instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the County Court of Monroe County, New York, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
Mr. Justice Harlan adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether a process for curing synthetic rubber which includes in several of its steps the use of a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer is patentable subject matter under 35 IT. S. C. § 101.
I
The patent application at issue was filed by the respondents on August 6, 1975. The claimed invention is a process for molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision products. The process uses a mold for precisely shaping the uncured material under heat and pressure and then curing the synthetic rubber in the mold so that the product will retain its shape and be functionally operative after the molding is completed.
Respondents claim that their process ensures the production of molded articles which are properly cured. Achieving the perfect cure depends upon several factors including the thickness of the article to be molded, the temperature of the molding process, and the amount of time that the article is allowed to remain in the press. It is possible using well-known time, temperature, and cure relationships to calculate by means of the Arrhenius equation when to open the press and remove the cured product. Nonetheless, according to the respondents, the industry has not been able to obtain uniformly accurate cures because the temperature of the molding press could not be precisely measured, thus making it difficult to do the necessary computations to determine cure time. Because the temperature inside the press has heretofore been viewed as an uncontrollable variable, the conventional industry practice has been to calculate the cure time as the shortest time in which all parts of the product will definitely be cured, assuming a reasonable amount of mold-opening time during loading and unloading. But the shortcoming of this practice is that operating with an uncontrollable variable inevitably led in some instances to overestimating the mold-opening time and overcuring the rubber, and in other instances to underestimating that time and undercuring the product.
Respondents characterize their contribution to the art to reside in the process of constantly measuring the actual temperature inside the mold. These temperature measurements are then automatically fed into a computer which repeatedly recalculates the cure time by use of the Arrhenius equation. When the recalculated time equals the actual time that has elapsed since the press was closed, the computer signals a device to open the press. According to the respondents, the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press, are all new in the art.
The patent examiner rejected the respondents’ claims on the sole ground that they were drawn to nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U. S. C. § 101. He determined that those steps in respondents’ claims that are carried out by a computer under control of a stored program constituted nonstatutory subject matter under this Court’s decision in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 (1972). The remaining steps — installing rubber in the press and the subsequent closing of the press — were “conventional and necessary to the process and cannot be the basis of patentability.” The examiner concluded that respondents’ claims defined and sought protection of a computer program for operating a rubber-molding press.
The Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals agreed with the examiner, but the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed. In re Diehr, 602 F. 2d 892 (1979). The court noted that a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory because a computer is involved. The respondents’ claims were not directed to a mathematical algorithm or an improved method of calculation but rather recited an improved process for molding rubber articles by solving a practical problem which had arisen in the molding of rubber products.
The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks sought cer-tiorari arguing that the decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals was inconsistent with prior decisions of this Court. Because of the importance of the question presented, we granted the writ. 445 U. S. 926 (1980).
II
Last Term in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303 (1980), this Court discussed the historical purposes of the patent laws and in particular 35 U. S. C. § 101. As in Chakrabarty, we must here construe 35 U. S. C. § 101 which provides:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
In cases of statutory construction, we begin with the language of the statute. Unless otherwise defined, “words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,” Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42 (1979), and, in dealing with the patent laws, we have more than once cautioned that “courts ‘should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed.’ ” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, supra, at 308, quoting United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U. S. 178, 199 (1933).
The Patent Act of 1793 defined statutory subject matter as “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement [thereof].” Act of Feb. 21, 1793, ch. 11, § 1, 1 Stat. 318. Not until the patent laws were recodified in 1952 did Congress replace the word “art” with the word “process.” It is that latter word which we confront today, and in order to determine its meaning we may not be unmindful of the Committee Reports accompanying the 1952 Act which inform us that Congress intended statutory subject matter to “include anything under the sun that is made by man.” S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H. R. Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952).
Although the term “process” was not added to 35 U. S. C. § 101 until 1952, a process has historically enjoyed patent protection because it was considered a form of “art” as that term was used in the 1793 Act. In defining the nature of a patentable process, the Court stated:
“That a process may be patentable, irrespective of the particular form of the instrumentalities used, cannot be disputed.... A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing. If new and useful, it is just as patentable as is a piece of machinery. In the language of the patent law, it is an art. The machinery pointed out as suitable to perform the process may or may not be new or patentable; whilst the process itself may be altogether new, and produce an entirely new result. The process requires that certain things should be done with certain substances, and in a certain order; but the tools to be used in doing this may be of secondary consequence.” Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 787-788 (1877).
