at all. The Due Process Clause does not impose any such “‘constitutional straitjacket.’” De Castro, 429 U. S., at 185, quoting Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 546 (1972). As we recognized in Jobst:
“Congress could reasonably take one firm step toward the goal of eliminating the hardship caused by the general marriage rule without accomplishing its entire objective in the same piece of legislation. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489. Even if it might have been wiser to take a larger step, the step Congress did take was in the right direction and had no adverse impact on persons like the Jobsts.” 434 U. S., at 57-58.
Congress drew a reasonable line in a process that soon increased benefits to all relevant beneficiaries.
B
The District Court correctly reasoned that under De Castro and Boles, it was rational for Congress to assume that divorced widowed spouses are generally less dependent upon the resources of their former spouses than are widows and widowers. It held, however, that because Congress had chosen to treat widowed spouses and divorced widowed spouses identically upon the death of the wage earner, there was no rational basis for distinguishing between them if they remarried. The logic of the District Court’s position depends on a showing that Congress did not distinguish between divorced widowed spouses and widowed spouses prior to remarriage. Apparently the District Court inferred that because both divorced widowed spouses and widowed spouses were entitled to survivor’s benefits, Congress viewed the groups as equally dependent on the wage earner. Such an inference is belied by the history and provisions of the Act.
When Congress first began to make divorced wives eligible for wives’ benefits in 1965, it focused on that group of divorced wives whose marriages ended after many years, when they might be “too old to build up a substantial social security earnings record even if [they] can find a job.” H. R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 107-108 (1965). To that end, divorced wives were eligible for wife’s benefits only if they had been married to the wage earner for 20 years and received substantial support from him. It was not until 1972 that Congress dropped the requirement of showing support from the wage earner. Even then, Congress retained the 20-year marriage requirement.
Congress has made the same distinctions in its treatment of divorced widowed spouses. When they first became eligible for survivor’s benefits in 1965, it was under the same basic eligibility rules that applied to divorced spouses. During the relevant time of this lawsuit, divorced spouses and divorced widowed spouses had to have been married to the wage earner for at least 10 years to receive benefits. That precondition did not have to be met by spouses or widows.
These eligibility requirements demonstrate that Congress adhered to the general assumption, approved in De Castro, that divorce normally reduces dependency on the wage earner. The fact that Congress awards benefits to divorced widowed spouses once the eligibility requirements are met does not necessarily mean that their dependency is equivalent to that of widows or widowers. Congress may view the 10-year-marriage requirement as a lesser showing of dependency, but still sufficient to justify extension of benefits. Presumably Congress concluded that remarriage sufficiently reduced that lesser dependency to the point where it could conclude that benefits no longer were appropriate. These views would be consistent with the position Congress has taken throughout the history of the Act that divorced spouses are less dependent on the wage earner than spouses. Because divorced widowed spouses did not enter into marriage with the same level of dependency on the wage earner’s account as widows or widowers, it was rational for Congress to treat these groups differently after remarriage.
IV
The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In 1972, Congress eliminated the requirement that a divorced wife or divorced widow show a specified level of support from her former husband, but retained the 20-years-of-marriage requirement. Pub. L. 92-603, §§ 114(a), (b), 86 Stat. 1348.
Congress also reduced the 20-years-of-marriage requirement for divorced wives and divorced widows to 10 years.
Appellee Kenneth Owens had been married to Dorothy L. Owens for over 34 years when they were divorced in 1978. In that same year he married Buenta Owens. He was 60 years old. In 1982 he applied for survivor’s benefits based on the earnings account of his former wife, who had died. His claim was denied at the initial stage and again in a reconsideration decision in 1983. He and the Secretary also reached an agreement to waive any further administrative review. Kenneth Owens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the constitutionality of the statutory provisions with an argument virtually identical to his wife’s. When he filed his lawsuit, the District Court already had ruled in favor of the Secretary in Buenta Owens’ suit, and her motion for reconsideration was pending. The court consolidated Kenneth Owens' suit with that of his wife. Kenneth Owens died during the pendency of this suit before this Court. Buenta Owens moved to be substituted for him as an appellee in this case, a motion we granted on February 24, 1985. Because appellees raise identical arguments, the discussion of Kenneth Owens’ case is subsumed in the discussion of Buenta Owens’ case.
The Secretary disputes the propriety of the class certification and in particular the District Court’s conclusion that the waiver of further administrative review as to the named appellees had the effect of waiving exhaustion requirements as to all the members of the class. Because we reject the equal protection claim, we do not reach the class certification issue.
In 1958, Congress amended this strict remarriage rule to provide that benefits would not be terminated if a widow or widower married a person who was also entitled to benefits under the Act. Pub. L. 85-840, §§ 307(b), (e), 72 Stat. 1031.
In addition to widowed spouses and divorced widowed spouses, the expanded class of beneficiaries would have included surviving parents and surviving children.
The contemporaneous legislative history does not reveal what portion of that figure would have been attributable to divorced widowed spouses. A budgetary report on the 1983 amendments that eliminated the distinction between widowed spouses and divorced widowed spouses estimated the cost of that amendment as less than $50 million a year. Congress in 1977 was not required to separate out the $1.3 billion cost figure by subcategories. It was free to continue to extend benefits following marriage only to that group of secondary beneficiaries most closely tied to the wage earner, consistent with the general purposes of the Act. That $50 million annual cost is sufficient to justify fiscal concern.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 proscribes discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 78 Stat. 255, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The Act also prohibits retaliation against persons who assert rights under the statute. § 2000e-3(a). As a precondition to the commencement of a Title VII action in court, a complainant must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission). § 2000e-5(e)(1), (f)(1). The question this case presents: Is Title VII's charge-filing precondition to suit a "jurisdictional" requirement that can be raised at any stage of a proceeding; or is it a procedural prescription mandatory if timely raised, but subject to forfeiture if tardily asserted? We hold that Title VII's charge-filing instruction is not jurisdictional, a term generally reserved to describe the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction) or the persons over whom a court may exercise adjudicatory authority (personal jurisdiction). Kontrick v. Ryan , 540 U.S. 443, 455, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004). Prerequisites to suit like Title VII's charge-filing instruction are not of that character; they are properly ranked among the array of claim-processing rules that must be timely raised to come into play.
I
Title VII directs that a "charge ... shall be filed" with the EEOC "by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved" within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occur[s]." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (e)(1). For complaints concerning a practice occurring in a State or political subdivision that has a fair employment agency of its own empowered "to grant or seek relief," Title VII instructs the complainant to file her charge first with the state or local agency. § 2000e-5(c). The complainant then has 300 days following the challenged practice, or 30 days after receiving notice that state or local proceedings have ended, "whichever is earlier," to file a charge with the EEOC. § 2000e-5(e)(1). If the state or local agency has a "worksharing" agreement with the EEOC, a complainant ordinarily need not file separately with federal and state agencies. She may file her charge with one agency, and that agency will then relay the charge to the other. See 29 CFR § 1601.13 (2018) ; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 3.
When the EEOC receives a charge, in contrast to agencies like the National Labor Relations Board, 29 U.S.C. § 160, and the Merit Systems Protection Board, 5 U.S.C. § 1204, it does not "adjudicate [the] clai[m]," Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. , 415 U.S. 36, 44, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974). Instead, Title VII calls for the following course. Upon receiving a charge, the EEOC notifies the employer and investigates the allegations. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). If the Commission finds "reasonable cause" to believe the charge is true, the Act instructs the Commission to "endeavor to eliminate [the] alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion." Ibid. When informal methods do not resolve the charge, the EEOC has first option to "bring a civil action" against the employer in court. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Where the discrimination charge is lodged against state or local government employers, the Attorney General is the federal authority empowered to commence suit. Ibid.
In the event that the EEOC determines there is "n[o] reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true," the Commission is to dismiss the charge and notify the complainant of his or her right to sue in court. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), f(1); 29 CFR § 1601.28. Whether or not the EEOC acts on the charge, a complainant is entitled to a "right-to-sue" notice 180 days after the charge is filed. § 2000e-5(f)(1) ; 29 CFR § 1601.28. And within 90 days following such notice, the complainant may commence a civil action against the allegedly offending employer. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
II
Respondent Lois M. Davis worked in information technology for petitioner Fort Bend County. In 2010, she informed Fort Bend's human resources department that the director of information technology, Charles Cook, was sexually harassing her. Following an investigation by Fort Bend, Cook resigned. Davis' supervisor at Fort Bend, Kenneth Ford, was well acquainted with Cook. After Cook resigned, Davis alleges, Ford began retaliating against her for reporting Cook's sexual harassment. Ford did so, according to Davis, by, inter alia , curtailing her work responsibilities.
Seeking redress for the asserted harassment and retaliation, Davis submitted an "intake questionnaire" in February 2011, followed by a charge in March 2011. While her EEOC charge was pending, Davis was told to report to work on an upcoming Sunday. Davis informed her supervisor Ford that she had a commitment at church that Sunday, and she offered to arrange for another employee to replace her at work. Ford responded that if Davis did not show up for the Sunday work, she would be subject to termination. Davis went to church, not work, that Sunday. Fort Bend thereupon fired her.
Attempting to supplement the allegations in her charge, Davis handwrote "religion" on the "Employment Harms or Actions" part of her intake questionnaire, and she checked boxes for "discharge" and "reasonable accommodation" on that form. She made no change, however, in the formal charge document. A few months later, the Department of Justice notified Davis of her right to sue.
In January 2012, Davis commenced a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging discrimination on account of religion and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. The District Court granted Fort Bend's motion for summary judgment. Davis v. Fort Bend County , 2013 WL 5157191 (SD Tex., Sept. 11, 2013). On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed as to Davis' retaliation claim, but reversed as to her religion-based discrimination claim. Davis v. Fort Bend County , 765 F. 3d 480 (2014). Fort Bend filed a petition for certiorari, which this Court denied. 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2804, 192 L.Ed.2d 847 (2015).
When the case returned to the District Court on Davis' claim of discrimination on account of religion, Fort Bend moved to dismiss the complaint. Years into the litigation, Fort Bend asserted for the first time that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Davis' religion-based discrimination claim because she had not stated such a claim in her EEOC charge. Granting the motion, the District Court held that Davis had not satisfied the charge-filing requirement with respect to her claim of religion-based discrimination, and that the requirement qualified as "jurisdictional," which made it nonforfeitable. 2016 WL 4479527 (SD Tex., Aug. 24, 2016).
The Fifth Circuit reversed. 893 F. 3d 300 (2018). Title VII's charge-filing requirement, the Court of Appeals held, is not jurisdictional; instead, the requirement is a prudential prerequisite to suit, forfeited in Davis' case because Fort Bend did not raise it until after "an entire round of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court." Id. , at 307-308.
We granted Fort Bend's petition for certiorari, 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 915, 202 L.Ed.2d 641 (2019), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether Title VII's charge-filing requirement is jurisdictional. Compare, e.g. , 893 F. 3d at 306 (case below) (charge-filing requirement is nonjurisdictional), with, e.g. , Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd. , 551 F. 3d 297, 300 (CA4 2009) (federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction when the charge-filing requirement is not satisfied).
III
"Jurisdiction," the Court has observed, "is a word of many, too many, meanings." Kontrick , 540 U.S. at 454, 124 S.Ct. 906 (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment , 523 U.S. 83, 90, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) ). In recent years, the Court has undertaken "[t]o ward off profligate use of the term." Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center , 568 U.S. 145, 153, 133 S.Ct. 817, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013). As earlier noted, see supra , at ----, the word "jurisdictional" is generally reserved for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons over whom the court may exercise adjudicatory authority (personal jurisdiction). Kontrick , 540 U.S. at 455, 124 S.Ct. 906.
Congress may make other prescriptions jurisdictional by incorporating them into a jurisdictional provision, as Congress has done with the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal-court diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,000 ... and is between (1) citizens of different States ...."). In addition, the Court has stated it would treat a requirement as "jurisdictional" when "a long line of [Supreme] Cour[t] decisions left undisturbed by Congress" attached a jurisdictional label to the prescription. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers , 558 U.S. 67, 82, 130 S.Ct. 584, 175 L.Ed.2d 428 (2009) (citing Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 209-211, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) ). See also John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States , 552 U.S. 130, 132, 128 S.Ct. 750, 169 L.Ed.2d 591 (2008).
Characterizing a rule as a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction "renders it unique in our adversarial system." Auburn , 568 U.S. at 153, 133 S.Ct. 817. Unlike most arguments, challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by the defendant "at any point in the litigation," and courts must consider them sua sponte . Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 141, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012). "[H]arsh consequences" attend the jurisdictional brand. United States v. Kwai Fun Wong , 575 U.S. 402, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1625, 1632, 191 L.Ed.2d 533 (2015)."Tardy jurisdictional objections" occasion wasted court resources and "disturbingly disarm litigants." Auburn , 568 U.S. at 153, 133 S.Ct. 817.
The Court has therefore stressed the distinction between jurisdictional prescriptions and nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, which "seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain specified times." Henderson v. Shinseki , 562 U.S. 428, 435, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011). A claim-processing rule may be "mandatory" in the sense that a court must enforce the rule if a party "properly raise[s]" it. Eberhart v. United States , 546 U.S. 12, 19, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam ). But an objection based on a mandatory claim-processing rule may be forfeited "if the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the point." Id. , at 15, 126 S.Ct. 403 (quoting Kontrick , 540 U.S. at 456, 124 S.Ct. 906 ).
The Court has characterized as nonjurisdictional an array of mandatory claim-processing rules and other preconditions to relief. These include: the Copyright Act's requirement that parties register their copyrights (or receive a denial of registration from the Copyright Register) before commencing an infringement action, Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick , 559 U.S. 154, 157, 163-164, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010) ; the Railway Labor Act's direction that, before arbitrating, parties to certain railroad labor disputes "attempt settlement 'in conference,' " Union Pacific , 558 U.S. at 82, 130 S.Ct. 584 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 152 ); the Clean Air Act's instruction that, to maintain an objection in court on certain issues, one must first raise the objection "with reasonable specificity" during agency rulemaking, EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L. P. , 572 U.S. 489, 511-512, 134 S.Ct. 1584, 188 L.Ed.2d 775 (2014) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) ); the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's requirement that a certificate of appealability "indicate [the] specific issue" warranting issuance of the certificate, Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 137, 132 S.Ct. 641 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3) ); Title VII's limitation of covered "employer[s]" to those with 15 or more employees, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 503-504, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) ); Title VII's time limit for filing a charge with the EEOC, Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. , 455 U.S. 385, 393, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982) ; and several other time prescriptions for procedural steps in judicial or agency forums. See, e.g. , Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago , 583 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 13, 17, 199 L.Ed.2d 249 (2017) ; Musacchio v. United States , 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 709, 716-717, 193 L.Ed.2d 639 (2016) ; Kwai Fun Wong , 575 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1633-1634 ; Auburn , 568 U.S. at 149, 133 S.Ct. 817 ; Henderson , 562 U.S. at 431, 131 S.Ct. 1197 ; Eberhart , 546 U.S. at 13, 126 S.Ct. 403 ; Scarborough v. Principi , 541 U.S. 401, 414, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004) ; Kontrick , 540 U.S. at 447, 124 S.Ct. 906.
While not demanding that Congress "incant magic words" to render a prescription jurisdictional, Auburn , 568 U.S. at 153, 133 S.Ct. 817, the Court has clarified that it would "leave the ball in Congress' court": "If the Legislature clearly states that a [prescription] count[s] as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue[;] [b]ut when Congress does not rank a [prescription] as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character." Arbaugh , 546 U.S. at 515-516, 126 S.Ct. 1235 (footnote and citation omitted).
IV
Title VII's charge-filing requirement is not of jurisdictional cast. Federal courts exercise jurisdiction over Title VII actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331's grant of general federal-question jurisdiction, and Title VII's own jurisdictional provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (giving federal courts "jurisdiction [over] actions brought under this subchapter"). Separate provisions of Title VII, § 2000e-5(e)(1) and (f)(1), contain the Act's charge-filing requirement. Those provisions "d[o] not speak to a court's authority," EME Homer , 572 U.S. at 512, 134 S.Ct. 1584, or "refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the district courts," Arbaugh , 546 U.S. at 515, 126 S.Ct. 1235 (quoting Zipes , 455 U.S. at 394, 102 S.Ct. 1127 ).
Instead, Title VII's charge-filing provisions "speak to ... a party's procedural obligations." EME Homer , 572 U.S. at 512, 134 S.Ct. 1584. They require complainants to submit information to the EEOC and to wait a specified period before commencing a civil action. Like kindred provisions directing parties to raise objections in agency rulemaking, id. , at 511-512, 134 S.Ct. 1584 ; follow procedures governing copyright registration, Reed Elsevier , 559 U.S. at 157, 130 S.Ct. 1237 ; or attempt settlement, Union Pacific , 558 U.S. at 82, 130 S.Ct. 584, Title VII's charge-filing requirement is a processing rule, albeit a mandatory one, not a jurisdictional prescription delineating the adjudicatory authority of courts.
Resisting this conclusion, Fort Bend points to statutory schemes that channel certain claims to administrative agency adjudication first, followed by judicial review in a federal court. In Elgin v. Department of Treasury , 567 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 2126, 183 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012), for example, the Court held that claims earmarked for initial adjudication by the Merit Systems Protection Board, then review in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, may not proceed instead in federal district court. Id. , at 5-6, 8, 132 S.Ct. 2126. See also Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich , 510 U.S. 200, 202-204, 114 S.Ct. 771, 127 L.Ed.2d 29 (1994) (no district court jurisdiction over claims assigned in the first instance to a mine safety commission, whose decisions are reviewable in a court of appeals). Nowhere do these cases, or others cited by Fort Bend, address the issue here presented: whether a precondition to suit is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to forfeiture, or a jurisdictional prescription.
Fort Bend further maintains that "[t]he congressional purposes embodied in the Title VII scheme," notably, encouraging conciliation and affording the EEOC first option to bring suit, support jurisdictional characterization of the charge-filing requirement. Brief for Petitioner 27. But a prescription does not become jurisdictional whenever it "promotes important congressional objectives." Reed Elsevier , 559 U.S. at 169, n. 9, 130 S.Ct. 1237. And recognizing that the charge-filing requirement is nonjurisdictional gives plaintiffs scant incentive to skirt the instruction. Defendants, after all, have good reason promptly to raise an objection that may rid them of the lawsuit filed against them. A Title VII complainant would be foolhardy consciously to take the risk that the employer would forgo a potentially dispositive defense.
In sum, a rule may be mandatory without being jurisdictional, and Title VII's charge-filing requirement fits that bill.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is
Affirmed.
A different provision of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, prohibits employment discrimination by the Federal Government and sets out procedures applicable to claims by federal employees.
Davis submitted these documents to the Texas Workforce Commission. Complaints lodged with that commission are relayed to the EEOC, under a "worksharing" agreement between the two agencies. See How To Submit an Employment Discrimination Complaint, Texas Workforce Commission, https://twc.texas.gov/jobseekers/how-submit-employment-discrimination-complaint (as last visited May 30, 2019).
Davis also alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, but she did not appeal the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Fort Bend on that claim.
"Courts, including this Court, ... have more than occasionally [mis]used the term 'jurisdictional' " to refer to nonjurisdictional prescriptions. Scarborough v. Principi , 541 U.S. 401, 413, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004) (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan , 540 U.S. 443, 454, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004) (alterations in original)). Passing references to Title VII's charge-filing requirement as "jurisdictional" in prior Court opinions, see, e.g. , McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 798, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), display the terminology employed when the Court's use of "jurisdictional" was "less than meticulous," Kontrick , 540 U.S. at 454, 124 S.Ct. 906.
The Court has "reserved whether mandatory claim-processing rules may [ever] be subject to equitable exceptions." Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago , 583 U.S. ----, ----, n. 3, 138 S.Ct. 13, 18, n. 3, 199 L.Ed.2d 249 (2017).
"If a time prescription governing the transfer of adjudicatory authority from one Article III court to another appears in a statute, the limitation [will rank as] jurisdictional; otherwise, the time specification fits within the claim-processing category." Hamer , 583 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 20 (citation omitted).
When Title VII was passed in 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1331's grant of general federal-question jurisdiction included an amount-in-controversy requirement. See § 1331(a) (1964 ed.). To ensure that this "limitation would not impede an employment-discrimination complainant's access to a federal forum," Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 505, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), Congress enacted Title VII's jurisdiction-conferring provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). See Arbaugh , 546 U.S. at 505-506, 126 S.Ct. 1235. In 1980, Congress eliminated § 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement. See Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, § 2, 94 Stat. 2369. Since then, "Title VII's own jurisdictional provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), has served simply to underscore Congress' intention to provide a federal forum for the adjudication of Title VII claims." Arbaugh , 546 U.S. at 506, 126 S.Ct. 1235. Title VII also contains a separate jurisdictional provision, § 2000e -6(b), giving federal courts jurisdiction over actions by the Federal Government to enjoin "pattern or practice" discrimination.
Fort Bend argues that Title VII's charge-filing requirement is jurisdictional because it is "textually linked" to Title VII's jurisdictional provision. Brief for Petitioner 50. Title VII states in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) that "a civil action may be brought" after the charge-filing procedures are followed. Section 2000e-5(f)(3) gives federal courts jurisdiction over "actions brought under this subchapter," a subchapter that includes § 2000e-5(f)(1). Therefore, Fort Bend insists, federal jurisdiction lies under § 2000e-5(f)(3) only when a proper EEOC charge is filed. But as just observed, see supra , at ----, the charge-filing requirement is stated in provisions discrete from Title VII's conferral of jurisdiction on federal courts. See Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center , 568 U.S. 145, 155, 133 S.Ct. 817, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013) (a requirement "does not become jurisdictional simply because it is placed in a section of a statute that also contains jurisdictional provisions"); Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 145, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (a nonjurisdictional provision does not metamorphose into a jurisdictional limitation by cross-referencing a jurisdictional provision).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Florida, by statute, requires appellant, a Georgia corporation, to be responsible for the collection of a use tax on certain mechanical writing instruments which appellant sells and ships from its place of business in Atlanta to residents of Florida for use and enjoyment there. Upon Scripto’s failure to collect the tax, the appellee Comptroller levied a use tax liability of $5,150.66 against it. Appellant then brought this suit to test the validity of the imposition, contending that the requirement of Florida’s statute places a burden on interstate commerce and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It claimed, in effect, that the nature of its operations in Florida does not form a sufficient nexus to subject it to the statute’s exactions. Both the trial court and the Supreme Court of Florida held that appellant does have sufficient jurisdictional contacts in Florida and, (therefore, must register as a dealer under the statute and collect and remit to the State the use tax imposed on its aforesaid sales. 105 So. 2d 775. We noted probable jurisdiction. 361 U. S. 806. We agree with the result reached by Florida’s courts.
“212.06 Same; collectible from dealers; dealers defined; dealers to collect from purchasers; legislative intent as to scope of tax.— “(1) The aforesaid tax at the rate of three per cent of the retail sales price, as of the moment of sale, or three per cent of the cost price, as of the moment of purchase, as the case may be, shall be collectible from all dealers as herein defined on the sale at retail, the use, the consumption, the distribution and the storage for use or consumption in this state, of tangible personal property.
Appellant operates in Atlanta an advertising specialty division trading under the name of Adgif Company. Through it, appellant is engaged in the business of selling mechanical writing instruments which are adapted to advertising purposes by the placing of printed material thereon. In its Adgif operation, appellant does not (1) own, lease, or maintain any office, distributing house, warehouse or other place of business in Florida, or (2) have any regular employee or agent there. Nor does it own or maintain any bank account or stock of merchandise in the State. Orders for its products are solicited by advertising specialty brokers or, as the Supreme Court of Florida called them, wholesalers or jobbers, who are residents of Florida. At the time of suit, there were 10 such brokers — each having a written contract and a specific territory. The somewhat detailed contract provides, inter alia, that all compensation is to be on a commission basis on the sales made, provided they are accepted by appellant; repeat orders, even if not solicited, also carry a commission if the salesman has not become inactive through failure to secure acceptable orders during the previous 60 days. The contract specifically provides that it is the intention of the parties “to create the relationship ... of independent contractor.” Each order is to be signed by the solicitor as a “salesman”; however, he has no authority to make collections or incur debts involving appellant. Each salesman is furnished catalogs, samples, and advertising material, and is actively engaged in Florida as a representative “of Scripto for the purpose of attracting, soliciting and obtaining Florida customers” for its mechanical advertising specialties. Orders for such products are sent by these salesmen directly to the Atlanta office for acceptance or refusal. If accepted, the sale is consummated there and the salesman is paid his commission directly. No money passes between the purchaser and the salesman — although the latter does occasionally accept a check payable to the appellant, in which event he is required to forward it to appellant with the order.
“(2) ... (g) 'Dealer' also means and includes every person who solicits business either by representatives or by the distribution of catalogs or other advertising matter and by reason thereof receives and accepts orders from consumers in the state, and such dealer shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter from the purchaser and no action either in law or in equity on a sale or transaction as provided by the terms of this chapter may be had in this state by any such dealer unless it be affirmatively shown that the provisions of this chapter have been fully complied with.”
As construed by Florida’s highest court, the impost levied by the statute is a tax “on the privilege of using personal property . . . which has come to rest . . . and has become a part of the mass of property” within the State. 105 So. 2d, at 781. It is not a sales tax, but “was developed as a device to complement [such a tax] in order to prevent evasion ... by the completion of purchases in a non-taxing state and shipment by interstate commerce into a taxing forum.” Id,., at 779. The tax is collectible from “dealers” and is to be added to the purchase price of the merchandise “as far as practicable.” In the event that a dealer fails to collect the tax, he himself is liable for its payment. The statute has the customary use tax provisions “against duplication of the tax, an allowance to the dealer for making the collection, and a reciprocal credit arrangement which credits against the Florida tax any amount up to the amount of the Florida tax which might have been paid to another state.” Id., at 782. Florida held appellant to be a dealer under its statute. “The application by that Court of its local laws and the facts on which it founded its judgment are of course controlling here.” General Trading Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, 322 U. S. 335, 337 (1944).
The question remaining is whether Florida, in the light of appellant’s operations there, may collect the State’s use tax from it on the basis of property bought from appellant and shipped from its home office to purchasers in Florida for use there.
Florida has well stated the course of this Court’s decisions governing such levies, and we need but drive home its clear understanding. There must be, as our Brother Jackson stated in Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 340, 344-345 (1954), “some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax.” We believe that such a nexus is present here. First, the tax is a nondiscriminatory exaction levied for the use and enjoyment of property which has been purchased by Florida residents and which has actually entered into and become a part of the mass of property in that State. The burden of the tax is placed on the ultimate purchaser in Florida and it is he who enjoys the use of the property, regardless of its source. We note that the appellant is charged with no tax — save when, as here, he fails or refuses to collect it from the Florida customer. Next, as Florida points out, appellant has 10 wholesalers, jobbers, or “salesmen” conducting continuous local solicitation in Florida and forwarding the resulting orders from that State to Atlanta for shipment of the ordered goods. The only incidence of this sales transaction that is nonlocal is the acceptance of the order. True, the “salesmen” are not regular employees of appellant devoting full time to its service, but we conclude that such a fine distinction is without constitutional significance. The formal shift in the contractual tagging of the salesman as “independent” neither results in changing his local function of solicitation nor bears upon its effectiveness in securing a substantial flow of goods into Florida. This is evidenced by the amount assessed against appellant on the statute’s 3% basis over a period of but four years. To permit such formal “contractual shifts” to make a constitutional difference would open the gates to a stampede of tax avoidance. See Thomas Reed Powell, Sales and Use Taxes: Collection from Absentee Vendors, 57 Harv. L. Rev. 1086, 1090. Moreover, we cannot see, from a constitutional standpoint, “that it was important that the agent worked for several principals.” Chief Judge Learned Hand, in Bomze v. Nardis Sportswear, 165 F. 2d 33, 36. The test is simply the nature and extent of the activities of the appellant in Florida. In short, we conclude that this case is controlled by General Trading Co., supra. As was said there, “All these differentiations are without constitutional significance. Of course, no State can tax the privilege of doing interstate business. See Western Live Stock v. Bureau, 303 U. S. 250. That is within the protection of the Commerce Clause and subject to the power of Congress. On the other hand, the mere fact that property is used for interstate commerce or has come into an owner’s possession as a result of interstate commerce does not diminish the protection which he may draw from a State to the upkeep of which he may be asked to bear his fair share.” 322 U. S., at 338.
Nór do we believe that Florida’s requirement that appellant be its tax collector on such orders from its residents changes the situation. As was pointed out in General Trading Co., this is “a familiar and sanctioned device.” Ibid. Moreover, we note that Florida reimburses appellant for its service in this regard.
Appellant earnestly contends that Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, supra, is to the contrary. We think not. Miller had no solicitors in Maryland; there was no “exploitation of the consumer market”; no regular, systematic displaying of its products by catalogs, samples or the like. But, on the contrary, the goods on which Maryland sought to force Miller to collect its tax were sold to residents of Maryland when personally present at Miller’s store in Delaware. True, there was an “occasional” delivery of such purchases by Miller into Maryland, and it did occasionally mail notices of special sales to former customers; but Marylanders went to Delaware to make purchases — Miller did not go to Maryland for sales. Moreover, it was impossible for Miller to determine that goods sold for cash to a customer over the counter at its store in Delaware were to be used and enjoyed in Maryland. This led the Court to conclude that Miller would be made “more vulnerable to liability for another’s tax than to a tax on' itself.” 347 U. S., at 346. In view of these considerations, we conclude that the “minimum connections” not present in Miller are more than sufficient here.
The judgment is therefore Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, deeming this case to be nearer to General Trading Co. v. State Tax Commission, 322 U. S. 335, than it is to Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 340, concurs in the result.
Mr . Justice Whittaker, believing that Florida’s action denies to appellant due process of law and also directly burdens interstate commerce as held in Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 340, and in McLeod v. Dilworth Co., 322 U. S. 327, and adhering to his views expressed in Northwestern Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U. S. 450, 477, would reverse the judgment.
The pertinent provisions of this statute are:
Appellant Scripto does employ one salesman but he handles its regular line of products and has no connection with Adgif. The Florida courts found that his presence was not relevant to the determination of whether appellant was included within the terms of the statute.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On January 17, 1951, a New York court granted George Brewer, Jr., a decree of divorce from his wife, now Aida Kovacs. Custody of their five-year-old daughter, Jane, was awarded to George Brewer, Sr., the paternal grandfather, pending discharge of Brewer, Jr., from the Navy. As contemplated by the decree, the grandfather removed the child to his home in North Carolina where she has since resided. In November 1954 the mother asked the New York divorce court to modify its decree and award her custody of the child. Although the father and grandfather presented affidavits through counsel challenging the mother’s claim, the court granted custody to her. In modifying its decree the court apparently relied, in part, on findings that the grandfather was ill with heart trouble and diabetes and that the living accommodations which he was able to provide for the child were not as suitable as those then offered by the mother.
The grandfather refused to surrender the child, but the mother took no steps to enforce her custody award until February 1956 — 14 months after the decree had been modified. At that time she brought the present action in a North Carolina state court to secure the child. She offered a certified copy of the New York decree and asserted that it was “entitled to full faith and credit in- the courts of North Carolina except as to matters showing changed circumstances since the date of such decree.” The father and grandfather again challenged her right to the child. They presented numerous affidavits attesting to facts which they argued demonstrated that the child’s best interests would be served by leaving her in North Carolina with the grandparents. Many of these facts had been presented to the New York court at the time the divorce decree was modified, but new evidence was also offered concerning the child’s surroundings, her school and church experiences and her life in general, particularly with reference to the period that had elapsed between the time when the divorce court modified its decree and the date of the North Carolina proceedings.
After hearing the case on affidavits, stipulations and the pleadings, the trial court made numerous findings. Among other things, it determined that for more than a year immediately preceding the hearing the grandfather had required no medical care for heart or diabetic ailments and was able to work and to properly care for his granddaughter. The court also found that a 17-year-old stepson, who had been residing in the grandfather’s home at the time the New York decree was modified, had moved from the home thus leaving more space for the remaining occupants and giving the grandfather a better opportunity to provide for the grandchild. On the basis of these and other findings the trial court concluded that it was “not bound by or required to give effect to the decree of the Court of the State of New York made in 1954” and that the welfare of the child demanded that she remain under the grandfather’s custody in the environment to which she had become accustomed.
On appeal the North Carolina Supreme Court approved the trial court’s findings, and without specifying any particular reason upheld its “conclusion of law.” The court then went on to declare, seemingly as an alternative ground of decision, that the New York decree was not binding because the divorce court had no jurisdiction to modify its original custody award after the child had become a resident and domiciliary of North Carolina. 245 N. C. 630, 97 S. E. 2d 96. We granted certiorari to consider the claim that the North Carolina courts had failed to give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of another State. 355 U. S. 810.
In this Court the petitioner, Mrs. Kovacs, contends (1) that the New York divorce court had jurisdiction to modify its decree by awarding her custody of the child, (2) that in any event the question of jurisdiction was res judicata in the North Carolina courts because both the father and grandfather had appeared in the New York proceeding, and (3) that the North Carolina courts failed to give the custody decree, as modified, the faith and credit required by the Federal Constitution and statute. She argues that the North Carolina courts were obligated to give the custody decree the same effect as it had in New York, a question which we reserved in New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U. S. 610, 615-616. As presented, the case obviously raises difficult and important questions of constitutional law, questions which we should postpone deciding as long as a reasonable alternative exists.
Whatever effect the Full Faith and Credit Clause may have with respect to custody decrees, it is clear, as the Court stated in Halvey, “that the State of the forum has at least as much leeway to disregard the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart from it as does the State where it was rendered.” 330 U. S., at 615. Petitioner concedes that a custody decree is not res judicata in New York if changed circumstances call for a different arrangement to protect the child’s health and welfare. In the courts below the question of changed circumstances was raised in the pleadings, considerable evidence was introduced on that issue, and the trial court made a number of findings which demonstrated that the facts material to the proper custody of the child were no longer the same in 1956 as in 1954 when the New York decree was modified. And though it is not clear from the opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court, it may be, particularly in view of this background, that it intended to decide the case, at least alternatively, on that basis. Under all the circumstances we think it advisable to remand to the North Carolina courts for clarification, and, if they have not already decided, so they may have an opportunity to determine the issue of changed circumstances. Cf. Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551; Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105. If those courts properly find that changed conditions make it to the child’s best interest for the grandfather to have custody, decision of the constitutional questions now before us would be unnecessary. Those questions we explicitly reserve without expressly or impliedly indicating any views about them.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Under North Carolina law “custody of children of parents who have been divorced outside of North Carolina . . . may be determined in a special proceeding instituted by either of said parents N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann., 1950, § 50-Í3.
Unlike the situation in the New York modification proceeding, the child, father and grandfather were all present before the North Carolina court.
Art. IV, § 1, declares: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” By statute Congress has provided that judgments “shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.” 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
This approach is reinforced here by the fact that neither the father nor the grandfather appeared or submitted a brief in this Court in support of their right to custody.
There is some indication that in New York a local custody decree may be modified whenever the best interest of the child demands, whether there have been changed circumstances or not. See, e. g., 6A Gilbert-Bliss’ N. Y. Civ. Prac., 1944, § 1170. Cf. Bachman v. Mejias, 1 N. Y. 2d 575, 580, 136 N. E. 2d 866, 868; Sutera v. Sutera, 1 App. Div. 2d 356, 358, 150 N. Y. S. 2d 448, 451-452.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit for reclassification of federal civil service positions and for backpay. It presents a substantial issue concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and the relief available in that tribunal.
I
The plaintiff-respondents, Herman R. Testan and Francis L. Zarrilli, are trial attorneys employed in the Office of Counsel, Defense Personnel Support Center, Defense Supply Agency, in Philadelphia. They represent the Government in certain matters that come before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals of the Department of Defense. Their positions are subject to the Classification Act, 5 U. S. C. § 5101 et seq., and they are presently classified at civil service grade GS-13.
In December 1969 respondents, through their Chief Attorney, requested their employing agency to reclassify their positions to grade GS-14. The asserted ground was that their duties and responsibilities met the requirements for the higher grade under standards promulgated by the Civil Service Commission in General Attorney Series GS-905-0. In addition, they contended that their duties were identical to those of other trial attorneys in positions classified as GS-14 in the Contract Appeals Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, and that under the principle of “equal pay for substantially equal work,” prescribed in § 5101 (1)(A), they were entitled to the higher classification.
The agency, after an audit by a position classification specialist, concluded that the respondents’ assigned duties were properly classified at the GS-13 level under the Commission’s classification standards. On appeal, the Commission reached the same conclusion and denied reclassification. The Commission also ruled that comparison of the positions held by the respondents with those of attorneys employed by the referenced Logistics Command was not a proper method of classification.
The two respondents then instituted this suit in the Court of Claims. Each sought an order directing reclassification of his position as of the date (May 8, 1970) of the first administrative denial of his request, and back-pay, computed at the difference between his salary and grade GS-14 (and the claimed appropriate within-grade step), from that date. The trial judge, in a long opinion, App. 43-117, concluded that the respondents were not entitled to backpay due to their allegedly wrongful'classi-fieation. Id., at 57. But he also concluded that the Commission’s refusal to reclassify respondents to GS-14 was arbitrary, discriminatory, and not supported by substantial evidence, ibid., and that as a matter of law the respondents were entitled to an order remanding the case to the Commission with directions so to. reclassify the respondents. Id., at 58, 117.
The Court of Claims considered the case en banc and divided 4-3. The majority disapproved the trial judge’s recommendation that the court was empowered to direct the reclassification of respondents to GS-14, for the Court of .Claims is not authorized to create an entitlement to a governmental position. “If entitlement depends on the exercise of discretion by someone else we cannot substitute our own discretion.” 205 Ct. Cl. 330, 332, 499 F. 2d 690, 691 (1974). The majority felt, however, that if the Commission were to determine that it had made an erroneous classification, that determination “could create a legal right which we could then enforce by a money judgment.” Id., at 333, 499 F. 2d, at 691.
The majority agreed with the trial judge that the Commission’s failure to compare respondents’ positions with those of the Logistics Command attorneys was arbitrary and capricious. Id., at 331, 499 F. 2d, at 691. The court observed: “Ordinarily ... it is not arbitrary and capricious to refuse to consider the grade of employees other than the ones complaining.” But it went on to say: “This case is peculiar in its facts,” for the employees “all belong to a small readily manageable cadre, their jobs have a large nexus of duties shared in common, and the other employees are specifically pointed out by the complaining employees.” Id., at 332, 499 F. 2d, at 691. The court ruled that it had the power under the remand statute, 86 Stat. 652, now codified as part of 28 U. S. C. § 1491 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), to order the Commission to reconsider its classification decision “under proper directions.” Accordingly, and pursuant to its Rule 149 (b), the court remanded the case to the Commission to make the comparison and to report the result to the court.
The dissent argued that the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited to money judgments and, since none had been or could be ordered in this case, the court was without jurisdiction even to remand the case to the Civil Service Commission. In addition, the respondents had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, for they were asking for positions, and pay, to which they had never been appointed. The dissent further argued that there is no constitutional right to a governmental position to which one has not been appointed; that the salary of a Government job is payable only to the person appointed to that position; and that the court has no authority to take over the appointing power that the Constitution, Art. II, § 2, has placed in the Executive Department. It asserted that the decision of the majority was but a declaratory judgment, a legal function not within the court’s jurisdiction. Finally, the dissent argued that the classification decision of the Commission was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. 205 Ct. Cl., at 334-338, 499 F. 2d, at 692-694.