Analysis of the eligibility of a claim of patent protection for a “process” did not change with the addition of that term to § 101. Recently, in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 (1972), we repeated the above definition recited in Cochrane v. Deener, adding: “Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patent-ability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.” 409 U. S., at 70.
Analyzing respondents’ claims according to the above statements from our cases, we think that a physical and chemical process for molding precision synthetic rubber products falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. That respondents’ claims involve the transformation of an article, in this case raw, uncured synthetic rubber, into a different state or thing cannot be disputed. The respondents’ claims describe in detail a step-by-step method for accomplishing such, beginning with the loading of a mold with raw, uncured rubber and ending with the eventual opening of the press at the conclusion of the cure. Industrial processes such as this are the types which have historically been eligible to receive the protection of our patent laws.
III
Our conclusion regarding respondents’ claims is not altered by the fact that in several steps of the process a mathematical equation and a programmed digital computer are used. This Court has undoubtedly recognized limits to § 101 and every discovery is not embraced within the statutory terms. Excluded from such patent protection are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, supra, at 67; Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 130 (1948). “An idea of itself is not patentable,” Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507 (1874). “A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.” Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853). Only last Term, we explained:
“[A] new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are ‘manifestations of... nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.’ ” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S., at 309, quoting Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., supra, at 130.
Our recent holdings in Gottschalk v. Benson, supra, and Parker v. Flook, supra, both of which are computer-related, stand for no more than these long-established principles. In Benson, we held unpatentable claims for an algorithm used to convert binary code decimal numbers to equivalent pure binary numbers. The sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a general purpose digital computer. We defined “algorithm” as a “procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem,” and we concluded that such an algorithm, or mathematical formula, is like a law of nature, which cannot be the subject of a patent.
Parker v. Flook, supra, presented a similar situation. The claims were drawn to a method for computing an “alarm limit.” An “alarm limit” is simply a number and the Court concluded that the application sought to protect a formula for computing this number. Using this formula, the updated alarm limit could be calculated if several other variables were known. The application, however, did not purport to explain how these other variables were to be determined, nor did it purport “to contain any disclosure relating to the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system. All that it provides is a formula for computing an updated alarm limit.” 437 U. S., at 586.
In contrast, the respondents here do not seek to patent a mathematical formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of curing synthetic rubber. Their process admittedly employs a well-known mathematical equation, but they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that equation. Rather, they seek only to foreclose from others the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process. These include installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly determining the temperature of the mold, constantly recalculating the appropriate cure time through the use of the formula and a digital computer, and automatically opening the press at the proper time. Obviously, one does not need a “computer” to cure natural or synthetic rubber, but if the computer use incorporated in the process patent significantly lessens the possibility of “over-curing” or “undercuring,” the process as a whole does not thereby become unpatentable subject matter.
Our earlier opinions lend support to our present conclusion that a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program, or digital computer. In Gottschalk v. Benson we noted: “It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold.” 409 U. S., at 71. Similarly, in Parker v. Flook we stated that “a process is not un-patentable simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm.” 437 U. S., at 590. It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection. See, e. g., Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127 (1948); Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota Ontario Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45 (1923); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780 (1877); O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 (1854); and Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156 (1853). As Justice Stone explained four decades ago:
“While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.” Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U. S. 86, 94 (1939).
We think this statement in Mackay takes us a long way toward the correct answer in this case. Arrhenius’ equation is not patentable in isolation, but when a process for curing rubber is devised which incorporates in it a more efficient solution of the equation, that process is at the very least not barred at the threshold by § 101.
In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole. It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. This is particularly true in a process claim because a new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made. The “novelty” of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.
It has been urged that novelty is an appropriate consideration under § 101. Presumably, this argument results from the language in § 101 referring to any “new and useful” process, machine, etc. Section 101, however, is a general statement of the type of subject matter that is eligible for patent protection “subject to.the conditions and requirements of this title.” Specific conditions for patentability follow and i 102 covers in detail the conditions relating to novelty. The question therefore of whether a particular invention is novel is “wholly apart from whether the invention falls into a category of statutory subject matter.” In re Bergy, 596 F. 2d 952, 961 (CCPA 1979) (emphasis deleted). See also Nickola v. Peterson, 580 F. 2d 898 (CA6 1978). The legislative history of the 1952 Patent Act is in accord with this reasoning. The Senate Report stated:
“Section 101 sets forth the subject matter that can be patented, ‘subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.’ The conditions under which a patent may be obtained follow, and Section 102 covers the conditions relating to novelty.” S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952) (emphasis supplied).