We granted certiorari because of the importance of the issue in the measure of the Court of Claims' statutory jurisdiction, and because of the significance of the court's decision upon the Commission's administration of the civil service classification system. 420 U. S. 923 (1975).
II
We turn to the respective statutes that are advanced as support for the action taken by the Court of Claims.
A. The Tucker Act. The central provision establishing the jurisdiction of the court is that part of the Tucker Act now codified as 28 U. S. C. § 1491:
"The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or un-liquidated damages in cases not soui~ding in tort."
This Court recently had occasion to examine the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims under this statutory formulation. In United States v. King, 395 U. S. 1 (1969), the Court reviewed a decision (182 Ct. Cl. 631, 390 F. 2d 894) in which the Court of Claims had concluded that it was empowered to exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201. This Court observed that the Court of Claims was established by Congress in 1855; that "[t]hroughout its entire history," until the King case was filed, "its jurisdiction has been limited to money claims against the United States Government”; that decided cases in this Court had “reaffirmed this view of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims,” and “the passage of the Tucker Act in 1887 had not expanded that jurisdiction to equitable matters”; that “neither the Act creating the Court of Claims nor any amendment to it” granted that court jurisdiction of the case before it because King’s claim was “not limited to actual, presently due money damages from the United States”; and that what King was requesting was “essentially equitable relief of a kind that the Court of Claims has held throughout its history ... it does not have the power to grant.” 395 U. S., at 2-3. The Court then went on to hold that the Declaratory Judgment Act did not grant the Court of Claims authority to issue declaratory judgments. Cited in support of all this were Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, 557 (1962) (Harlan, J.) (plurality opinion); United States v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1 (1889); and United States v. Alire, 6 Wall. 573, 575 (1868). See Lee v. Thornton, 420 U. S. 139 (1975); Richardson v. Morris, 409 U. S. 464 (1973); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 589-591 (1941).
The Tucker Act, of course, is itself only a jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages. The Court of Claims has recognized that the Act merely confers jurisdiction upon it whenever the substantive right exists. Eastport S. S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 605-607, 372 F. 2d 1002, 1007-1009 (1967). We therefore must determine whether the two other federal statutes that are invoked by the respondents confer a substantive right to recover money damages from the United States for the period of their allegedly wrongful civil service classifications.
B. The Classification Act. Inasmuch as the trial judge proposed, App. 57, that the respondents were not entitled to backpay under the Back Pay Act, 5 U. S. C. § 5596, and the Court of Claims held that there was no need for it to reach and construe that Act, 205 Ct. Cl., at 333, 499 F. 2d, at 691, it is implicit in the court’s decision in favor of respondents that a violation of the Classification Act gives rise to a claim for money damages for pay lost by reason of the allegedly wrongful classifications.
It long has been established, of course, that the United States, as sovereign, “is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S., at 586. And it has been said, in a Court of Claims context, that a waiver of the traditional sovereign immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U. S., at 4; Soriano v. United States, 352 U. S. 270, 276 (1957). Thus, except as Congress has consented to a cause of action against the United States, “there is no jurisdiction in the Court of Claims more than in any other court to entertain suits against the United States.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S., at 587-588.
We find no provision in the Classification Act that expressly makes the United States liable for pay lost through allegedly improper classifications. To be sure, in the “purpose” section of the Act, 5 U. S. C. § 5101 (1)(A), Congress stated that it was “to provide a plan for classification of positions whereby . . . the principle of equal pay for substantially equal work will be followed.” And in subsequent sections, there are set forth substantive standards for grading particular positions, and provisions for procedures to ensure that those standards are met. But none of these several sections contains an express provision for an award of backpay to a person who has been erroneously classified.
In answer to this fact, the respondents and the amid make two observations. They first argue that the Tucker Act fundamentally waives sovereign immunity with respect to any claim invoking a constitutional provision or a federal statute or regulation, and makes available any and all generally accepted and important forms of redress, including money damages. It is said that the Government has confused two very different issues, namely, whether there has been a waiver of sovereignty, and whether a substantive right has been created, and it is claimed that where there has been a violation of a substantive right, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity as to all measures necessary to redress that violation.
The argument does not persuade us. As stated above, the Tucker Act is merely jurisdictional, and grant of a right of action must be made with specificity. The respondents do not rest their claims upon a contract; neither do they seek the return of money paid by them to the Government. It follows' that the asserted entitlement to money damages depends upon whether any federal statute “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.” Eastport S. S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl., at 607, 372 F. 2d, at 1009; Mosca v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 283, 290, 417 F. 2d 1382, 1386 (1969), cert. denied, 399 U. S. 911 (1970). We are not ready to tamper with these established principles because it might be thought that they should be responsive to a particular conception of enlightened governmental policy. See Brief for Amici Curiae 9-11. In a suit against the United States, there cannot be a right to money damages without a waiver of sovereign immunity, and we regard as unsound the argument of amici that all substantive rights of necessity create a waiver of sovereign immunity such that money damages are available to redress their violation.
We perceive nothing in the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102 (1974), cited by the amici with other cases centering in the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”), that lends support to the respondents. These Fifth Amendment cases are tied to the language, purpose, and self-executing aspects of that constitutional provision, Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16 (1933), and are not authority to the effect that the Tucker Act eliminates from consideration the sovereign immunity of the United States.
The respondents and the amici next argue that the violation of any statute or regulation relating to federal employment automatically creates a cause of action against the United States for money damages because, if this were not so, the employee would then have a right without a remedy, inasmuch as he is denied access to the one forum where he may seek redress.
Here again we are not persuaded. Where the United States is the defendant and the plaintiff is not suing for money improperly exacted or retained, the basis of the federal claim — whether it be the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation — does not create a cause of action for money damages unless, as the Court of Claims has stated, that basis “in itself... can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.” Eastport S. S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl., at 607, 372 F. 2d, at 1008, 1009. We see nothing akin to this in the Classification Act or in the context of a suit seeking reclassification.
The present action, of course, is not one concerning a wrongful discharge or a wrongful suspension. In that situation, at least since the Civil Service Act of 1883, the employee is entitled to the emoluments of his position until he has been legally disqualified. United States v. Wickersham, 201 U. S. 390 (1906). There is no claim here that either respondent has been denied the benefit of the position to which he was appointed. The claim, instead, is that each has been denied the benefit of a position to which he should have been, but was not, appointed. The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it. United States v. McLean, 95 U. S. 750 (1878); Ganse v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 183, 186, 376 F. 2d 900, 902 (1967). The Classification Act does not purport by its terms to change that rule, and we see no suggestion in it or in its legislative history that Congress intended to alter it.
The case of Selman v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 675, 498 F. 2d 1354 (1974), pressed upon us by the respondents, if correct, is clearly distinguishable. The pay claims there rested flatly upon the mandatory provision contained in 37 U. S. C. § 202 (l) to the effect that an officer “serving as Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy is entitled to the basic pay of a rear admiral (lower half) or brigadier general, as appropriate.” Neither the Classification Act nor the Back Pay Act contains any mandatory provision of this kind.
The situation, as we see it, is not that Congress has left the respondents remediless, as they assert, for their allegedly wrongful civil service classification, but that Congress has not made available to a party wrongfully classified the remedy of money damages through retroactive classification. There is a difference between prospective reclassification, on the one hand, and retroactive reclassification resulting in money damages, on the. other. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974). Respondents, of course, have an administrative avenue of prospective relief available to them under the elaborate and structured provisions of the Classification Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 5101-5115. The amici so recognize. Brief for Amici Curiae 13-15. Among the Act’s provisions along this line are those requiring the Civil Service Commission to engage in supervisory review of an agency’s classifications, and, where necessary, to review and reclassify individual positions, 5 U. S. C. §5110; allowing the Commission to reclassify, § 5112; and allowing the Commission even to revoke or suspend the agency’s authority to classify its own positions, § 5111. Indeed, as the amid describe it: “[T]he Act is not merely a hortatory catalogue of high principles.” Brief for Amici Curiae 15. The built-in avenue of administrative relief is one response to these statutory requirements. Review and reclassification may be brought into play at the request of an employee. 5 U. S. C. § 5112 (b). And respondents, as has been- noted, did just that. A second possible ave-, nue of relief — and it, too, seemingly, is only prospective— is by way of mandamus, under 28 U. S. C. § 1361, in a proper federal district court. In this way, also, the respondents have asserted their claims. See n. 5, supra.
The respondents, thus, are not entirely without remedy. They are without the remedies in the Court of Claims of retroactive classification and money damages to which they assert they are entitled. Additional remedies of this kind are for the Congress to provide and not for the courts to construct.
Finally, we note that if the respondents were correct in their claims to retroactive classification and money damages, many of the federal statutes — such as the Back Pay Act — that expressly provide money damages as a remedy against the United States in carefully limited circumstances would be rendered superfluous.
The Court of Claims, in the present case, sought to avoid all this by its remand to the Civil Service Commission for further proceedings. If, then, the Commission were to find that the respondents were entitled to a higher grade, the Court of Claims announced that it would be prepared on appropriate motion to enter ah award of money damages for the respondents for whatever backpay they lost during the period of their wrongful classifications. See Chambers v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 186, 451 F. 2d 1045 (1971). The remand statute, Pub. L. 92-415, 86 Stat. 652, now codified as part of 28 U. S. C. § 1491 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), authorizes the Court of Claims to “issue orders directing restoration to . . . position, placement in appropriate duty . . . status, and correction of applicable records” in order to complement the relief afforded by a money judgment, and also to “remand appropriate matters to any administrative . . . body” in a case “within its jurisdiction.” The remand statute, thus, applies only to cases already within the court’s jurisdiction. The present litigation is not such a case.
Respondents cite Allison v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 263, 451 F. 2d 1035 (1971), and Pettit v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 207, 488 F. 2d 1026 (1973), as precedent for the remand order in this case. Those cases found the employees’ “entitlement” to money damages in an Executive Order, and to that extent might be distinguishable from the instant case. But cf. Ogletree v. McNamara, 449 F. 2d 93 (CA6 1971); Onotta v. United States, 415 F. 2d 1271 (CA8 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 934 (1970); Manhattan-Bronx Postal Union v. Gronouski, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 321, 350 F. 2d 451 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 978 (1966). To the extent, however, that AUison and Pettit rely on the concept that an admission of misclassification by an agency automatically gives rise to a cause of action for money damages against the United States, their reasoning is identical to the Court of Claims’ reasoning in the instant case; and to the extent that analysis is now rejected, the analysis of Allison and Pettit is necessarily rejected. See also Chambers v. United States, supra.
C. The Back Pay Act. This statute, which the Court of Claims found unnecessary to evaluate in arriving at its decision, does not apply, in our view, to wrongful-classification claims. The Act does authorize retroactive recovery of wages whenever a federal employee has “undergone an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action that has resulted in the withdrawal or reduction of all or a part of” the compensation to which the employee is otherwise entitled. 5 U. S. C. § 5596 (b). The statute’s language was intended to provide a monetary remedy for wrongful reductions in grade, removals, suspensions, and “other unwarranted or unjustified actions affecting pay or allowances [that] could occur in the course of reassignments and change from full-time to part-time work.” S. Rep. No. 1062, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1966). The Commission consistently has so construed the Back Pay Act. See 5 CFR § 550.803 (e) (1975). So has the Court of Claims. See Desmond v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 507, 527 (1973).
For many years federal personnel actions were viewed as entirely discretionary and therefore not subject to any judicial review, and in the absence of a statute eliminating that discretion, courts refused to intervene where an employee claimed that he had been wrongfully discharged. Compare Keim v. United States, 177 U. S. 290, 293-296 (1900), with United States v. Wicker sham, 201 U. S. 390 (1906). See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U. S. 61, 69-70 (1974). Relief was invariably denied where the claim was that the employee had been denied a promotion on improper grounds. See Keim v. United States, 177 U. S., at 296; United States v. McLean, 95 U. S., at 753.
Congress, of course, now has provided specifically in the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, 5 U. S. C. § 7501, for administrative review of a claim of wrongful adverse action, and in the Back Pay Act for the award of money damages for a wrongful deprivation of pay. But federal agencies continue to have discretion in determining most matters relating to the terms and conditions of federal employment. One continuing aspect of this is the rule, mentioned above, that the federal employee is entitled to receive only the salary of the position to which he was appointed, even though he may have performed the duties of another position or claims that he should have been placed in a higher grade. Congress did not override this rule, or depart from it, with its enactment of the Back Pay Act. It could easily have so provided had that been its intention.
In support of their contention that the Back Pay Act authorizes a claim in the situation here presented, respondents and amici cite only two cases other than the Court of Claims cases whose reasoning is directly in question here. Neither case supports the proposition. Walker v. Kleindienst, 357 F. Supp. 749 (DC 1973). (cited by respondents), addressed the issue of the retro-activity of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. Ainsworth v. United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 110, 399 F. 2d 176 (1968) (cited by amici), involved the rights of an employee who had been discharged and subsequently reinstated.
Neither of these cases provides a reason for doubting that the Back Pay Act, as its words so clearly indicate, was intended to grant a monetary cause of action only to those who were subjected to a reduction in their duly appointed emoluments or position.
III
We therefore conclude that neither the Classification Act nor the Back Pay Act creates a substantive right in the respondents to backpay for the period of their claimed wrongful classifications. This makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional argument advanced by the United States that the Classification Act does not require that positions held by employees of one agency be compared with those of employees in another agency.
The Court of Claims was in error when it remanded the case to the Civil Service Commission for further proceedings. That court’s judgment is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the respondents’ suit.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Title 5, §5101. “Purpose.
“It is the purpose of this chapter to provide a plan for classification of positions whereby— •
“(1) in determining the rate of basic pay which an employee will receive—
“(A) the principle of equal pay for substantially equal work will be followed . ,
There is no suggestion that the plaintiff-respondents have not properly pursued and exhausted their administrative remedies.
The decision of the Court of Claims in this case is not inconsistent, as to these issues, with other recent cases resolved by divided votes in that court. See Chambers v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 186, 451 F. 2d 1045 (1971); Allison v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 263, 451 F. 2d 1035 (1971); Small v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 11, 470 F. 2d 1020 (1972); Pettit v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 207, 488 F. 2d 1026 (1973). But see Applegate v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 999, 521 F. 2d 1406 (1975); Roseman v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 998, 521 F. 2d 1406 (1975); Kaeserman v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 983 (1975); Barnum v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 1024, 529 F. 2d 531 (1975).
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1494 also grants the Court of Claims jurisdiction to determine the amount due from the United States "by reason of any unsettled account of any officer . of . the United State."
The amici acknowledge that it is conceivable that the respondents will be able to obtain reclassification for the future through the mandamus action they instituted in 1971. See Testan v. Hampton, Civ. No. 71-2250 (ED Pa.). That suit apparently lies dormant subject to reactivation. The Government states that if respondents proceed with the action, the United States “will not contest the district court’s jurisdiction to entertain respondents’ claim for prospective equitable relief.” Reply Brief for United States 17 n. 7.
Brief for Respondents 12; Tr. of Oral Arg. 25-28.
The committee reports relating to Pub. L. 92-415 expressly confirm the understanding that the remand statute “does not extend the class of cases over which the Court of Claims has jurisdiction.” S. Rep. No. 92-1066, p. 1 (1972); H. R. Rep. No. 92-1023, p. 3 (1972).
In 1972, Congress made Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applicable to federal employees. 86 Stat. 103, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). The nature of that explicit waiver of sovereign immunity is presently before the Court. See Brown v. General Services Administration, 507 F. 2d 1300 (CA2 1974), cert. granted, 421 U. S. 987 (1975).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Constitutional questions decided by this Court concerning the juvenile process have centered on the adjudicatory stage at “which a determination is made as to whether a juvenile is a ‘delinquent’ as a result of alleged misconduct on his part, with the consequence that he may be committed to a state institution.” In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 13 (1967). Gault decided that, although the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that the hearing at this stage conform with all the requirements of a criminal trial or even of the usual administrative proceeding, the Due Process Clause does require application during the adjudicatory hearing of “ ‘the essentials of due process and fair treatment.’ ” Id., at 30. This case presents the single, narrow question whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is among the “essentials of due process and fair treatment” required during the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.
Section 712 of the New York Family Court Act defines a juvenile delinquent as “a person over seven and less than sixteen years of age who does any act which, if done by an adult, would constitute a crime.” During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing, conducted pursuant to § 742 of the Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that appellant, then a 12-year-old boy, had entered a locker and stolen $112 from a woman’s pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, “if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of Larceny.” The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rejected appellant’s contention that such proof was required by the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge relied instead on § 744 (b) of the New York Family Court Act which provides that “[a]ny determination at the conclusion of [an adjudicatory] hearing that a [juvenile] did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.” During a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of 18 months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his 18th birthday — six years in appellant’s case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion, 30 App. Div. 2d 781, 291 N. Y. S. 2d 1005 (1968). The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of § 744 (b), 24 N. Y. 2d 196, 247 N. E. 2d 253 (1969). We noted probable jurisdiction, 396 U. S. 885 (1969). We reverse.
I
The requirement that guilt of a criminal charge be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt dates at least from our early years as a Nation. The “demand for a higher degree of persuasion in criminal cases was recurrently expressed from ancient times, [though] its crystallization into the formula ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ seems to have occurred as late as 1798. It is now accepted in common law jurisdictions as the measure of persuasion by which the prosecution must convince the trier of all the essential elements of guilt.” C. McCormick, Evidence § 321, pp. 681-682 (1954); see also 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2497 (3d ed. 1940). Although virtually unanimous adherence to the reasonable-doubt standard in common-law jurisdictions may not conclusively establish it as a requirement of due process, such adherence does “reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 155 (1968).
Expressions in many opinions of this Court indicate that it has long been assumed that proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required. See, for example, Miles v. United States, 103 E. S. 304, 312 (1881); Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469, 488 (1895); Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 253 (1910); Wilson v. United States, 232 U. S. 563, 569-570 (1914); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174 (1949); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 795 (1952); Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, 138 (1954); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525-526 (1958). Cf. Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432 (1895). Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated that “[i]t is the duty of the Government to establish . . . guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This notion — basic in our law and rightly one of the boasts of a free society — is a requirement and a safeguard of due process of law in the historic, procedural content of ‘due process.' ” Leland v. Oregon, supra, at 802-803 (dissenting opinion). In a similar vein, the Court said in Brinegar v. United States, supra, at 174, that “[g]uilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and by evidence confined to that which long experience in the common-law tradition, to some extent embodied in the Constitution, has crystallized into rules of evidence consistent with that standard. These rules are historically grounded rights of our system, developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions, with resulting forfeitures of life, liberty and property.” Davis v. United States, supra, at 488, stated that the requirement is implicit in “constitutions . . . [which] recognize the fundamental principles that are deemed essential for the protection of life and liberty.” In Davis a murder conviction was reversed because the trial judge instructed the jury that it was their duty to convict when the evidence was equally balanced regarding the sanity of the accused. This Court said: “On the contrary, he is entitled to an acquittal of the specific crime charged if upon all the evidence there is reasonable doubt whether he was capable in law of committing crime. ... No man should be deprived of his life under the forms of law unless the jurors who try him are able, upon their consciences, to say that the evidence before them ... is sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.” Id., at 484, 493.
The reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence — that bedrock “axiomatic and elementary” principle whose “enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” Coffin v. United States, supra, at 453. As the dissenters in the New York Court of Appeals observed, and we agree, “a person accused of a crime . . . would be at a severe disadvantage, a disadvantage amounting to a lack of fundamental fairness, if he could be adjudged guilty and imprisoned for years on the strength of the same evidence as would suffice in a civil case.” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 205, 247 N. E. 2d, at 259.
The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has this vital role in our criminal procedure for cogent reasons. The accused during a criminal prosecution has at stake interests of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction. Accordingly, a society that values the good name and freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt. As we said in Speiser v. Randall, supra, at 525-526: “There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account. Where one party has at stake an interest of transcending value — as a criminal defendant his liberty — this margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden of . . . persuading the factfinder at the conclusion of the trial of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of . . . convincing the factfinder of his guilt.” To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it “impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue.” Dorsen & Rezneck, In Re Gault and the Future of Juvenile Law, 1 Family Law Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 1, 26 (1967).
Moreover, use of the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty.
Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
II
We turn to the question whether juveniles, like adults, are constitutionally entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt when they are charged with violation of a criminal law. The same considerations that demand y, extreme caution in factfinding to protect the innocent adult apply as well to the innocent child. We do not find convincing the contrary arguments of thé New York Court of Appeals. Gault rendered untenable much of the reasoning relied upon by that court to sustain the constitutionality of § 744(b). The Court of Appeals indicated that a delinquency adjudication “is not a ‘conviction’ (§781); that it affects no right or privilege, including the right to hold public office or to obtain a license (§ 782); and a cloak of protective confidentiality is thrown around all the proceedings (§§ 783-784).” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 200, 247 N. E. 2d, at 255-256. The court said further: “The delinquency status is not made a crime; and the proceedings are not criminal. There is, hence, no deprivation of due process in the statutory provision [challenged by appellant] . . . .” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 203, 247 N. E. 2d, at 257. In effect the Court of Appeals distinguished the proceedings in question here from a criminal prosecution by use of what Gault called the “ ‘civil’ label-of-convenience which has been attached to juvenile proceedings.” 387 U. S., at 50. But Gault expressly rejected that distinction as a reason for holding the Due Process Clause inapplicable to a juvenile proceeding. 387 U. S., at 50-51. The Court of Appeals also attempted to justify the preponderance standard on the related ground that juvenile proceedings are designed “not to punish, but to save the child.” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 197, 247 N. E. 2d, at 254. Again, however, Gault expressly rejected this justification. 387 U. S., at 27. We made clear in that decision that civil labels and good intentions do not themselves obviate the need for criminal due process safeguards in juvenile courts, for "[a] proceeding where the issue is whether the child will be found to be 'delinquent’ and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution.” Id., at 36.
Nor do we perceive any merit in the argument that to afford juveniles the protection of proof beyond a reasonable doubt would risk destruction of beneficial aspects of the juvenile process. Use of the reasonable-doubt standard during the adjudicatory hearing will not disturb New York’s policies that a finding that a child has violated a criminal law does not constitute a criminal conviction, that such a finding does not deprive the child of his civil rights, and that juvenile proceedings are confidential. Nor will there be any effect on the informality, flexibility, or speed of the hearing at which the factfinding takes place. And the opportunity during the post-adjudicatory or dispositional hearing for a wide-ranging review of the child’s social history and for his individualized treatment will remain unimpaired. Similarly, there will be no effect on the procedures distinctive to juvenile proceedings that are employed prior to the adjudicatory hearing.
The Court of Appeals observed that “a child’s best interest is not necessarily, or even probably, promoted if he wins in the particular inquiry which may bring him to the juvenile court.” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 199, 247 N. E. 2d, at 255. It is true, of course, that the juvenile may be engaging in a general course of conduct inimical to his welfare that calls for judicial intervention. But that intervention cannot take the form of subjecting the child to the stigma of a finding that he violated a criminal law and to the possibility of institutional confinement on proof insufficient to convict him were he an adult.
We conclude, as we concluded regarding the essential due process safeguards applied in Gault, that the observance of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt “will not compel the States to abandon or displace any of the substantive benefits of the juvenile process.” Gault, supra, at 21.
Finally, we reject the Court of Appeals’ suggestion that there is, in any event, only a “tenuous difference” between the reasonable-doubt and preponderance standards. The suggestion is singularly unpersuasive. In this very case, the trial judge’s ability to distinguish between the two standards enabled him to make a finding of guilt that he conceded he might not have made under the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the trial judge’s action evidences the accuracy of the observation of commentators that “the preponderance test is susceptible to the misinterpretation that it calls on the trier of fact merely to perform an abstract weighing of the evidence in order to determine which side has produced the greater quantum, without regard to its effect in convincing his mind of the truth of the proposition asserted.” Dorsen & Rezneck, supra, at 26-27.
Ill
In sum, the constitutional safeguard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is as much required during the adjudicatory stage of a delinquency proceeding as are those constitutional safeguards applied in Gault — notice of charges, right to counsel, the rights of confrontation and examination, and the privilege against self-incrimination. We therefore hold, in agreement with Chief Judge Fuld in dissent in the Court of Appeals, “that, where a 12-year-old child is charged with an act of stealing which renders him liable to confinement for as long as six years, then, as a matter of due process . . . the case against him must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 207, 247 N. E. 2d, at 260.
Reversed.
Thus, we do not see how it can be said in dissent that this opinion “rests entirely on the assumption that all juvenile proceedings are 'criminal prosecutions/ hence subject to constitutional limitations.” As in Gault, “we are not here concerned with . . . the pre-judicial stages of the juvenile process, nor do we direct our attention to the post-adjudicative or dispositional process.” 387 IT. S., at 13. In New York, the adjudicatory stage of a delinquency proceeding is clearly distinct from both the preliminary phase of the juvenile process and from its dispositional stage. See N. Y. Family Court Act §§ 731-749. Similarly, we intimate no view concerning the constitutionality of the New York procedures governing children “in need of supervision.” See id,., at §§ 711-712, 742-745. Nor do we consider whether there are other “essentials of due process and fair treatment” required during the adjudicatory hearing of a delinquency proceeding. Finally, we have no occasion to consider appellant’s argument that § 744 (b) is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as well as a denial of due process.
The ruling appears in the following portion of the hearing transcript:
Counsel: “Your Honor is making a finding by the preponderance of the evidence.”
Court: “Well, it convinces me.”
Counsel: “It’s not beyond a reasonable doubt, Your Honor.” Court: “That is true .... Our statute says a preponderance and a preponderance it is.”
Accord, e. g., In re Dennis M., 70 Cal. 2d 444, 450 P. 2d 296 (1969); In re Ellis, 253 A. 2d 789 (D. C. Ct. App. 1969); State v. Arenas, 253 Ore. 215, 453 P. 2d 915 (1969); State v. Santana, 444 S. W. 2d 614 (Texas 1969). Contra, United States v. Costanzo, 395 F. 2d 441 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1968); In re Urbaseh, 38 111. 2d 535, 232 N. E. 2d 716 (1967); Jones v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 335, 38 S. E. 2d 444 (1946); N. D. Cent. Code § 27-20-29 (2) (Supp. 1969); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22-3-6 (1) (1967); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 26, § 70-18 (a) (Supp. 1969); N. J. Ct. Rule 6:9 (1)(f) (1967); Wash. Sup. Ct., Juv. Ct. Rule § 4.4 (b) (1969); cf. In re Agler, 19 Ohio St. 2d 70, 249 N. E. 2d 808 (1969).
Legislative adoption of the reasonable-doubt standard has been urged by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and by the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare’s Social and Rehabilitation Service. See Uniform Juvenile Court Act § 29 (b) (1968); Children’s Bureau, Social and Rehabilitation Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Legislative Guide for Drafting Family and Juvenile Court Acts § 32 (c) (1969). Cf. the proposal of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency that a “clear and convincing” standard be adopted. Model Rules for Juvenile Courts, Rule 26, p. 57 (1969). See generally Cohen,. The Standard of Proof in Juvenile Proceedings: Gault Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 567 (1970).
Appellee, New York City, apparently concedes as much in its Brief, page 8, where it states:
“A determination that the New York law unconstitutionally denies due process because it does not provide for use of the reasonable doubt standard probably would not have a serious impact if all that resulted would be a change in the quantum of proof.”
And Doreen & Rezneck, supra, at 27, have observed:
“[TJhe reasonable doubt test is superior to all others in protecting against an unjust adjudication of guilt, and that is as much a concern of the juvenile court as of the criminal court. It is difficult to see how the distinctive objectives of the juvenile court give rise to a legitimate institutional interest in finding a juvenile to have committed a violation of the criminal law on less evidence than if he were an adult.”
The more comprehensive and effective the procedures used to prevent public disclosure of the finding, the less the danger of stigma. As we indicated in Gault, however, often the “claim of secrecy ... is more rhetoric than reality.” 387 U. S., at 24.
Compare this Court’s rejection of the preponderance standard in deportation proceedings, where we ruled that the Government must support its allegations with “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.” Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 385 U. S. 276, 285 (1966). Although we ruled in Woodby that deportation is not tantamount to a criminal conviction, we found that since it could lead to “drastic deprivations,” it is impermissible for a person to be “banished from this country upon no higher degree of proof than applies in a negligence case.” 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: | 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.
Pursuant to § 207 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 Stat. 551, 49 U. S. C. § 307 (a), the Interstate Commerce Commission concluded that a certificate of public convenience and necessity should issue to Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., authorizing Braswell to extend its motor carrier services to stated points. This conclusion was based upon the Commission’s finding that existing service to those points was inadequate to serve public needs. Upon suit by several competing motor carriers serving the area, the District Court enjoined the Commission from proceeding with the grant to Braswell on the ground that the Commission had failed to make adequate findings and that it had failed to afford existing carriers an opportunity to rectify deficiencies in their service. Upon remand, the Commission did not take further evidence, but it made additional findings in considerable detail. It again concluded that shippers and receivers were hampered by the inadequacy of existing service, and it held that, despite numerous complaints, existing carriers had not demonstrated that they could be depended upon to furnish adequate service.
The competing carriers then filed in the District Court a motion under the All-Writs .Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651, contending that the Commission had disregarded the prior opinion and order of the court and asking that the court enforce its prior judgment. The District Court agreed. It stated that it was the Commission’s “invariable rule” that no certificate would issue to add a carrier to those serving an area without first furnishing existing carriers an opportunity to improve the service. It referred to this as a “rule of property” operating in favor of existing carriers. Accordingly, it permanently enjoined the Commission from issuing a certificate of convenience and necessity to Braswell “unless and until the [appellees — the existing motor carriers] are first afforded a reasonable opportunity to furnish such service . . . .”
The United States and the Commission, and Braswell, appealed the judgment to this Court under the provisions of 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253 and 2101 (b)
The District Court erred in holding that it is the “invariable rule” of the Commission to grant existing carriers an opportunity to remedy deficiencies in service, and in holding that carriers have a property right to such opportunity before a new certificate may be issued upon a lawful finding of public convenience and necessity pursuant to the statute. The Commission's power is not so circumscribed. No such limitation has been established by the Commission's own decisions or by judicial determinations. It is, of course, true that the Commission should consider the public interest in maintaining the health and stability of existing carriers, see United States v. Drum, 368 U. S. 370, 374 (1962); but it is also true that, upon the basis of appropriate findings, “the Commission may authorize the certificate even though the existing carriers might arrange to furnish successfully the projected service.” ICC v. Parker, 326 U. S. 60, 70 (1945); see Schaffer Transportation Co. v. United States, 355 U. S. 83, 90-91 (1957). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Me. Justice Makshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Appellees urge that the appeals are untimely because they were filed more than 60 days after the District Court’s initial judgment. This is palpably untenable because, without passing upon the appropriateness of the All-Writs procedure which appellees utilized, it is clear that the appeals were properly taken from the District Court’s second order entered after the Commission decision upon remand.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, a German manufacturer of automobiles, is one of the largest users of the ports on the West Coast of the United States, delivering through them more than 40,000 vehicles each year, the majority transported there by vessels chartered by the petitioner rather than by common carrier. This case grows out of the petitioner’s claim that charges imposed upon the unloading of its automobiles at Pacific Coast ports are in violation of the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended. 39 Stat. 728, 46 U. S. C. § 801 et seq. The dispute has a long and somewhat complicated history.
The Pacific Maritime Association (the Association) is an employer organization of some 120 principal common carriers by water, stevedoring contractors, and marine terminal operators, representing the Pacific Coast shipping industry. The primary function of the Association is to negotiate and administer collective bargaining contracts with unions representing its members’ employees, of which the International Longshoremen’s and Ware-housemen’s Union (ILWU) is one. In late 1960 the Association and ILWU reached a milestone agreement which, it was hoped, would end a long and troubled history of labor discord on the West Coast waterfront. The ILWU agreed to the introduction of labor-saving devices and the elimination of certain restrictive work practices. In return, the Association agreed to create over the period from 1961 to 1966 a “Mechanization and Modernization Fund” of $29,000,000 (the Mech Fund) to be used to mitigate the impact upon employees of technological unemployment. The agreement specifically reserved to the Association alone the right to determine how to raise the Mech Fund from its members, at the rate of some $5,000,000 a year.
A committee of the Association investigated various possible formulas for collecting the Fund from the steve-doring contractors and terminal operators — i. e., those Association members who were employers of workers represented by the ILWU. A majority of the committee recommended that the Mech Fund assessment be based solely on tonnage handled, and this recommendation was adopted by the Association membership. Under this formula, general cargo was assessed at 27per “revenue ton.” A revenue ton is based either on weight (2,000 lbs.=one ton) or measurement (40 cu. ft.=one ton). Whether tonnage declarations on a particular item of cargo were to be by weight or by measurement was to depend, with one exception, upon how that cargo had customarily been manifested (and reported to the Association for dues purposes) in 1959. The one exception was automobiles, for which there had been no uniform manifesting custom. The Association decided that automobiles were to be declared by measurement for Mech Fund purposes, regardless of how they were or had been manifested.
Unlike shippers by common carrier, the petitioner must arrange and pay for the unloading of its own chartered vessels upon their arrival in port. For this purpose it has since 1954 contracted with Marine Terminals Corporation and Marine Terminals Corporation of Los Angeles (Terminals), which are members of the Association, for the performance of stevedoring and related services in unloading vehicles from the petitioner’s chartered ships in West Coast ports, at a negotiated price. Prior to the Mech Fund assessment agreement, Terminals’ charge to the petitioner for these unloading services was $10.45 per vehicle, of which about a dollar represented Terminals’ profit. When the vehicles were assessed for the Mech Fund by measurement, the assessment came to $2.35 per vehicle — representing, if passed on to the petitioner, an increase in unloading costs of 22.5%. If the vehicles had been assessed by weight (0.9 tons) rather than by measurement (8.7 tons), the assessment would have been 250 per vehicle — an increase of about 2.4%, comparable to the average Mech Fund assessment of 2.2% for all other general cargo. Assessment by measurement rather than by weight thus resulted in an assessment rate for the petitioner’s automobiles of 10 times that for other West Coast cargo — although automobiles had less to gain than other cargo from the Mech Fund agreement. The petitioner and Terminals both protested these seeming inequities to a committee of the Association set up to handle such claims, but without success.
The petitioner refused to pay any additional charge resulting from the Association’s levy, and Terminals, while continuing to unload Volkswagen automobiles for the petitioner, did not pay its resulting assessment to the Association. The Association sued Terminals in a federal court in California for its failure to pay the Mech Fund assessments; Terminals admitted all the allegations of the complaint and impleaded the petitioner as a defendant. The petitioner then obtained a stay of that action to permit it to invoke the primary jurisdiction of the Federal Maritime Commission, in order to determine the following issues:
“1. Whether the assessments claimed from [the petitioner] are being claimed pursuant to an agreement or understanding which is required to be filed with and approved by the Federal Maritime Commission under Section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, 46 U. S. C. 814 (1961), before it is lawful to take any action thereunder, which agreement has not been so filed and approved.
“2. Whether the assessments claimed from [the petitioner] result in subjecting the automobile cargoes of [the petitioner] to undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in violation of Section 16 of the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, 46 U. S. C. 815 (1961).
“3. Whether the assessments claimed from [the petitioner] constitute an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of Section 17 of the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, 46 U. S. C. 816 (1961).”
The petitioner then began the present proceedings by filing a complaint with the Commission raising the above issues. The petitioner alleged that the Association was dominated by common carriers which had agreed upon the assessment formula in order to shift a disproportionate share of the Mech Fund assessment onto the petitioner,, which did not patronize those common carriers. The Commission, after a hearing, upheld the initial decision of its examiner and dismissed the complaint, with two dissents. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, and we granted certiorari to consider important questions under the Shipping Act.
I.
The petitioner’s primary contention — supported by the United States, a party-respondent — is that implementation of the Association’s formula for levying the Mech Fund assessments was unenforceable, because the agreement among Association members imposing that formula was not filed with the Commission in accord with § 15 of the Act. That section provides that there be filed with the Commission “every agreement” among persons subject to the Act
“fixing or regulating transportation rates or fares; giving or receiving special rates, accommodations, or other special privileges or advantages; controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition; pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, or traffic; allotting ports or restricting or otherwise regulating the number and character of sailings between ports; limiting or regulating in any way the volume or character of freight or passenger traffic to be carried; or in any manner providing for an exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangement...
Until submitted to and approved by the Commission, “it shall be unlawful to carry out in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, any such agreement... The
Commission is directed to disapprove any agreement be unlawful, and agreements, modifications, and cancellations shall be lawful only when and as long as approved by the Commission; before approval or after disapproval it shall be unlawful to carry out in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, any such agreement, modification, or cancellation; except that tariff rates, fares, and charges, and classifications, rules, and regulations explanatory thereof (including changes in special rates and charges covered by section 813a of this title which do not involve a change in the spread between such rates and charges and the rates and charges applicable to non-contract shippers) agreed upon by approved conferences, and changes and amendments thereto, if otherwise in accordance with law, shall be permitted to take effect without prior approval upon compliance with the publication and filing requirements of section 817 (b) of this title and with the provisions of any regulations the Commission may adopt.” 46 U. S. C. § 814.
“that it finds to be unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between carriers, shippers, exporters, importers, or ports, or between exporters from the United States and their foreign competitors, or to operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, or to be contrary to the public interest, or to be in violation of [the Act]....”
“The Commission shall by order, after notice and hearing, disapprove, cancel or modify any agreement, or any modification or cancellation thereof, whether or not previously approved by it, that it finds to be unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between carriers, shippers, exporters, importers, or ports, or between exporters from the United States and their foreign competitors, or to operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, or to be contrary to the public interest, or to be in violation of this chapter, and shall approve all other agreements, modifications, or cancellations. No such agreement shall be approved, nor shall continued approval be permitted for any agreement (1) between carriers not members of the same conference or conferences of carriers serving different trades that would otherwise be naturally competitive, unless in the case of agreements between carriers, each carrier, or in the case of agreement between conferences, each conference, retains the right of independent action, or (2) in respect to any conference agreement, which fails to provide reasonable and equal terms and conditions for admission and readmission to conference membership of other qualified carriers in the trade, or fails to provide that any
An agreement filed with and approved by the Commission is immunized from challenge under the antitrust laws.
The Commission held that, although the Mech Fund assessment formula was a “cooperative working agreement” clearly within the plain language of § 15, it nonetheless was not the kind of agreement required to be filed with the Commission under that section:
“Although the literal language of section 15 is broad enough to encompass any ‘cooperative working arrangement’ entered into by persons subject to the Act, the legislative history is clear that the statute was intended by Congress to apply only to those agreements involving practices which affect that competition which in the absence of the agreement would exist between the parties when dealing with the shipping or traveling public or their representatives.
“It is not contested that the membership of [the Association] entered into an agreement as to the manner of assessing its own membership for the collection of the ‘Mech’ fund. Such an agreement, however, does not fall within the confines of section 15 as, standing by itself, it has no impact upon outsiders. What must be demonstrated before a section 15 agreement may be said to exist is that there was an additional agreement by the [Association] membership to pass on all or a portion of its assessments to the carriers and shippers served by the terminal operators.” 9 F. M. C., at 82-83.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. That court felt itself confined by our decision in Consolo v. FMC, 383 U. S. 607, to determining simply whether the Commission’s ruling was supported by “substantial evidence.” With “due deference to the expertise of the Commission,” it concluded “(albeit with some hesitation) that there is substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole to support the Commission’s decision.” 125 U. S. App. D. C., at 290, 371 F. 2d, at 755.