It is later stated in the same Report:
“Section 102, in general, may be said to describe the statutory novelty required for patentability, and in-eludes, in effect, an amplification and definition of 'new’ in section 101.” Id., at 6.
Finally, it is stated in the “Revision Notes”:
“The corresponding section of [the] existing statute is split into two sections, section 101 relating to the subject matter for which patents may be obtained, and section 102 defining statutory novelty and stating other conditions for patentability.” Id., at 17.
See also H. R. Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6, 7, and 17 (1952).
In this case, it may later be determined that the respondents’ process is not deserving of patent protection because it fails to satisfy the statutory conditions of novelty under § 102 or nonobviousness under § 103. A rejection on either of these grounds does not affect the determination that respondents’ claims recited subject matter which was eligible for patent protection under § 101.
IV
We have before us today only the question of whether respondents’ claims fall within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula. We recognize, of course, that when a claim recites a mathematical formula (or scientific principle or phenomenon of nature), an inquiry must be made into whether the claim is seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract. A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 (1972), and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment. Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978). Similarly, insignificant postsolution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. Ibid. To hold otherwise would allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection. On the other hand, when a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of § 101. Because we do not view respondents’ claims as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula, but rather to be drawn to an industrial process for the molding of rubber products, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
It is so ordered.
A “cure” is obtained by mixing curing agents into the uncured polymer in advance of molding, and then applying heat over a period of time. If the synthetic rubber is cured for the right length of time at the right temperature, it becomes a usable product.
The equation is named after its discoverer Svante Arrhenius and has long been used to calculate the cure time in rubber-molding presses. The equation can be expressed as follows:
In v=CZ+x
wherein In v is the natural logarithm of v, the total required cure time; C is the activation constant, a unique figure for each batch of each compound being molded, determined in accordance with rheometer measurements of each batch; Z is the temperature in the mold; and x is a constant dependent on the geometry of the particular mold in the press. A rheometer is an instrument to measure flow of viscous substances.
During the time a press is open for loading, it will cool. The longer it is open, the cooler it becomes and the longer it takes to reheat the press to the desired temperature range. Thus, the time necessary to raise the mold temperature to curing temperature is an unpredictable variable. The respondents claim to have overcome this problem by continuously measuring the actual temperature in the closed press through the use of a thermocouple.
We note that the petitioner does not seriously contest the respondents' assertions regarding the inability of the industry to obtain accurate cures on a uniform basis. See Brief for Petitioner 3.
Respondents’ application contained 11 different claims. Three examples are claims 1, 2, and 11 which provide:
“1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising:
“providing said computer with a data base for said press including at least,
“natural logarithm conversion data (In),
“the activation energy constant (C) unique to each batch of said compound being molded, and
“a constant (x) dependent upon the geometry of the particular mold of the press,
“initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of the press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,
“constantly determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding,
“constantly providing the computer with the temperature (Z),
"repetitively calculating in the computer, at frequent intervals during each cure, the Arrhenius equation for reaction time during the cure, which is
“In v=CZ+x
“where v is the total required cure time,
“repetitively comparing in the computer at said frequent intervals during the cure each said calculation of the total required cure time calculated with the Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time, and
“opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates equivalence.
“2. The method of claim 1 including measuring the activation energy constant for the compound being molded in the press with a rheometer and automatically updating said data base within the computer in the event of changes in the compound being molded in said press as measured by said rheometer.