The issue in this case, however, relates not to the sufficiency of evidence but to the construction of a statute. The construction put on a statute by the agency charged with administering it is entitled to deference by the courts, and ordinarily that construction will be affirmed if it has a “reasonable basis in law.” NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 131; Unemployment Commission v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 153-154. But the courts are the final authorities on issues of statutory construction, FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U. S. 374, 385, and “are not obliged to stand aside and rubber-stamp their affirmance of administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.” NLRB v. Brown, 380 U. S. 278, 291. “The deference owed to an expert tribunal cannot be allowed to slip into a judicial inertia....” American Ship Building Co. v. NLRB, 380 U. S. 300, 318. Cf. FMB v. Isbrandtsen Co., 356 U. S. 481, 499-500 (where this Court overturned the Commission’s construction of § 14 of the Shipping Act).
In limiting § 15 to agreements which “affect competition” and in finding that the assessment agreement did not so “affect competition,” the Commission in this case used that phrase in a highly artificial sense — by requiring “an additional agreement by the [Association] membership to pass on all or a portion of its assessments... There is no question that the assessment agreement necessarily affected the cost structures of, and the charges levied by, individual Association members. Most, though not all, of the stevedoring contractors and terminal operators did pass the assessment on. The economic realities were such that many of them had no choice — a fact of which they apprised the Association at the time the assessment arrangement was being devised. In the case of Terminals, the assessment it had to pay on Volkswagen automobiles was more than twice its profit margin.
The Commission thus took an extremely narrow view of a statute that uses expansive language. In support of that view, the Commission argued in this Court that a narrow construction of § 15 should be adopted in order to minimize the number of agreements that may receive antitrust exemption. However, antitrust exemption results, not when an agreement is submitted for filing, but only when the agreement is actually approved; and in deciding whether to approve an agreement, the Commission is required under § 15 to consider antitrust implications. FMC v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien, ante, p. 238; see also Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States, 93 U. S. App. D. C. 293, 211 F. 2d 51.
The Commission itself has not heretofore limited § 15 to horizontal agreements among competitors, but has applied it to other types of agreements coming within its literal terms. See, e. g., Agreements Nos. 8225 and 8225-1, Between Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission and Cargill, Inc., 5 F. M. B. 648 (1959), affirmed, 287 F. 2d 86, and Agreement No. T—4: Terminal Lease Agreement at Long Beach, California, 8 F. M. C. 521 (1965), applying § 15 to lease agreements. In the latter case, decided only four months before its decision in the case before us, the Commission said:
“Section 15 describes in unambiguous language those agreements that must be filed; it does not speak of agreements per se violative of the Sherman Act. Since the wording of section 15 is clear, we need not refer to the legislative history; there is simply no ambiguity to resolve.” 8 F. M. C., at 531.
To limit § 15 to agreements that “affect competition,” as the Commission used that phrase in the present case, simply does not square with the structure of the statute.
The legislative history offers no support for a different view. The genesis of the Shipping Act was the “Alexander Report” in 1914. FMB v. Isbrandtsen Co., 356 U. S. 481, 490. While it is true that the attention of that congressional committee was focused primarily upon the practices that had cartelized much of the maritime industry, it is clear that the concerns of its inquiry were far more broadly ranging. The report summed up the testimony before the committee:
“Nearly all the steamship line representatives... expressed themselves as not opposed to government supervision... and approval of all agreements or arrangements which steamship lines may have entered into with other steamship lines, with shippers, or with other carriers and transportation agencies. On the other hand, the shippers who appeared as witnesses... were in the great majority of instances favorable to a comprehensive system of government supervision... [and] the approval of contracts, agreements, and arrangements, and the general supervision of all conditions of water transportation which vitally affect the interests of shippers.” Alexander Report, at 418. (Emphasis added.)
The committee recommended, among other things:
“That all carriers engaged in the foreign trade of the United States, parties to any agreements, understandings, or conference arrangements hereinafter referred to, be required to file for approval... a copy of all written agreements (or a complete memorandum if the understanding or agreement is oral) entered into (1) with any other steamship companies, firms, or lines engaged directly or indirectly in the American trade, or (2) with American shippers, railroads or other transportation agencies.” Alexander Report, at 419-420.
Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress, in enacting § 15 of the Act, meant to do less than follow this recommendation of the Alexander Report and subject to the scrutiny of a specialized government agency the myriad of restrictive agreements in the maritime industry.
This is not to say that the Commission is without power to determine, after appropriate administrative proceedings, that some types or classes of agreements coming within the literal provisions of § 15 are of such a de minimis or routine character as not to require formal fifing. Since the Commission’s decision in the present case, Congress has explicitly given it such authority:
“The Federal Maritime Commission, upon application or on its own motion, may by order or rule exempt for the future any class of agreements between persons subject to this chapter or any specified activity of such persons from any requirement of this chapter, or Intercoastal Shipping Act, 1933, where it finds that such exemption will not substantially impair effective regulation by the Federal Maritime Commission, be unjustly discriminatory, or be detrimental to commerce.
“The Commission may attach conditions to any such exemptions and may, by order, revoke any such exemption.” 46 U. S. C. § 833a (1964 ed., Supp. II).
But the agreement with which we deal here — levying $29,000,000 over five years, binding all principal carriers, stevedoring contractors, and terminal operators on the Pacific Coast, and necessarily resulting in substantially increased stevedoring and terminal charges — was neither de minimis nor routine. We hold that this agreement was required to be filed under § 15 of the Act.
It is to be emphasized that the only agreement involved in this case is the one among members of the Association allocating the impact of the Mech Fund levy. We are not concerned here with the agreement creating the Association or with the collective bargaining agreement between the Association and the ILWTJ. No claim has been made in this case that either of those agreements was subject to the filing requirements of § 15. Those agreements, reflecting the national labor policy of free collective bargaining by representatives of the parties’ own unfettered choice, fall in an area of concern to the National Labor Relations Board, and nothing we have said in this opinion is to be understood as questioning their continuing validity. But in negotiating with the ILWU, the Association insisted that its members were to have the exclusive right to determine how the Mech Fund was to be assessed, and a clause to that effect was included in the collective bargaining agreement. That assessment arrangement, affecting only relationships among Association members and their customers, is all that is before us in this case. Moreover, so far as the record shows, only the assessment on automobiles is now challenged, and there is no reason to suppose that the Commission will not consider expeditious approval of so much of the agreement as is not in dispute.
II.
The petitioner also attacked the Association’s assessment of its automobiles under § 16 and § 17 of the Shipping Act. Section 16 makes it unlawful “to subject any particular person, locality, or description of trafile to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage,” and § 17 forbids any “unjust or unreasonable” regulation or practice “relating to or connected with the receiving, handling, storing, or delivering of property.” The Commission ruled that neither of these sections had been violated, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
If the agreement is now filed under § 15, the Commission will be called upon again to consider the effect of §§16 and 17, since an agreement that violates a specific provision of the Act must be disapproved. Accordingly, it is not inappropriate, without now passing upon the ultimate merits of the §§16 and 17 issues, to give brief consideration to the Commission’s handling of those issues upon the present record.
The Commission ruled that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any “undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage” under § 16 solely because it had not shown any unequal treatment as between its automobiles and other automobiles or cargo competitive with automobiles. In so ruling, the Commission applied the “competitive relationship” doctrine which it has developed in cases concerning rates for carriage of goods by sea. But the Commission, in cases not involving freight rates and the particularized economics that result from a vessel’s finite cargo capacity, has often found § 16 violations even in the absence of a “competitive relationship.” See, e. g., Practices, etc., of San Francisco Bay Area Terminals, 2 U. S. M. C. 588 (1941) and 709 (1944), and Storage Practices at Longview, Washington, 6 F. M. B. 178 (1960), involving storage charges; and New York Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Assn. v. FMC, 337 F. 2d 289, involving freight forwarders’ fees. In a proceeding subsequent to its decision in the present case, the Commission explicitly dispensed with the competitive relationship requirement with respect to port “free time.” Investigation of Free Time Practices — Port of San Diego, 9 F. M. C. 525 (1966); cf. California v. United States, 320 U. S. 577. See also Investigation on Household Goods, North Atlantic Mediterranean Freight Conference, F. M. C. Docket No. 66-49 (June 30,1967). When the agreement in the present case is filed, the Commission may consider anew whether the mere absence of a competitive relationship should foreclose further § 16 inquiry.
With respect to § 17, the Commission found that the assessment upon the petitioner’s automobiles was not “unreasonable,” because the petitioner had received “substantial benefits” in return for the assessment, and there was no showing of a deliberate intent to impose an unfair burden upon the petitioner. This, we think, reflects far too narrow a view of § 17. It may be that a relatively small charge imposed uniformly for the benefit of an entire group can be reasonable under § 17, even though not all members of the group receive equal benefits. See Evans Cooperage Co. v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, 6 F. M. B. 415. But here a relatively large charge was unequally imposed. The benefits received by the petitioner may have been substantial, but other cargo received greater benefits at one-tenth the cost. Moreover, the question of reasonableness under § 17 does not depend upon unlawful or discriminatory intent. As the Commission itself has said:
“[Sections 16 and 17] proscribe and make unlawful certain conduct, without regard to intent. The offense is committed by the mere doing of the act, and the question of intent is not involved.” Hellenic Lines Ltd. — Violation of Sections 16 (First) and 17, 7 F. M. C. 673, 675-676 (1964).
Cf. United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., 263 U. S. 515, 523-526; ICC v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 209 U. S. 108.
The question under § 17 is not whether the petitioner has received some substantial benefit as the result of the Mech Fund assessment, but whether the correlation of that benefit to the charges imposed is reasonable. The “substantial benefits” measure of unreasonableness used by the Commission in this case is far too blunt an instrument. Nothing in the language or history of the statute supports so tortured a construction of - the phrase “just and reasonable.” The Commission has cited no similar construction of the phrase by any other regulatory agency or court. Indeed, in past decisions the Commission itself has not applied any such test. See California Stevedore & Ballast Co. v. Stockton Elevators, Inc., 8 F. M. B. 97 (1964), and Practices, etc., of San Francisco Bay Area Terminals, 2 U. S. M. C. 588 (1941), affirmed, 320 U. S. 577, where the Commission found violations of § 17 even though the benefits received were clearly substantial. The proper inquiry under § 17 is, in a word, whether the charge levied is reasonably related to the service rendered.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
r..,, It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
All parties agree that this agreement was an enlightened, forward-looking step in West Coast longshore labor relations. See Kossoris, Working Rules in West Coast Longshoring, 84 Monthly Labor Rev. 1 (1961); Killingsworth, The Modernization of West Coast Longshore Work Rules, 15 Ind. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 295 (1962); ILWU (American Mail Line), 144 N. L. R. B. 1432, 1442 (1963).
The agreement was not signed in final form until November 15, 1961, although it was implemented in many respects prior to that date.
The agreement has been continued, and the Mech Fund is still being collected and paid out.
A minority of the committee recommended that the Mech Fund be raised by the same formula by which the Association’s dues were levied — a formula combining both tonnage handled and man-hours employed, in a ratio of 40/60.
Although the Mech Fund was initially assessed entirely on the basis of tonnage, the formula was later amended to assess employers of marine clerks on a man-hour basis. About 12% of the fund was collected in this way.
Bulk cargo was assessed at per revenue ton. In December 1961, the rates were increased to 28%0 for general cargo and 90 for bulk cargo.
On chartered vessels automobiles are manifested on a unit basis (showing weight and sometimes measurement). On common carriers both weight and measurement are shown. In coastwise trade automobiles are manifested by weight.
Some time after the assessment agreement was implemented, Terminals’ charge to the petitioner exclusive of the assessment decreased. The amount of the decrease does not appear in the record.
These figures represent a weighted average of the petitioner’s two model lines at the time of the assessment agreement. Passenger models were 0.8 ton by weight and 7.8 tons by measurement; unloading costs initially increased an estimated 22%. Transporter models were 1.1 tons by weight and 11.4 tons by measurement; unloading costs initally increased an estimated 31%.
When the Mech Fund agreement was reached, the unloading of automobiles was already so highly mechanized that there was little likelihood of improvement. Hence shippers of automobiles stood to receive from the agreement only the general benefits of a stable labor situation, such as freedom from strikes and slowdowns.
The committee did make downward adjustments for scrap metal and lumber.
By virtue of the Association’s bylaws, carriers control the Board of Directors and all membership votes. Both the committee which devised the assessment formula and the one which later ruled on claims of inequities were made up entirely of carriers; neither committee had a single member who was a stevedoring contractor or terminal operator.
The petitioner is the largest shipper of dry cargo by charter to West Coast ports. It ships more than 75% of its vehicles by charter and most of the rest by common carriers which are not members of the Association. About two-thirds of all automobiles imported through West Coast ports are Volkswagens. It appears that no other importer of automobiles through West Coast ports uses chartered vessels.
Most, but not all, of the stevedoring contractors and terminal operators passed the Mech Fund assessment on to their customers. In most instances these customers were common carriers who were members of the Association. The member carriers did not pass the assessment on to shippers. Hence, except in situations like the petitioner’s, the cost of the Mech Fund was borne by Association members.
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Marine Terminals Corp., 9 F. M. C. 77.
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC, 125 U. S. App. D. C. 282, 371 F. 2d 747.
388 U. S. 909.
“Every common carrier by water, or other person subject to this chapter, shall file immediately with the Commission a true copy, or, if oral, a true and complete memorandum, of every agreement with another such carrier or other person subject to this chapter, or modification or cancellation thereof, to which it may be a party or conform in whole or in part, fixing or regulating transportation rates or fares; giving or receiving special rates, accommodations, or other special privileges or advantages; controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition; pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, or traffic; allotting ports or restricting or otherwise regulating the number and character of sailings between ports; limiting or regulating in any way the volume or character of freight or passenger traffic to be carried; or in any manner providing for an exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangement. The term ‘agreement’ in this section includes understandings, conferences, and other arrangements.” 46 IT. S. C. § 814.
The original statute in 1916 required filing with the United States Shipping Board. 39 Stat. 728, 729, 733. The Shipping Board was succeeded in 1933 by the United States Shipping Board Bureau of the Department of Commerce, Exec. Order No. 6166, § 12 (1933); in 1936 by the United States Maritime Commission, 49 Stat. 1985; in 1950 by the Federal Maritime Board, 64 Stat. 1273; and in 1961 by the Federal Maritime Commission, 75 Stat. 840. In this opinion the Federal Maritime Commission and its predecessors are collectively referred to as the Commission.
“Any agreement and any modification or cancellation of any agreement not approved, or disapproved, by the Commission shall member may withdraw from membership upon reasonable notice without penalty for such withdrawal.
“The Commission shall disapprove any such agreement, after notice and hearing, on a finding of inadequate policing of the obligations under it, or of failure or refusal to adopt and maintain reasonable procedures for promptly and fairly hearing and considering shippers’ requests and complaints.” 46 U. S. C. §814.
“Every agreement, modification, or cancellation lawful under this section, or permitted under section 813a of this title, shall be excepted from the provisions of sections 1-11 and 15 of Title 15, and amendments and Acts supplementary thereto.” 46 U. S. C. §814.
The dissenting opinion of Commissioner Patterson vigorously attacked the Commission’s finding that there was no implied understanding among the Association members that the assessment would be passed on. 9 F. M. C., at 101-104. The Court of Appeals found considerable evidence in support of Commissioner Patterson’s view. 125 U. S. App. D. C., at 290, n. 7, 371 F. 2d, at 755, n. 7. However, applying the substantial evidence rule, the court upheld the Commission’s finding, although indicating that it might have found the facts differently itself. 125 U. S. App. D. C., at 290-291, 371 F. 2d, at 755-756.
One of the standards for approval under § 15, added in 1961, 75 Stat. 763, is whether or not the agreement is “contrary to the public interest.” See n. 17, supra. “We think it now beyond dispute that ‘the public interest’ within the meaning of section 15 includes the national policy embodied in the antitrust laws.” Mediterranean Pools Investigation, 9 F. M. C. 264, 289.
Any agreement subject to § 15 filing that is not both filed and approved is not only illegal under § 15 but also subject to attack under the antitrust laws. Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U. S. 213.
“[T]he Shipping Act specifically provides machinery for legalizing that which would otherwise be illegal under the anti-trust laws. The condition upon which such authority is granted is that the agency entrusted with the duty to protect the public interest scrutinize the agreement to make sure that the conduct thus legalized does not invade the prohibitions of the anti-trust laws any more than is necessary to serve the purposes of the regulatory statute.” 93 U. S. App. D. C., at 299, 211 F. 2d, at 57.
See also statement of Commission Chairman Harllee requesting from Congress the authority for the Commission to exempt from § 15 such otherwise included agreements as those between two freight forwarders in different ports to perform services for each other. H. R. Rep. No. 2248, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 4-5 (1966).
Section 15 requires filing of “every agreement” in any of seven categories, and one of the seven comprises all agreements which “regulat[e]... competition.” See n. 15, supra. The other six categories would be rendered virtually meaningless by the Commission’s construction.
House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Report on Steamship Agreements and Affiliations, H. R. Doc. No. 805, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 415-424 (1914).
The recommendations of the Alexander Report were incorporated into both the House and Senate Reports on the Shipping Act. H. R. Rep. No. 659, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 27-32 (1916); S. Rep. No. 689, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 7-12 (1916).
The need for this provision is set forth in S. Rep. No. 1459, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1966):
“The Federal Maritime Commission under the Shipping Act, 1916, regulates certain operations of water carriers and other persons subject to the act which have only slight effect on the foreign commerce of this country and are not significant in the overall design of regulation contemplated by the 1916 act. Exacting compliance with the act under these circumstances has proven unnecessarily costly to the carrier and the Government.
“The authority conferred under this legislation will relieve the Commission and affected carriers of an undue regulatory burden. In addition, a general exemption will preclude the necessity for a piecemeal approach in the future.”
Prior to this 1966 amendment, the Commission had taken some steps to protect itself from de minimis filings. In Section 15 Inquiry,, 1 U. S. S. B. 121 (1927), the Commission held “routine” intraconference changes and transactions not subject to § 15. In Oranje Line v
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant Street has been convicted in the New York courts of violating former § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, of the New York Penal Law, which makes it a misdemeanor “publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States].” He was given a suspended sentence. We must decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, that conviction denied to him rights of free expression protected by the First Amendment and assured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 269, 271, 276-277 (1964).
According to evidence given at trial, the events which led to the conviction were these. Appellant testified that during the afternoon of June 6, 1966, he was listening to the radio in his Brooklyn apartment. He heard a news report that civil rights leader James Meredith had been shot by a sniper in Mississippi. Saying to himself, “They didn’t protect him,” appellant, himself a Negro, took from his drawer a neatly folded, 48-star American flag which he formerly had displayed on national holidays. Appellant left his apartment and carried the still-folded flag to the nearby intersection of St. James Place and Lafayette Avenue. Appellant stood on the northeast corner of the intersection, lit the flag with a match, and dropped the flag on the pavement when it began to burn.
Soon thereafter, a police officer halted his patrol car and found the burning flag. The officer testified that he then crossed to the northwest corner of the intersection, where he found appellant “talking out loud” to a small group of persons. The officer estimated that there were some 30 persons on the corner near the flag and five to 10 on the corner with appellant. The officer testified that as he approached within 10 or 15 feet of appellant, he heard appellant say, “We don’t need no damn flag,” and that when he asked appellant whether he had burned the flag appellant replied: “Yes; that is my flag; I burned it. If they let that happen to Meredith we don’t need an American flag.” Appellant admitted making the latter response, but he denied that he said anything else and asserted that he always had remained on the corner with the flag.
Later the same day, appellant was charged, by an information sworn to before a judge of the New York City Criminal Court, with having committed “the crime of Malicious Mischief in that [he] did wilfully and unlawfully defile, cast contempt upon and burn an American Flag, in violation of 1425-16-D of the Penal Law, under the following circumstances: . . . [he] did wilfully and unlawfully set fire to an American Flag and shout, 'If they did that to Meredith, We don’t need an American Flag.’ ”
Appellant was tried before another Criminal Court judge, sitting without a jury, and was convicted of malicious mischief in violation of § 1425, subd. 16, par. d. He was subsequently given a suspended sentence. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed without opinion. Leave was granted to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and after plenary consideration that court unanimously affirmed. 20 N. Y. 2d 231, 229 N. E. 2d 187 (1967). We noted probable jurisdiction. 392 U. S. 923 (1968).