"11. A method of manufacturing precision molded articles from selected synthetic rubber compounds in an openable rubber molding press having at least one heated precision mold, comprising:
"(a) heating said mold to a temperature range approximating a predetermined rubber curing temperature,
"(b) installing prepared unmolded synthetic rubber of a known compound in a molding cavity of predetermined geometry as defined by said mold,
“(c) closing said press to mold said rubber to occupy said cavity in conformance with the contour of said mold and to cure said rubber by transfer of heat thereto from said mold,
“(d) initiating an interval timer upon the closure of said press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,
“(e) heating said mold during said closure to maintain the temperature thereof within said range approximating said rubber curing temperature,
“(f) constantly determining the temperature of said mold at a location closely adjacent said cavity thereof throughout closure of said press,
“(g) repetitively calculating at frequent periodic intervals throughout closure of said press the Arrhenius equation for reaction time of said rubber to determine total required cure time v as follows:
“In v=cz+x
“wherein c is an activation energy constant determined for said rubber being molded and cured in said press, z is the temperature of said mold at the time of each calculation of said Arrhenius equation, and x is a constant which is a function of said predetermined geometry of said mold,
“(h) for each repetition of calculation of said Arrhenius equation herein, comparing the resultant calculated total required cure time with the monitored elapsed time measured by said interval timer,
“(i) opening said press when a said comparison of calculated total required cure time and monitored elapsed time indicates equivalence, and
“(j) removing from said mold the resultant precision molded and cured rubber article.”
The word “process” is defined in 35 U. S. C. § 100 (b):
“The term 'process’ means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.”
In Coming v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 267-268 (1854), this Court explained:
“A process, eo nomine, is not made the subject of a patent in our act of congress. It is included under the general term ‘useful art.’ An art may require one or more processes or machines in order to produce a certain result or manufacture. The term machine includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain eifect or result. But where the result or effect is produced by chemical action, by the operation or application of some element or power of nature, or of one substance to another, such modes, methods, or operations, are called processes. A new process is usually the result of discovery; a machine, of invention. The arts of tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores, and numerous others, are usually carried on by processes as distinguished from machines. One may discover a new and useful improvement in the process of tanning, dyeing, &c., irrespective of any particular form of machinery or mechanical device. And another may invent a labor-saving machine by which this operation or process may be performed, and each may be entitled to his patent. As, for instance, A has discovered that by exposing India rubber to a certain degree of heat, in mixture or connection with certain metalie salts, he can produce a valuable product, or manufacture; he is entitled to a patent for his discovery, as a process or improvement in the art, irrespective of any machine or mechanical device. B, on the contrary, may invent a new furnace or stove, or steam apparatus, by which this process may be carried on with much saving of labor, and expense of fuel; and he will be entitled to a patent for his machine, as an improvement in the art. Yet A could not have a patent for a machine, or B for a process; but each would have a patent for the means or method of producing a certain result, or effect, and not for the result or effect produced. It is for the discovery or invention of some practical method or means of producing a beneficial result or effect, that a patent is granted, and not for the result or effect itself. It is when the term process is used to represent the means or method of producing a result that it is patentable, and it will include all methods or means which are not effected by mechanism or mechanical combinations.”
We note that as early as 1854 this Court approvingly referred to patent eligibility of processes for curing rubber. See id., at 267; n. 7, supra. In Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707 (1881), we referred to the original patent Charles Goodyear received on his process for “vulcanizing” or curing rubber. We stated: •
“That a patent can be granted for a process, there can be no doubt. The patent law is not confined to new machines and new compositions of matter, but extends to any new and useful art or manufacture. A manufacturing process is clearly an art, within the meaning of the law. Goodyear’s patent was for a process, namely, the process of vulcanizing india-rubber by subjecting it to a high degree of heat when mixed with sulphur and a mineral salt. The apparatus for performing the process was not patented, and was not material. The patent pointed out how the process could be effected, and that was deemed sufficient.” Id., at 722.
The term “algorithm” is subject to a variety of definitions. The petitioner defines the term to mean:
“ '1. A fixed step-by-step procedure for accomplishing a given result; usually a simplified procedure for solving a complex problem, also a full statement of a finite number of steps. 2. A defined process or set of rules that leads [sic] and assures development of a desired output from a given input. A sequence of formulas and/or algebraic/logical steps to calculate or determine a given task; processing rules.’ ” Brief for Petitioner in Diamond v. Bradley, O. T. 1980, No. 79-855, p. 6, n. 12, quoting C. Sippl & R. Sippl, Computer Dictionary and Handbook 23 (2d ed. 1972).
This definition is significantly broader than the definition this Court employed in Benson and Flook. Our previous decisions regarding the pat-entability of “algorithms” are necessarily limited to the more narrow definition employed by the Court, and we do not pass judgment on whether processes falling outside the definition previously used by this Court, but within the definition offered by the petitioner, would be patentable subject matter.
As we explained in Flook, in order for an operator using the formula to calculate an updated alarm limit the operator would need to know the original alarm base, the appropriate margin of safety, the time interval that should elapse between each updating, the current temperature (or other process variable), and the appropriate weighing factor to be used to average the alarm base and the current temperature. 437 U. S., at 586. The patent application did not “explain how to select the approximate margin of safety, the weighing factor, or any of the other variables.” Ibid.
We noted in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 130 (1948):
“He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end.”
Although we were dealing with a “product” claim in Funk Bros., the same principle applies to a process claim. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 68 (1972).
It is argued that the procedure of dissecting a claim into old and new elements is mandated by our decision in Flook which noted that a mathematical algorithm must be assumed to be within the “prior art.” It is from this language that the petitioner premises his argument that if everything other than the algorithm is determined to be old in the art, then the claim cannot recite statutory subject matter. The fallacy in this argument is that we did not hold in Flook that the mathematical algorithm could not be considered at all when making the § 101 determination. To accept the analysis proffered by the petitioner would, if carried to its extreme, make all inventions unpatentable because all inventions can be reduced to underlying principles of nature which, once known, make their implementation obvious. The analysis suggested by the petitioner would also undermine our earlier decisions regarding the criteria to consider in determining the eligibility of a process for patent protection. See, e. g., Gottschalk v. Benson, supra; and Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780 (1877).
Section 102 is titled “Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent,” and provides:
“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
“(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
“(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
“(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
“(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
“(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371 (c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
“(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
“ (g) before the applicant’s invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.”
Arguably, the claims in Flook did mare than present a mathematical formula. The claims also solved the calculation in order to produce a new number or “alarm limit” and then replaced the old number with the number newly produced. The claims covered all uses of the formula in processes “comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons.” There are numerous such processes in the petrochemical and oil refinery industries and the claims therefore covered a broad range of potential uses. 437 U. S., at 586. The claims, however, did not cover every conceivable application of the formula. We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection. Our reasoning in Flook is in no way inconsistent with our reasoning here. A mathematical formula does not suddenly become patentable subject matter simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use. A mathematical formula in the abstract is nonstatutory subject matter regardless of whether the patent is intended to cover all uses of the formula or only limited uses. Similarly, a mathematical formula does not become patentable subject matter merely by including in the claim for the formula token postsolution activity such as the type claimed in Flook. We were careful to note in Flook that the patent application did not purport to explain how the variables used in the formula were to be selected, nor did the application contain any disclosure relating to chemical processes at work or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting the alarm limit. Ibid. All the application provided was a “formula for computing an updated alarm limit.” Ibid.
The dissent’s analysis rises and falls on its characterization of respondents’ claims as presenting nothing more than “an improved method of calculating the time that the mold should remain closed during the curing process.” Post, at 206-207. The dissent states that respondents claim only to have developed “a new method of programming a digital computer in order to calculate — promptly and repeatedly — the correct curing time in a familiar process.” Post, at 213. Respondents’ claims, however, are not limited to the isolated step of “programming a digital computer.” Rather, respondents’ claims describe a process of curing rubber beginning with the loading of the mold and ending with the opening of the press and the production of a synthetic rubber product that has been perfectly cured — a result heretofore unknown in the art. See n. 5, supra. The fact that one or more of the steps in respondents’ process may not, in isolation, be novel or independently eligible for patent protection is irrelevant to the question of whether the claims as a whole recite subject matter eligible for patent protection under § 101. As we explained when discussing machine patents in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U. S. 518 (1972):
“The patents were warranted not by the novelty of their elements but by the novelty of the combination they represented. Invention was recognized because Laitram’s assignors combined ordinary elements in an extraordinary way — a novel union of old means was designed to achieve new ends. Thus, for both inventions ‘the whole in some way exceed[ed] the sum of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
California is one of at least nine States that authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.
I
California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. In 1913, California was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana, and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The proposition was designed to ensure that “seriously ill” residents of the State have access to marijuana for medical purposes, and to encourage Federal and State Governments to take steps toward ensuring the safe and affordable distribution of the drug to patients in need. The Act creates an exemption from criminal prosecution for physicians, as well as for patients and primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medicinal purposes with the recommendation or approval of a physician. A “primary caregiver” is a person who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of the patient.