Street argues that his conviction was unconstitutional for three different reasons. First, he claims that § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, is overbroad, both on its face and as applied, because the section makes it a crime “publicly [to] defy ... or cast contempt upon [an American flag] by words (Emphasis added.) Second, he contends that § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, is vague and imprecise because it does not clearly define the conduct which it forbids. Third, he asserts that New York may not constitutionally punish one who publicly destroys or damages an American flag as a means of protest, because such an act constitutes expression protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. We deem it unnecessary to consider the latter two arguments, for we hold that § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, was unconstitutionally applied in appellant’s case because it permitted him to be punished merely for speaking defiant or contemptuous words about the American flag. In taking this course, we resist the pulls to decide the constitutional issues involved in this case on a broader basis than the record before us imperatively requires.
Though our conclusion is a narrow one, it requires pursuit of four lines of inquiry: (1) whether the constitutionality of the “words” part of the statute was passed upon by the New York Court of Appeals; (2) whether, if appellant’s conviction may have rested in whole or in part on his utterances and if the statute as thus applied is unconstitutional, these factors in themselves require reversal; (3) whether Street’s words may in fact have counted independently in his conviction; and (4) whether the “words” provision of the statute, as presented by this case, is unconstitutional.
I.
The New York Court of Appeals did not mention in its opinion the constitutionality of the “words” part of § 1425, subd. 16, par. d. Hence, in order to vindicate our jurisdiction to deal with this particular issue, we must inquire whether that question was presented to the New York courts in such a manner that it was necessarily decided by the New York Court of Appeals when it affirmed appellant’s conviction. If the question was not so presented, then we have no power to consider it. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1257 (2), 1257 (3); Bailey v. Anderson, 326 U. S. 203, 206-207 (1945). Moreover, this Court has stated that when, as here, the highest state court has failed to pass upon a federal question, it will be assumed that the omission was due to want of proper presentation in the state courts, unless the aggrieved party in this Court can affirmatively show the contrary. See, e. g., Bailey v. Anderson, supra; Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. McGuire, 196 U. S. 128, 131-133 (1905).
In this case, any want of presentation by the appellant must have occurred at the trial level, for there appears to be no doubt that the issue of the constitutionality of the “words” part of the statute was raised in appellant’s briefs in both the Appellate Term and the Court of Appeals, and the State does not suggest the contrary. In the trial court, appellant’s counsel raised the constitutional issues by means of the following motion:
“Before we plead to this case I would like to make a motion to dismiss the information upon the ground it does not state facts to constitute a crime on the following grounds: The defendant was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, to wit, freedom of speech. The allegation simply says that the defendant did wilfully and unlawfully set fire to an American flag and did say: ‘If they did that to Meredith we don’t need an American flag.’ Under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and under the New York State constitution on freedom of speech they provide for protest in many forms, whether it be by burning a flag, demonstration or picketing. This is a form of demonstration and protest.”
The motion was denied. It was renewed at the end of the State’s case and at the end of the trial, and on both occasions was again denied.
The issue whether a federal question was sufficiently and properly raised in the state courts is itself ultimately a federal question, as to which this Court is not bound by the decision of the state courts. However, it is not entirely' clear whether in such cases the scope of our review is limited to determining whether the state court has “by-passed the federal right under forms of local procedure” or whether we should decide the matter “de novo for ourselves.” Ellis v. Dixon, 349 IT. S. 458, 463 (1955). In either event, we think appellant has met the burden of showing that the issue of the constitutionality of the “words” part of § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, was adequately raised in the state trial court. The motion quoted above explicitly referred to appellant’s words. Appellant’s counsel termed appellant’s overall activity a “demonstration” or “protest,” terms which encompass words as well as conduct. Indeed, if appellant’s intention was to protest alleged governmental inaction in connection with the shooting of James Meredith, his words were an essential element, for without them no one would have known the object of his protest.
To the extent that the matter is governed by New York law, we have found no New York statutes or decisions which require that an issue be raised in the trial court with greater specificity than occurred here. In fact, in People v. McLucas, 15 N. Y. 2d 167, 172, 204 N. E. 2d 846, 848 (1965), the New York Court of Appeals held that when an appellant claims “deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right” New York appellate courts may review the correctness of a jury charge even though the appellant failed to except to the charge in the trial court. The Court of Appeals reached this result despite the fact that § 420-a of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure then required that an exception be taken “expressly” if the issue of the correctness of a jury charge was to be preserved for appellate review. In the present case, the right asserted by appellant was surely “fundamental,” and under New York law a less precise objection was required than to a jury instruction.
Insofar as the question of sufficient presentation is one for our independent decision, the controlling principle was set forth in the leading case of New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 67 (1928):
“There are various ways in which the validity of a state statute may be drawn in question on the ground that it is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. No particular form of words or phrases is essential, but only that the claim of invalidity and the ground therefor be brought to the attention of the state court with fair precision and in due time. And if the record as a whole shows either expressly or by clear intendment that this was done, the claim is to be regarded as having been adequately presented.” (Footnote omitted.)
We think this requirement was satisfied by appellant’s previously quoted motion in the trial court and his raising of the issue in the two appellate courts. We therefore conclude that the question is properly before us.
II.
We next consider whether it is our duty to reverse if we find, as we do in Parts III and IV, infra, that Street’s words could have been an independent cause of his conviction and that a conviction for uttering such words would violate the Constitution.
That such is our duty is made apparent by a number of decisions of this Court. In the leading case of Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931), the appellant was convicted by a jury under a California statute making it an offense publicly to display a red flag for any one of three purposes. Finding that it would be unconstitutional to punish one who displayed for the first-named reason, this Court rejected the state court’s reasoning that the appellant’s conviction could nevertheless be sustained because the other two statutory reasons were severable and constitutional. This Court said:
“The verdict against the appellant was a general one. It did not specify the ground upon which it rested. ... [I] t is impossible to say under which clause of the statute the conviction was obtained. If any one of these clauses . . . was invalid, it cannot be determined upon this record that the appellant was not convicted under that clause. ... It follows that . . . the conviction cannot be upheld.” Id., at 367-368.
The principle established in Stromberg has been consistently followed. In Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 (1942), this Court again held itself compelled to reverse a conviction based upon a general jury verdict when the record failed to prove that the conviction was not founded upon a theory which could not constitutionally support a verdict. The Court stated:
“To say that a general verdict of guilty should be upheld though we cannot know that it did not rest on the invalid constitutional ground . . . would be to countenance a procedure which would cause a serious impairment of constitutional rights.” Id., at 292.
The rule was again applied in Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1, 36, n. 45 (1945); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1949); and Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 311 (1957).
It is true that in the present case the general verdict was rendered by a judge, not a jury. However, if the ground of the judge’s decision cannot be ascertained from the record, then the danger of unconstitutional conviction is not significantly less than in the cases just discussed. Cf. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 528-529 (1945). Nor would it be appropriate to remand the case to the trial judge for a post hoc explanation of the grounds of his decision. Cf. Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653, 655 (1948). Hence, we conclude that the case is governed by the rule of Stromberg, and that appellant’s conviction must be set aside if we find that it could have been based solely upon his words and that a conviction resting on such a basis would be unconstitutional — a matter to which we shall turn in a moment.
Moreover, even assuming that the record precludes the inference that appellant’s conviction might have been based solely on his words, we are still bound to reverse if the conviction could have been based upon both his words and his act. This is made apparent by Thomas v. Collins, supra. The Court in that case noted that Thomas had been cited for contempt because during a meeting he allegedly had violated a court restraining order both by soliciting a single individual to join a union and by soliciting all nonunion men present. The Court found it unnecessary to consider the State’s contention that the judgment could be sustained on the basis of the individual solicitation alone. The Court said:
“The motion for the fiat in contempt was filed and the fiat itself was issued on account of both invitations. The order adjudging Thomas in contempt was in general terms, finding that he had violated the restraining order, without distinction between the solicitations set forth in the petition and proved as violations. The sentence was a single penalty. In this state of the record it must be taken that the order followed the prayer of the motion and the fiat’s recital, and that the penalty was imposed on account of both invitations. The judgment therefore must be affirmed as to both or as to neither. Cf. Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 292; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 368.” 323 U. S., at 528-529. (Footnotes omitted.)
Finding that a conviction based upon the general solicitation could not stand, the Court reversed the entire conviction.
As in Thomas, appellant here was charged with two acts violative of the statute: burning a flag and publicly speaking defiant or contemptuous words about the flag; and evidence was introduced to show the commission of both acts. Here too the verdict was general and the sentence a single penalty. Hence, unless the record negates the possibility that the conviction was based on both alleged violations, Thomas dictates that “[t]he judgment . . . must be affirmed as to both or as to neither.”
We take the rationale of Thomas to be that when a single-count indictment or information charges the commission of a crime by virtue of the defendant’s having done both a constitutionally protected act and one which may be unprotected, and a guilty verdict ensues without elucidation, there is an unacceptable danger that the trier of fact will have regarded the two acts as “intertwined” and have rested the conviction on both together. See 323 U. S., at 528-529, 540-541. There is no comparable hazard when the indictment or information is in several counts and the conviction is explicitly declared to rest on findings of guilt on certain of those counts, for in such instances there is positive evidence that the trier of fact considered each count on its own merits and separately from the others.
III.
We turn to considering whether appellant’s words could have been the sole cause of his conviction, or whether the conviction could have been based on both his words and his burning of the flag. As Stromberg teaches, we cannot take the opinion of the New York Court of Appeals as obviating our duty to examine the record for ourselves in order to ascertain whether the conviction may have rested upon such grounds. The sworn information which charged appellant with the crime of malicious mischief, and which is quoted more fully supra, at 579, recited not only that appellant had burned an American flag but also that he “[did] shout, 'If they did that to Meredith, We don’t need an American Flag.’ ” Section 1425, subd. 16, par. d, the statute which appellant was charged with violating, made it a crime not only publicly to mutilate a flag but also “publicly [to] defy ... or cast contempt upon [any American flag] by words.”
The State argues that appellant’s words were at most used to establish his unlawful intent in burning the flag. However, after a careful examination of the comparatively brief trial record, we find ourselves unable to say with certainty that appellant’s words were not an independent cause of his conviction. While it is true that at trial greater emphasis was placed upon appellant’s action in burning the flag than upon his words, a police officer did testify to the utterance of the words. The State never announced that it was relying exclusively upon the burning. The trial judge never indicated during the trial that he regarded appellant’s words as relating solely to intent. The judge found appellant guilty immediately after the end of the trial, and he delivered no oral or written opinion.
In the face of an information explicitly setting forth appellant’s words as an element of his alleged crime, and of appellant’s subsequent conviction under a statute making it an offense to speak words of that sort, we find this record insufficient to eliminate the possibility either that appellant’s words were the sole basis of his conviction or that appellant was convicted for both his words and his deed.
IV.
We come finally to the question whether, in the circumstances of this case, New York may constitutionally inflict criminal punishment upon one who ventures “publicly [to] defy ... or cast contempt upon [any American flag] by words . . . .”
The relevant evidence introduced at appellant’s trial, considered in the light most favorable to the State, must be taken to establish the following. At the time of his arrest, appellant was standing on a street corner and speaking to a small crowd; on the opposite corner lay the burning flag. Appellant said to the crowd: “We don’t need no damn flag”; and when questioned by a police officer appellant stated: “If they let that happen to Meredith we don’t need an American flag.” According to the officer, the crowds which gathered around appellant and around the flag did not obstruct the street or sidewalk and were neither unruly nor threatening.
In these circumstances, we can think of four governmental interests which might conceivably have been furthered by punishing appellant for his words: (1) an interest in deterring appellant from vocally inciting others to commit unlawful acts; (2) an interest in preventing appellant from uttering words so inflammatory that they would provoke others to retaliate physically against him, thereby causing a breach of the peace; (3) an interest in protecting the sensibilities of passers-by who might be shocked by appellant’s words about the American flag; and (4) an interest in assuring that appellant, regardless of the impact of his words upon others, showed proper respect for our national emblem.
In the circumstances of this case, we do not believe that any of these interests may constitutionally justify appellant’s conviction under § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, for speaking as he did. We begin with the interest in preventing incitement. Appellant’s words, taken alone, did not urge anyone to do anything unlawful. They amounted only to somewhat excited public advocacy of the idea that the United States should abandon, at least temporarily, one of its national symbols. It is clear that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States from imposing criminal punishment for public advocacy of peaceful change in our institutions. See, e. g., Cox v. Louisiana (I), 379 U. S. 536, 546-552 (1965); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 237-238 (1963); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4-5 (1949); cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 318-319 (1957). Even assuming that appellant’s words might be found incitive when considered together with his simultaneous burning of the flag, § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, does not purport to punish only those defiant or contemptuous words which amount to incitement, and there is no evidence that the state courts regarded the statute as so limited. Hence, a conviction for words could not be upheld on this basis. See, e. g., Yates v. United States, supra; Terminiello v. Chicago, supra.
Nor could such a conviction be justified on the second ground mentioned above: the possible tendency of appellant’s words to provoke violent retaliation. Though it is conceivable that some listeners might have been moved to retaliate upon hearing appellant’s disrespectful words, we cannot say that appellant’s remarks were so inherently inflammatory as to come within that small class of “fighting words” which are “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 574 (1942). And even if appellant’s words might be found within that category, § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, is not narrowly drawn to punish only words of that character, and there is no indication that it was so interpreted by the state courts. Hence, this case is again distinguishable from Chaplinsky, supra, in which the Court emphasized that the statute was “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression . . . .” Id., at 574. See also Terminiello v. Chicago, supra.
Again, such a conviction could not be sustained on the ground that appellant’s words were likely to shock passers-by. Except perhaps for appellant’s incidental use of the word “damn,” upon which no emphasis was placed at trial, any shock effect of appellant’s speech must be attributed to the content of the ideas expressed. It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers. See, e. g., Cox v. Louisiana (I), supra; Edwards v. South Carolina, supra; Terminiello v. Chicago, supra; cf. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940). And even if such a conviction might be upheld on the ground of “shock,” there is again no indication that the state courts regarded the statute as limited to that purpose.
Finally, such a conviction could not be supported on the theory that by making the above-quoted remarks about the flag appellant failed to show the respect for our national symbol which may properly be demanded of every citizen. In Board of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), this Court held that to require unwilling schoolchildren to salute the flag would violate rights of free expression assured by the Fourteenth Amendment. In his opinion for the Court, Mr. Justice Jackson wrote words which are especially apposite here:
“The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. . . . [FJreedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.” Id., at 641-642. (Footnote omitted.)
We have no doubt that the constitutionally guaranteed “freedom to be intellectually . . . diverse or even contrary,” and the “right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order,” encompass the freedom to express publicly one’s opinions about our flag, including those opinions which are defiant or contemptuous.
Since appellant could not constitutionally be punished under § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, for his speech, and since we have found that he may have been so punished, his conviction cannot be permitted to stand. In so holding, we reiterate that we have no occasion to pass upon the validity of this conviction insofar as it was sustained by the state courts on the basis that Street could be punished for his burning of the flag, even though the burning was an act of protest. Nor do we perceive any basis for our Brother White’s fears that our decision today may be taken to require reversal whenever a defendant is convicted for burning a flag in protest, following a trial at which his words have been introduced to prove some element of that offense. Assuming that such a conviction would otherwise pass constitutional muster, a matter about which we express no view, nothing in this opinion would render the conviction impermissible merely because an element of the crime was proved by the defendant’s words rather than in some other way. See United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 369-370, 376-377 (1968).
We add that disrespect for our flag is to be deplored no less in these vexed times than in calmer periods of our history. Cf. Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34 (1907). Nevertheless, we are unable to sustain a conviction that may have rested on a form of expression, however distasteful, which the Constitution tolerates and protects.
For the reasons previously set forth, we reverse the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
N. Y. Penal Law § 1425, subd. 16, par. d (1909). In 1967 § 1425, subd. 16, was superseded by § 136 of the General Business Law, which in par. d defines the offense in identical language. See N. Y. Laws 1965, c. 1031, § 52.
Appellant was simultaneously tried for disorderly conduct in connection with the same events. He was acquitted of that offense.
At one stage of the proceedings in this Court, the State moved for dismissal on the ground that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because the case was moot. The State pointed out. that appellant received a suspended sentence, and that the one-year period within which the suspended sentence might have been replaced with a prison sentence under New York law had expired. It further asserted that there were no significant collateral consequences under either New York or federal law. In response, appellant stated that his employer, the New York Transit Authority, had instituted disciplinary proceedings against him as a result of his conviction. Appellant was charged with “misconduct,” and according to Transit Authority rules he may be punished by a fine of up to $100 or suspension without pay for up to two months if the still-pending charges are finally sustained. Appellant also noted that §§ 393-c, 482, and 510 of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure provide respectively that his conviction may be used to rebut any character evidence adduced by him in future criminal proceedings; that a record of his conviction must be made available to the judge prior to imposition of any future criminal sentence; and that if convicted of a felony he may now be sentenced as a “habitual criminal.”
Only last Term, this Court held in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 633, n. 2 (1968), that the case of a New York appellant was not moot even though the time for revocation of his suspended sentence had expired, because it was possible that his license to operate a luncheonette might be withdrawn in consequence of his conviction. Here there is an actual rather than merely a potential threat that appellant will be deprived of his employment, albeit only temporarily. This Court also held last Term, in Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 50-58 (1968), that the case of a New York appellant who had fully served his misdemeanor sentence was not moot because he apparently could not have brought his case to this Court before completion of his sentence and because the conviction could be used for impeachment and sentencing purposes in future criminal proceedings. Appellant Street similarly was unable, despite diligent prosecution of his appeals, to bring his case here within a year of his sentencing. He is subject to all of the collateral penalties to which Sibron was liable. Hence, both Ginsberg and Sibron dictate that this case is not moot.
Also, we are unable to read the opinion of the Court of Appeals as reading the “words” clause out of the statute and authoritatively construing it to reach only the act of flag burning, whether as a protest or otherwise.
See, e. g., Parker v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 571, 574 (1948); Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442, 447 (1900); R. Robertson & F. Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States § 63, at 112 & n. 1 (R. Wolfson & P. Kurland ed. 1951), and other cases there cited.
At the time of appellant’s trial, § 420-a of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure provided that with respect to trial rulings other than jury instructions:
“An exception shall be deemed to have been taken by the party adversely affected to every ruling either before or after the cause is finally submitted, when such party, at the time when such ruling is sought or made, makes known to the court or judge his position thereon by objection or otherwise.”
We find unpersuasive the State’s argument that appellant’s omission to raise the question of the constitutionality of the “words” provision is shown by his failure at any stage to invoke the exclusionary rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), with respect to the admission of his words into evidence. For the State concedes that appellant’s words were probative at least with respect to his unlawful intent in burning the flag, see Brief for Appellee 45-46, and appellant therefore would have had reason to invoke Miranda even had he believed the “words” part of the statute to be irrelevant.
There can be no doubt that the Court’s disposition in Thomas, including its decision to reverse the conviction and not simply to remand for resentencing, was carefully considered. The case was originally argued during the 1943 Term but was ordered to be restored to the docket and reargued the following Term, with the parties directed to brief, inter alia, the question whether the general solicitation was a basis of Thomas’ conviction.
See, e. g., Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140 (1891); Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640 (1946); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109 (1959).
The State also contends that appellant’s words could not have been a ground of conviction because they obviously were not spoken “publicly,” as required by § 1425, subd. 16, par. d. However, although appellant testified that he spoke solely to a police officer, the officer himself gave evidence from which the trial judge might have concluded that appellant’s remarks were made either to or within hearing of a small crowd. See supra, at 578-579. Moreover, the sworn information recited that appellant “shout[ed]” his words on a city street, thereby apparently satisfying the statutory requirement that the words be said “publicly.”
Nor do we think it impossible for the trial judge to have found that by his statements, “We don’t need no damn flag” and “If they let that happen to Meredith we don’t need an American flag,” appellant “def[ied] ... or cast contempt upon [an American flag] by words” in violation of § 1425, subd. 16, par. d.
The State admits that there was only a “single and casual reference to this statement at the trial . . . .” Brief for Appellee 45.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This petition by officials of the Virginia prison system for a writ of certiorari arises out of a suit brought against them by an inmate of the Virginia State Penitentiary in which he alleged that on three occasions, between October 1968 and March 1970, he was placed in solitary confinement for misconduct without being given notice of the misconduct charged or an opportunity to meet the charge at a hearing, in violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and in which he requested monetary damages and expunction of all records of the discipline.
A jury at a partial trial found that respondent had in fact been placed in solitary confinement for misconduct without notice or a hearing. It also found that he had suffered mental but no physical damage. However, it made no finding with respect to the responsibility of any of the petitioners for his confinement. After offering respondent an additional opportunity to adduce further proof on this issue before a second jury, the trial judge ruled that respondent could recover nothing as the proof was insufficient to establish that petitioners had knowledge of or were responsible for respondent's confinement.
Respondent appealed and, without briefs or oral argument, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that the proof below would support a finding that petitioners were ultimately responsible for respondent’s solitary confinement, reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
On petition for rehearing petitioners contended that the constitutional rule requiring notice and some kind of a hearing in connection with serious prison discipline determinations was created in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, in 1974, and was expressly made inapplicable to disciplinary action taken before the date of that decision. Id., at 573-574. Thus even if respondent had proved that petitioners were responsible for his solitary confinement he could not, as a matter of law, obtain relief. The Court of Appeals denied the rehearing petition, saying that, in the district in which respondent was incarcerated, a federal decision predating Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, namely Landman v. Royster, 333 F. Supp. 621 (ED Va. 1971), required notice and a hearing in connection with serious prison discipline determinations. Petitioners contend here that Landman v. Royster, supra, was itself decided after the discipline determinations involved in this case and thus supplies no more basis for liability in this case than does Wolff v. McDonnell. We agree.
In Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, we held that a state prisoner was entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to notice and some kind of a hearing in connection with discipline determinations involving serious misconduct. However, we expressly rejected the holding of the Court of Appeals in that case that
"the due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings were to apply retroactively so as to require that prison records containing determinations of misconduct, not in accord with required procedures, be expunged,” 418 U. S., at 573;
and we expressly held our decision not to be retroactive. The holding was made in the context of a request for expunction of the records of prison discipline determinations. The same result obtains, a fortiori, to monetary claims against prison officials acting in good-faith reliance on a pre-existing procedure. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967). It is true that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Landman v. Royster, supra, anticipated in part the holding of this Court in Wolff v. McDonnell, supra. Even if this might bear on' the retroactivity issue with respect to discipline determinations made in the Eastern District of Virginia after the decision in Landman v. Royster, supra, and before the decision in Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, the discipline determinations in this case all occurred before the decision in Landman v. Royster, supra. Therefore, neither the rule announced in that case nor the one announced in Wolff v, McDonnell, supra, supports respondent’s damage or expunction claims here, Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The suit was also based on a claim that an unidentified guard inflicted a beating on respondent. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has sustained the District Court’s holding that none of the petitioners was responsible for the beating, and respondent has not filed a cross-petition for a writ of certiorari.
The trial judge was uncertain whether respondent was entitled to a jury trial. Counsel and the court agreed to obtain a jury’s findings of fact on certain issues in the form of a special verdict, and to postpone decision whether a jury trial was warranted.
We do not regard the uncertain dicta in Landman v. Peyton, 370 F. 2d 135 (CA4 1966), which did predate the discipline determinations involved here, as laying down a rule binding on petitioners prior to the later decision in Landman v. Royster, 333 F. Supp. 621 (ED Va. 1971). These dicta were not mentioned or relied on by the Court of Appeals or 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: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
With few exceptions, the “anti-cutback” rule of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits any amendment of a pension plan that would reduce a participant’s “accrued benefit.” 88 Stat. 858, 29 U. S. C. § 1054(g). The question is whether the rule prohibits an amendment expanding the categories of postretirement employment that trigger suspension of payment of early retirement benefits already accrued. We hold such an amendment prohibited.
I
Respondents Thomas Heinz and Richard Schmitt (collectively, Heinz) are retired participants in a multiemployer pension plan (hereinafter Plan) administered by petitioner Central Laborers’ Pension Fund. Like most other participants in the Plan, Heinz worked in the construction industry in central Illinois before retiring, and by 1996, he had accrued enough pension credits to qualify for early retirement payments under a defined benefit “service only” pension. This scheme pays him the same monthly retirement benefit he would have received if he had retired at the usual age, and is thus a form of subsidized benefit, since monthly payments are not discounted even though they start earlier and are likely to continue longer than the average period.
Heinz’s entitlement is subject to a condition on which this case focuses: the Plan prohibits beneficiaries of service only pensions from certain “disqualifying employment” after they retire. The Plan provides that if beneficiaries accept such employment their monthly payments will be suspended until they stop the forbidden work. When Heinz retired in 1996, the Plan defined “disqualifying employment” as any job as “a union or non-union construction worker.” Brief for Respondents 6. This condition did not cover employment in a supervisory capacity, however, and when Heinz took a job in central Illinois as a construction supervisor after retiring, the Plan continued to pay out his monthly benefit.
In 1998, the Plan’s definition of disqualifying employment was expanded by amendment to include any job “ fin any capacity in the construction industry (either as a union or nonunion construction worker).’” Ibid. The Plan took the amended definition to cover supervisory work and warned Heinz that if he continued on as a supervisor, his monthly pension payments would be suspended. Heinz kept working, and the Plan stopped paying.
Heinz sued to recover the suspended benefits on the ground that applying the amended definition of disqualifying employment so as to suspend payment of his accrued benefits violated ERISA’s anti-cutback rule. On cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the District Court granted judgment for the Plan, only to be reversed by a divided panel of the Seventh Circuit, which held that imposing new conditions on rights to benefits already accrued was a violation of the anti-cutback rule. 303 F. 3d 802 (CA7 2002). We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1045 (2003), in order to resolve the resulting Circuit split, see Spacek v. Maritime Assn., 134 F. 3d 283 (CA5 1998), and now affirm.
II
A
There is no doubt about the centrality of ERISA’s object of protecting employees’ justified expectations of receiving the benefits their employers promise them.
“Nothing in ERISA requires employers to establish employee benefits plans. Nor does ERISA mandate what kind of benefits employers must provide if they choose to have such a plan. ERISA does, however, seek to ensure that employees will not be left emptyhanded once employers have guaranteed them certain benefits. . . . [W]hen Congress enacted ERISA, it ‘wanted to . . . mak[e] sure that if a worker has been promised a defined pension benefit upon retirement — and if he has fulfilled whatever conditions are required to obtain a vested benefit — he actually will receive it.’” Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U. S. 882, 887 (1996) (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359, 375 (1980); citations omitted).
See also J. Langbein & B. Wolk, Pension and Employee Benefit Law 121 (3d ed. 2000) (hereinafter Langbein & Wolk) (“The central problem to which ERISA is addressed is the loss of pension benefits previously promised”).
ERISA’s anti-cutback rule is crucial to this object, and (with two exceptions of no concern here) provides that “[t]he accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan ...29 U. S. C. § 1054(g)(1). After some initial question about whether the provision addressed early retirement benefits, see Lang-bein & Wolk 164, a 1984 amendment made it clear that it does. Retirement Equity Act of 1984, § 301(a)(2), 98 Stat. 1451. Now § 204(g) provides that “a plan amendment which has the effect of. .. eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit... with respect to benefits attributable to service before the amendment shall be treated as reducing accrued benefits.” 29 U. S. C. § 1054(g)(2).
Hence the question here: did the 1998 amendment to the Plan have the effect of “eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit” that was earned by service before the amendment was passed? The statute, admittedly, is not as helpful as it might be in answering this question; it does not explicitly define “early retirement benefit,” and it rather circularly defines “accrued benefit” as “the individual’s accrued benefit determined under the plan . . . .” § 1002(23)(A). Still, it certainly looks as though a benefit has suffered under the amendment here, for we agree with the Seventh Circuit that, as a matter of common sense, “[a] participant’s benefits cannot be understood without reference to the conditions imposed on receiving those benefits, and an amendment placing materially greater restrictions on the receipt of the benefit ‘reduces’ the benefit just as surely as a decrease in the size of the monthly benefit payment.” 303 F. 3d, at 805. Heinz worked and accrued retirement benefits under a plan with terms allowing him to supplement retirement income by certain employment, and he was being reasonable if he relied on those terms in planning his retirement. The 1998 amendment undercut any such reliance, paying retirement income only if he accepted a substantial curtailment of his opportunity to do the kind of work he knew. We simply do not see how, in any practical sense, this change of terms could not be viewed as shrinking the value of Heinz’s pension rights and reducing his promised benefits.
B
The Plan’s responses are technical ones, beginning with the suggestion that the “benefit” that may not be devalued is actually nothing more than a “defined periodic benefit the plan is legally obliged to pay,” Brief for Petitioner 28, so that § 204(g) applies only to amendments directly altering the nominal dollar amount of a retiree’s monthly pension payment. A retiree’s benefit of $100 a month, say, is not reduced by a postaccrual plan amendment that suspends payments, so long as nothing affects the figure of $100 defining what he would be paid, if paid at all. Under the Plan’s reading, § 204(g) would have nothing to say about an amendment that resulted even in a permanent suspension of payments. But for us to give the anti-cutback rule a reading that constricted would take textual force majeure, and certainly something closer to irresistible than the provision quoted in the Plan’s observation that accrued benefits are ordinarily “expressed in the form of an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age,” 29 U. S. C. § 1002(23)(A).
The Plan also contends that, because § 204(g) only prohibits amendments that “eliminate] or reduc[e] an early retirement benefit,” the anti-cutback rule must not apply to mere suspensions of an early retirement benefit. This argument seems to rest on a distinction between “eliminat[e] or re-duele]” on the one hand, and “suspend” on the other, but it just misses the point. No one denies that some conditions enforceable by suspending benefit payments are permissible under ERISA: conditions set before a benefit accrues can survive the anti-cutback rule, even though their sanction is a suspension of benefits. Because such conditions are elements of the benefit itself and are considered in valuing it at the moment it accrues, a later suspension of benefit payments according to the Plan’s terms does not eliminate the benefit or reduce its value. The real question is whether a new condition may be imposed after a benefit has accrued; may the right to receive certain money on a certain date be limited by a new condition narrowing that right? In a given case, the new condition may or may not be invoked to justify an actual suspension of benefits, but at the moment the new condition is imposed, the accrued benefit becomes less valuable, irrespective of any actual suspension.
C
Our conclusion is confirmed by a regulation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that adopts just this reading of § 204(g). When Title I of ERISA was enacted to impose substantive legal requirements on employee pension plans (including the anti-cutback rule), Title II of ERISA amended the Internal Revenue Code to condition the eligibility of pension plans for preferential tax treatment on compliance with many of the Title I requirements. Employee Benefits Law 47, 171-173 (S. Sacher et al. eds., 2d ed. 2000). The result was a “curious duplicate structure” with nearly verbatim replication in the Internal Revenue Code of whole sections of text from Title I of ERISA. Langbein & Wolk 91, ¶ 6. The anti-cutback rule of ERISA § 204(g) is one such section, showing up in substantially identical form as 26 U. S. C. § 411(d)(6). This duplication explains the provision of the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, § 101, 43 Fed. Reg. 47713 (1978), 92 Stat. 3790, giving the Secretary of the Treasury the ultimate authority to interpret these overlapping anti-cutback provisions. See also Langbein & Wolk 92, ¶ 7 (“The IRS has [regulatory] jurisdiction over . . . benefit acerua[l] and vesting”). Although the pertinent regulations refer only to the Internal Revenue Code version of the anti-cutback rule, they apply with equal force to ERISA § 204(g). See 53 Fed. Reg. 26050,26053 (1988) (“The regulations under section 411 are also applicable to provisions of [ERISA] Title I”).
The IRS has formally taken the position that the anti-cutback rule does not keep employers from specifying in advance of accrual that “[t]he availability of a section 411(d)(6) protected benefit [is] limited to employees who satisfy certain objective conditions ... .” 26 CFR § 1.411(d)-4, A-6(a)(l) (2003). Without running afoul of the rule, for example, plans may say from the outset that a single sum distribution of benefits is conditioned on the execution of a covenant not to compete. § 1.411(d) — 4, A-6(a)(2). And employers are perfectly free to modify the deal they are offering their employees, as long as the change goes to the terms of compensation for continued, future employment: a plan “may be amended to eliminate or reduce section 411(d)(6) protected benefits with respect to benefits not yet accrued . . . .” § 1.411(d)-4, A-2(a)(l). The IRS regulations treat such conditions very differently, however, when they turn up as part of an amendmént adding new conditions to the receipt of benefits already accrued. The rule in that case is categorical: “[t]he addition of... objective conditions with respect to a section 411(d)(6) protected benefit that has already accrued violates section 411(d)(6). Also, the addition of conditions (whether or not objective) or any change to existing conditions with respect to section 411(d)(6) protected benefits that results in any further restriction violates section 411(d)(6).” §1.411(d)-4, A-7. So far as the IRS regulations are concerned, then, the anti-cutback provision flatly prohibits plans from attaching new conditions to benefits that an employee has already earned.
The IRS has, however, told two stories. The Plan points to a provision of the Internal Revenue Manual that supports its position: “[a]n amendment that reduces IRC 411(d)(6) protected benefits on account of [a plan’s disqualifying employment provision] does not violate IRC 411(d)(6).” Internal Revenue Manual 4.72.14.3.5.3(7) (May 4, 2001), available at http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch50sl9.html. And the United States as amicus curiae says that the IRS has routinely approved amendments to plan definitions of disqualifying employment, even when they apply retroactively to accrued benefits. But neither an unreasoned statement in the manual nor allegedly longstanding agency practice can trump a formal regulation with the procedural history necessary to take on the force of law. See generally Note, Omnibus Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Act: Taxpayers’ Remedy or Political Placebo? 86 Mich. L. Rev. 1787, 1799-1801 (1988) (discussing legal status of the Internal Revenue Manual). Speaking in its most authoritative voice, the IRS has long since approved the interpretation of § 204(g) that we adopt today.
Ill
In criticizing the Seventh Circuit’s reading of § 204(g), the Plan and the United States rely heavily on an entirely separate section of ERISA § 203(a)(3)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1053(a)(3)(B). Here they claim to find specific authorization to amend suspension provisions retroactively, in terms specific enough to trump any general prohibition imposed by § 204(g). Section 203(a)(3)(B) provides that
“[a] right to an accrued benefit derived from employer contributions shall not be treated as forfeitable solely because the plan provides that the payment of benefits is suspended for such period as [beneficiaries like respondents are] employed ... in the same industry, in the same trade or craft, and the same geographic area covered by the plan, as when such benefits commenced.” 29 U. S. C. § 1053(a)(3)(B).
The Plan’s arguments notwithstanding, § 203(a)(3)(B) is irrelevant to the question before us, for at least two reasons.
First, as a technical matter, § 203(a) addresses the entirely different question of benefit forfeitures. This is a distinct concept: § 204(g) belongs to the section of ERISA that sets forth requirements for benefit accrual (the rate at which an employee earns benefits to put in his pension account), see 29 U. S. C. § 1054, whereas § 203(a)(3)(B) is in the section that regulates vesting (the process by which an employee’s already-accrued pension account becomes irrevocably his property), see 29 U. S. C. § 1053. See generally Nachman Corp., 446 U. S., at 366, n. 10 (“Section 203(a) is a central provision in ERISA. It requires generally that a plan treat an employee’s benefits, to the extent that they have vested by virtue of his having fulfilled age and length of service requirements no greater than those specified in § 203(a)(2), as not subject to forfeiture”). To be sure, the concepts overlap in practical effect, and a single act by a plan might raise both vesting and accrual concerns. But it would be a non sequitur to conclude that, because an amendment does not constitute a prohibited forfeiture under §203, it must not be a prohibited reduction under §204. Just because § 203(a)(3)(B) failed to forbid it would not mean that § 204(g) allowed it.
Second, read most simply and in context, § 203(a)(3)(B) is a statement about the terms that can be offered to plan participants up front and enforced without amounting to forfeiture, not as an authorization to adopt retroactive amendments. Section 203(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1053(a), reads that “[e]ach pension plan shall provide that an employee’s right to his normal retirement benefit is nonforfeitable upon the attainment of normal retirement age.” This is a global directive that regulates the substantive content of pension plans; it adds a mandatory term to all retirement packages that a company might offer. Section 203(a)(3)(B), in turn, is nothing more than an explanation of this substantive requirement. Congress wanted to allow employers to condition future benefits on a plan participant’s agreement not to accept certain kinds of postretirement employment, see n. 1, supra, and it recognized that a plan provision to this effect might be seen as rendering vested benefits improperly forfeitable. Accordingly, adding § 203(a)(3)(B) made it clear that such suspension provisions were permissible in narrow circumstances. But critically for present purposes, § 203(a)(3)(B) speaks only to the permissible substantive scope of existing ERISA plans, not to the procedural permissibility of plan amendments. The fact that ERISA allows plans to include a suspension provision going to benefits not yet accrued has no logical bearing on the analysis of how ERISA treats the imposition of such a condition on (implicitly) bargained-for benefits that have accrued already. Section 203(a)(3)(B) is no help to the Plan.
The judgment of the Seventh Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
This suspension provision was adopted on the authority of ERISA § 203(a)(3)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1053(a)(3)(B). In authorizing such suspensions, Congress seems to have been motivated at least in part by a desire “to protect participants against their pension plan being used, in effect, to subsidize low-wage employers who hire plan retirees to compete with, and undercut the wages and working conditions of employees covered by the plan.” 120 Cong. Rec. 29930 (1974) (statement of Sen. Wiliams regarding § 203(a)(3)(B)). That explains why ERISA permits multiemployer plans to suspend a retiree’s benefits only if he accepts work “in the same industry, in the same trade or craft, and the same geographic area covered by the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1053(a)(3)(B)(ii).
ERISA § 204(g) allows the reduction of accrued benefits by amendment in cases where a plan faces “substantial business hardship,” 29 U. S. C. § 1082(c)(8), and in cases involving terminated multiemployer plans, § 1441.
“A plan shall be treated as not satisfying the requirements of this section if the accrued benefit of a participant is decreased by an amendment of the plan, other than an amendment described in section 412(c)(8) [of this Code], or [29 U.S.C. §1441].” 26 U. S. C. § 411(d)(6)(A); see also § 411(d)(6)(B) (clarifying that the anti-cutback rule applies to early retirement benefits). Cf. n. 2, supra, and accompanying text (detailing ERISA § 204(g)).
Nothing we hold today requires the IRS to revisit the tax-exempt status in past years of plans that were amended in reliance on the agency’s representations in its manual by expanding the categories of work that would trigger suspension of benefit payments as to already-accrued benefits. The Internal Revenue Code gives the Commissioner discretion to decline to apply decisions of this Court retroactively. 26 U. S. C. § 7805(b)(8) (“The Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling (including any judicial decision or any administrative determination other than by regulation) relating to the internal revenue laws shall be applied without retroactive effect”). This would doubtless be an appropriate occasion for exercise of that discretion.
This is not to say that § 203(a)(3)(B) does not authorize some amendments. Plans are free to add new suspension provisions under § 203(a)(3)(B), so long as the new provisions apply only to the benefits that will be associated with future employment. The point is that this section regulates the contents of the bargain that can be struck between employer and employees as part of the complete benefits package for future employment.
For analogous reasons, the Plan’s reliance on 26 CFR § 1.411(c)-l(f) (2003) is unavailing. That section provides that, for the purpose of allocating accrued benefits between employer and employee contributions, “[n]o adjustment to an accrued benefit is required on account of any suspension of benefits if such suspension is permitted under section 203(a)(3)(B).” We read this provision as simply establishing that the actual suspension of benefit payments pursuant to an existing suspension provision does not affect the actuarial value of a beneficiary’s total benefits package for the purpose of allocation calculations, since the suspension provision has already been accounted for in the initial valuation. Cf. n. 3, supra. Far from helping the Plan, this regulation tends to support our larger proposition that it is the addition of a suspension condition, not the actual suspension of a benefit, that reduces an employee’s accrued benefit.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, with its emotional overtones, we must decide whether the free speech guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are violated by an assembly and parade ordinance that permits a government administrator to vary the fee for assembling or parading to reflect the estimated cost of maintaining public order.
H-C
Petitioner Forsyth County is a primarily rural Georgia county approximately 30 miles northeast of Atlanta. It has had a troubled racial history. In 1912, in one month, its entire African-American population, over 1,000 citizens, was driven systematically from the county in the wake of the rape and murder of a white woman and the lynching of her accused assailant. Seventy-five years later, in 1987, the county population remained 99% white.
Spurred by this history, Hosea Williams, an Atlanta city councilman and civil rights personality, proposed a Forsyth County “March Against Fear and Intimidation” for January 17, 1987. Approximately 90 civil rights demonstrators attempted to parade in Cumming, the county seat. The marchers were met by members of the Forsyth County Defense League (an independent affiliate of respondent, The Nationalist Movement), of the Ku Klux Klan, and other Cumming residents. In all, some 400 counterdemonstrators lined the parade route, shouting racial slurs. Eventually, the counterdemonstrators, dramatically outnumbering police officers, forced the parade to a premature halt by throwing rocks and beer bottles.
Williams planned a return march the following weekend. It developed into the largest civil rights demonstration in the South since the 1960’s. On January 24, approximately 20,000 marchers joined civil rights leaders, United States Senators, Presidential candidates, and an Assistant United States Attorney General in a parade and rally. The 1,000 counterdemonstrators on the parade route were contained by more than 3,000 state and local police and National Guardsmen. Although there was sporadic rock throwing and 60 counterdemonstrators were arrested, the parade was not interrupted. The demonstration cost over $670,000. in police protection, of which Forsyth County apparently paid a small portion. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 75-94; Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 1987, Metro section, p. 5, col. 1.
“As a direct result” of these two demonstrations, the For-syth County Board of Commissioners enacted Ordinance 34 on January 27,1987. See Brief for Petitioner 6. The ordinance recites that it is “to provide for the issuance of permits for parades, assemblies, demonstrations, road closings, and other uses of public property and roads by private organizations and groups of private persons for private purposes.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. 98. The board of commissioners justified the ordinance by explaining that “the cost of necessary and reasonable protection of persons participating in or observing said parades, assemblies, demonstrations, road closings and other related activities exceeds the usual and normal cost of law enforcement for which those participating should be held accountable and responsible.” Id., at 100. The ordinance required the permit applicant to defray these costs by paying a fee, the amount of which was to be fixed “from time to time” by the Board. Id., at 105.
Ordinance 34 was amended on June 8,1987, to provide that every permit applicant “ ‘shall pay in advance for such permit, for the use of the County, a sum not more than $1,000.00 for each day such parade, procession, or open air public meeting shall take place/ ” Id., at 119. In addition, the county administrator was empowered to “ ‘adjust the amount to be paid in order to meet the expense incident to the administration of the Ordinance and to the maintenance of public order in the matter licensed.’” Ibid.
In January 1989, respondent The Nationalist Movement proposed to demonstrate in opposition to the federal holiday commemorating the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. In Forsyth County, the Movement sought to “conduct a rally and speeches for one and a half to two hours” on the courthouse steps on a Saturday afternoon. Nationalist Movement v. City of Cumming, 913 F. 2d 885, 887 (CA11 1990). The county imposed a $100 fee. The fee did not include any calculation for expenses incurred by law enforcement authorities, but was based on 10 hours of the county administrator’s time in issuing the permit. The county administrator testified that the cost of his time was deliberately undervalued and that he did not charge for the clerical support involved in processing the application. Tr. 135-139.
The Movement did not pay the fee and did not hold the rally. Instead, it instituted this action on January 19, 1989, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, requesting a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction prohibiting Forsyth County from interfering with the Movement’s plans.
The District Court denied the temporary restraining order and injunction. It found that, although “the instant ordinance vests much discretion in the County Administrator in determining an appropriate fee,” the determination of the fee was “based solely upon content-neutral criteria; namely, the actual costs incurred investigating and processing the application.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 13-14. Although it expressed doubt about the constitutionality of that portion of the ordinance that permits fees to be based upon the costs incident to maintaining public order, the District Court found that “the county ordinance, as applied in this ease, is not unconstitutional.” Id., at 14.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed this aspect of the District Court's judgment. Nationalist Movement v. City of Cumming, 913 F. 2d 885 (1990). Relying on its prior opinion in Central Florida Nuclear Freeze Campaign v. Walsh, 774 F. 2d 1515, 1521 (CA11 1985), cert. denied, 475 U. S. 1120 (1986), the Court of Appeals held: “An ordinance which charges more than a nominal fee for using public forums for public issue speech, violates the First Amendment.” 913 F. 2d, at 891 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court determined that a permit fee of up to $1,000 a day exceeded this constitutional threshold. Ibid. One judge concurred specially, calling for Central Florida to be overruled. 913 F. 2d, at 896.
-- The Court of Appeals then voted to vacate the panel's opinion ánd to rehear the ease en banc, 921 F. 2d 1125 (1990). After further briefing, the court issued a per cu-riam opinion reinstating the panel opinion in its entirety. 934 F. 2d 1482, 1483 (1991). Two judges, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed that any fee imposed on the exercise of First Amendment rights in a traditional public forum must be nominal if it is to survive constitutional scrutiny. Those judges, however, did not believe that the county ordinance swept so broadly that it was facially invalid, and would have remanded the case for the District Court to determine whether the fee was nominal. Ibid. Three judges dissented, arguing that this Court’s cases do not require that fees be nominal. Id., at 1493.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals concerning the constitutionality of charging a fee for a speaker in a public forum. 502 U. S. 1023 (1991).
II
Respondent mounts a facial challenge to the Forsyth County ordinance. It is well established that in the area of freedom of expression an overbroad regulation may be subject to facial review and invalidation, even though its application in the case under consideration may be constitutionally unobjectionable. See, e.g., City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 798-799, and n. 15 (1984); Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U. S. 569, 574 (1987). This exception from general standing rules is based on an appreciation that the very existence of some broadly written laws has the potential to chill the expressive activity of others not before the court. See, e.g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 772 (1982); Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U. S. 491, 503 (1985). Thus, the Court has permitted a party to challenge an ordinance under the overbreadth doctrine in eases where every application creates an impermissible risk of suppression of ideas, such as an ordinance that delegates overly broad discretion to the decisionmaker, see Thornhill v. Ala bama, 310 U. S. 88, 97 (1940); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 56 (1965); Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S., at 798, n. 15, and in cases where the ordinance sweeps too broadly, penalizing a substantial amount of speech that is constitutionally protected, see Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 (1973); Jews for Jesus, 482 U. S., at 574-575.
The Forsyth County ordinance requiring a permit and a fee before authorizing public speaking, parades, or assemblies in “the archetype of a traditional public forum,” Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 480 (1988), is a prior restraint on speech, see Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150-151 (1969); Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 271 (1951). Although there is a “heavy presumption” against the validity of a prior restraint, Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963), the Court has recognized that government, in order to regulate competing uses of public forums, may impose a permit requirement on those wishing to hold a march, parade, or rally, see Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 574-576 (1941). Such a scheme, however, must meet certain constitutional requirements. It may not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to a government official. See Freedman v. Maryland, supra. Further, any permit scheme controlling the time, place, and manner of speech must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternatives for communication. See United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 177 (1983).
-A
Respondent contends that the county ordinance is facially invalid because it does not prescribe adequate standards for the administrator to apply when he sets a permit fee. A government regulation that allows arbitrary application is “inherently inconsistent with a valid time, place, and manner regulation because such discretion has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view.” Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640, 649 (1981). To curtail that risk, “a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license” must contain “narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority.” Shuttlesworth, 394 U. S., at 150-151; see also Niemotko, 340 U. S., at 271. The reasoning is simple: If the permit scheme “involves appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940), by the licensing authority, “the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great” to be permitted, Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 553 (1975).
In evaluating respondent’s facial challenge, we must consider the county’s authoritative constructions of the ordinance, including its own implementation and interpretation of it. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 795-796 (1989); Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U. S. 750, 770, n. 11 (1988); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 524-528 (1972). In the present litigation, the county has made clear how it interprets and implements the ordinance. The ordinance can apply to any activity on public property— from parades, to street corner speeches, to bike races — and the fee assessed may reflect the county’s police and administrative costs. Whether or not, in any given instance, the fee would include any or all of the county’s administrative and security expenses is decided by the county administrator.
In this case, according to testimony at the District Court hearing, the administrator based the fee on his own judgment of what would be reasonable! Although the county paid for clerical support and staff as an “expense incident to the administration” of the permit, the administrator testified that he chose in this instance not to include that expense in the fee. The administrator also attested that he had deliberately kept the fee low by undervaluing the cost of the time he spent processing the application. Even if he had spent more time on the project, he claimed, he would not have charged more. He further testified that, in this instance, he chose not to include any charge for expected security expense. Tr. 135-139.
The administrator also explained that the county had imposed a fee pursuant to a permit on two prior occasions. The year before, the administrator had assessed a fee of $100 for a permit for the Movement. The administrator testified that he charged the same fee the following year (the year in question here), although he did not state that the Movement was seeking the same use of county property or that it required the same amount of administrative time to process. Id, at 138. The administrator also once charged bike-race organizers $25 to hold a race on county roads, but he did not explain why processing a bike-race permit demanded less administrative time than processing a parade permit or why he had chosen to assess $25 in that instance. Id., at 143-144. At oral argument in this Court, counsel for Forsyth County stated that the administrator had levied a $5 fee on the Girl Scouts for an activity on county property. Tr. of Oral Arg. 26. Finally, the administrator testified that in other eases the county required neither a permit nor a fee for activities in other county facilities or on county land. Tr. 146.
Based on the county’s implementation and construction of the ordinance, it simply cannot be said that there are any “narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards,” Niemotko, 340 U. S., at 271, guiding the hand of the Forsyth County administrator. The decision how much to charge for police protection or administrative time — or even whether to charge at all — is left to the whim of the administrator. There are no articulated standards either in the ordinance or in the county’s established practice. The administrator is not required to rely on any objective factors. He need not provide any explanation for his decision, and that decision is unreviewable. Nothing in the law or its application prevents the official from encouraging some views and discouraging others through the arbitrary application of fees. The First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official.
B
The Forsyth County ordinance contains more than the possibility of censorship through uncontrolled discretion. As construed by the county, the ordinance often requires that the fee be based on the content of the speech.
The county envisions that the administrator, in appropriate instances, will assess a fee to cover “the cost of necessary and reasonable protection of persons participating in or observing said . . . activitfyj.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. 100. In order to assess accurately the cost of security for parade participants, the administrator “ ‘must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed/” Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 230 (1987), quoting FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364, 383 (1984), estimate the response of others to that content, and judge the number of police necessary to meet that response. The fee assessed will depend on the administrator’s measure of the amount of hostility likely to be created by the speech based on its content. Those wishing to express views unpopular with bottle throwers, for example, may have to pay more for their permit.
Although petitioner agrees that the cost of policing relates to content, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 15 and 24, it contends that the ordinance is content neutral because it is aimed only at a secondary effect — the cost of maintaining public order. It is clear, however, that, in this case, it cannot be said that the fee’s justification ‘“ha[s] nothing to do with content.’” Ward, 491 U. S., at 792, quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 320 (1988) (opinion of O’Connor, J.).
The costs to which petitioner refers are those associated with the public’s reaction to the speech. Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. See id., at 321 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); id., at 334 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 55-56 (1988); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 116 (1943); cf. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 162 (1939) (fact that city is financially burdened when listeners throw leaflets on the street does not justify restriction on distribution of leaflets). Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob. See Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949).
This Court has held time and again: "Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment.” Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U. S. 641, 648-649 (1984); Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Member of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 116 (1991); Arkansas Writers' Project, 481 U. S., at 230. The county offers only one justification for this ordinance: raising revenue for police services. While this undoubtedly is an important government responsibility, it does not justify a content-based permit fee. See id., at 229-231.
Petitioner insists that its ordinance cannot be unconstitutionally content based because it contains much of the same language as did the state statute upheld in Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941). Although the Supreme Court of New Hampshire had interpreted the statute at issue in Cox to authorize the municipality to charge a permit fee for the “maintenance of public order,” no fee was actually assessed. See id., at 577. Nothing in this Court’s opinion suggests that the statute, as interpreted by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, called for charging a premium in the case of a controversial political message delivered before a hostile audience. In light of the Court’s subsequent First Amendment jurisprudence, we do not read Cox to permit such a premium.
C
Petitioner, as well as the Court of Appeals and the District Court, all rely on the maximum allowable fee as the touchstone of constitutionality. Petitioner contends that the $1,000 cap on the fee ensures that the ordinance will not result in content-based discrimination. The ordinance was found unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals because the $1,000 cap was not sufficiently low to be “nominal.” Neither the $1,000 cap on the fee charged, nor even some lower nominal cap, could save the ordinance because in this context, the level of the fee is irrelevant. A tax based on the content of speech does not become more constitutional because it is a small tax.
The lower courts derived their requirement that the permit fee be “nominal” from a sentence in the opinion in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943). In Murdock, the Court invalidated a flat license fee levied on distributors of religious literature. In distinguishing the case from Cox, where the Court upheld a permit fee, the Court stated: “And the fee is not a nominal one, imposed as a regulatory measure and calculated to defray the expense of protecting those on the streets and at home against the abuses of solicitors.” 319 U. S., at 116. This sentence does not mean that an invalid fee can be saved if it is nominal, or that only nominal charges are constitutionally permissible. It reflects merely one distinction between the facts in Murdock and those in Cox.
The tax at issue in Murdock was invalid because it was unrelated to any legitimate state interest, not because it was of a particular size. Similarly, the provision of the Forsyth County ordinance relating to fees is invalid because it unconstitutionally ties the amount of the fee to the content of the speech and lacks adequate procedural safeguards; no limit on such a fee can remedy these constitutional violations.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The 1910 census counted 1,098 African-Americans in Forsyth County. U. S. Dept, of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Negro Population 1790-1915, p. 779 (1918). For a description of the 1912 events, see generally Hack-worth, “Completing the Job” in Forsyth County, 8 Southern Exposure 26 (1980).
See J. Clements, Georgia Facts 184 (1989); Hackworth, 8 Southern Exposure, at 26 (“[0]ther than an occasional delivery truck driver or visiting government official, there are currently no black faces anywhere in the county”).
See Chicago Tribune, Jan. 25, 1987, p. 1; Los Angeles Times, Jan. 25, 1987, p. 1, col. 2; App. to Pet. for Cert. 89-91.
Petitioner Forsyth County does not indicate what portion of these costs it paid. Newspaper articles reported that the State of Georgia paid an estimated $579,148. Other government entities paid an additional $29,769. Figures were not available for the portion paid by the city of Atlanta for the police it sent. See id., at 95-97.
The ordinance was amended at other times, too, but those amendments are not under challenge here.
The demonstration proposed was to consist of assembling at the For-syth County High School, marching down a public street in Cumming to the courthouse square, and there conducting a rally. Only the rally was to take place on property under the jurisdiction of the county. The parade and assembly required permits from the city of Cumming and the Forsyth County Board of Education. Their permit schemes are not challenged here.
These judges also found that the ordinance contained sufficiently tailored standards for the administrator to use in reviewing permit applications. 934 F. 2d 1482, 1487-1489 (1991). This issue was raised by respondent, but the panel did not reach it.
Compare the Eleventh Circuit’s opinions in this litigation, 913 F. 2d 885, 891 (1990), and 934 F. 2d 1482, 1483 (1991), with Stonewall Union v. Columbus, 931 F. 2d 1130, 1136 (CA6) (permitting greater than nominal fees that are reasonably related to expenses incident to the preservation of public safety and order), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 899 (1991); Eastern Conn. Citizens Action Group v. Powers, 723 F. 2d 1050, 1056 (CA2 1983) (licensing fees permissible only to offset expenses associated with processing applications for public property); Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F. 2d 619, 632-633 (CA5 1981) ($6 fiat fee for permit was unconstitutional), cert. dism’d, 458 U. S. 1124 (1982).
In pertinent part, the ordinance, as amended, states that the administrator “shall adjust the amount to be paid in order to meet the expense incident to the administration of the Ordinance and to the maintenance of public order.” §3(6) (emphasis added), App. to Pet. for Cert. 119. This could suggest that the administrator has no authority to reduce or waive these expenses. It has not been so understood, however, by the county. See 934 F. 2d, at 1488, n. 12 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). In its February 23, 1987, amendments to the ordinance, the board of commissioners changed the permit form from “Have you paid the application fee?” to “Have you paid any application fee?,” see App. to Pet. for Cert. 115 (emphasis added), thus acknowledging the administrator’s authority to charge no fee.
The District Court’s finding that in this instance the Forsyth County administrator applied legitimate, content-neutral criteria, even if correct, is irrelevant to this facial challenge. Facial attacks on the discretion granted a decisionmaker are not dependent on the facts surrounding any particular permit decision. See Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U. S. 760, 770 (1988). “It is not merely the sporadic abuse of power by the censor but the pervasive threat inherent in its very existence that constitutes the danger to freedom of discussion.” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97 (1940). Accordingly, the success of a facial challenge on the grounds that an ordinance delegates overly broad discretion to the decisionmaker rests not on whether the administrator has exercised his discretion in a content-based manner, but whether there is anything in the ordinance preventing him from doing so.
Petitioner also claims that Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941), excuses the administrator’s discretion in setting the fee. Reliance on Cox is misplaced. Although the discretion granted to the administrator under the language in this ordinance is the same as in the statute at issue in Cox, the interpretation and application of that language are different. Unlike this case, there was in Cox no testimony or evidence that the statute granted unfettered discretion to the licensing authority. Id., at 576-577.
The dissent prefers a remand because there are no lower court findings on the question whether the county plans to base parade fees on hostile crowds. See post, at 142. We disagree. A remand is unnecessary because there is no question that petitioner intends the ordinance to recoup costs that are related to listeners’ reaction to the speech. Petitioner readily admits it did not charge for police protection for the 4th of July parades, although they were substantial parades, which required the closing of streets and drew large crowds. Petitioner imposed a fee only when it became necessary to provide security for parade participants from angry crowds opposing their message. Brief for Petitioner 6. The ordinance itself makes plain that the costs at issue are those needed for “necessary and reasonable protection of persons participating in or observing” the speech. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 100. Repayment for police protection is the “[m]ost importan[t]” purpose underlying the ordinance. Brief for Petitioner 6-7.
In this Court, petitioner specifically ruges reversal because the lower court has “taken away the right of local government to obtain reimbursement for administration and policing costs which are incurred in protecting those using government property for expression.” Id., at 17 (emphasis added). When directly faced with the Court, of Appeals’ concern about “the enhanced cost associated with policing expressive activity which would generate potentially violent reactions,” id., at 36, petitioner responded not by arguing that it did not intend to charge for police protection, but that such a charge was permissible because the ordinance provided a cap. See id., at 36-37; Tr. of Oral Arg. 24. At no point, in any level of proceedings, has petitioner intimated that it did not construe the ordinance consistent with its language permitting fees to be charged for the cost of police protection from hostile crowds. We find no disputed interpretation of the ordinance necessitating a remand.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.