Respondents Angel Raich and Diane Monson are California residents who suffer from a variety of serious medical conditions and have sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Compassionate Use Act. They are being treated by licensed, board-certified family practitioners, who have concluded, after prescribing a host of conventional medicines to treat respondents’ conditions and to alleviate their associated symptoms, that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment. Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Indeed, Raich’s physician believes that forgoing cannabis treatments would certainly cause Raich excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal.
Respondent Monson cultivates her own marijuana, and ingests the drug in a variety of ways including smoking and using a vaporizer. Respondent Raich, by contrast, is unable to cultivate her own, and thus relies on two caregivers, litigating as “John Does,” to provide her with locally grown marijuana at no charge. These caregivers also process the cannabis into hashish or keif, and Raich herself processes some of the marijuana into oils, balms, and foods for consumption.
On August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came to Monson’s home. After a thorough investigation, the county officials concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful as a matter of California law. Nevertheless, after a 3-hour standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants.
Respondents thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U. S. C. § 801 et seq., to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Raich and Monson described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana. Respondents claimed that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.
The District Court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Raich v. Ashcroft, 248 F. Supp. 2d 918 (ND Cal. 2003). Although the court found that the federal enforcement interests “wane[d]” when compared to the harm that California residents would suffer if denied access to medically necessary marijuana, it concluded that respondents could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their legal claims. Id., at 931.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction. Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F. 3d 1222 (2003). The court found that respondents Had “demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority.” Id., at 1227. The Court of Appeals distinguished prior Circuit cases upholding the CSA in the face of Commerce Clause challenges by focusing on what it deemed to be the “separate and distinct class of activities” at issue in this case: “the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law.” Id., at 1228. The court found the latter class of activities “different in kind from drug trafficking” because interposing a physician’s recommendation raises different health and safety concerns, and because “this limited use is clearly distinct from the broader illicit drug market — as well as any broader commercial market for medicinal marijuana — insofar as the medicinal marijuana at issue in this case is not intended for, nor does it enter, the stream of commerce.” Ibid.
The majority placed heavy reliance on our decisions in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000), as interpreted by recent Circuit precedent, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power. In contrast, the dissenting judge concluded that the CSA, as applied to respondents, was clearly valid under Lopez and Morrison; moreover, he thought it “simply impossible to distinguish the relevant conduct surrounding the cultivation and use of the marijuana crop at issue in this case from the cultivation and use of the wheat crop that affected interstate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn” 352 F. 3d, at 1235 (opinion of Beam, J.).
The obvious importance of the case prompted our grant of certiorari. 542 U. S. 936 (2004). The case is made difficult by respondents’ strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes. The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress’ power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally. Well-settled law controls our answer. The CSA is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this case. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
II
Shortly after taking office in 1969, President Nixon declared a national “war on drugs.” As the first campaign of that war, Congress set out to enact legislation that would consolidate various drug laws on the books into a comprehensive statute, provide meaningful regulation over legitimate sources of drugs to prevent diversion into illegal channels, and strengthen law enforcement tools against the traffic in illicit drugs. That effort culminated in the passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1236.
This was not, however, Congress’ first attempt to regulate the national market in drugs. Rather, as early as 1906 Congress enacted federal legislation imposing labeling regulations on medications and prohibiting the manufacture or shipment of any adulterated or misbranded drug traveling in interstate commerce. Aside from these labeling restrictions, most domestic drug regulations prior to 1970 generally came in the guise of revenue laws, with the Department of the Treasury serving as the Federal Government’s primary enforcer. For example, the primary drug control law, before being repealed by the passage of the CSA, was the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, 38 Stat. 786 (repealed 1970). The Harrison Act sought to exert control over the possession and sale of narcotics, specifically cocaine and opiates, by requiring producers, distributors, and purchasers to register with the Federal Government, by assessing taxes against parties so registered, and by regulating the issuance of prescriptions.
Marijuana itself was not significantly regulated by the Federal Government until 1937 when accounts of marijuana’s addictive qualities and physiological effects, paired with dissatisfaction with enforcement efforts at state and local levels, prompted Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act, 50 Stat. 551 (repealed 1970). Like the Harrison Act, the Marihuana Tax Act did not outlaw the possession or sale of marijuana outright. Rather, it imposed registration and reporting requirements for all individuals importing, producing, selling, or dealing in marijuana, and required the payment of annual taxes in addition to transfer taxes whenever the drug changed hands. Moreover, doctors wishing to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes were required to comply with rather burdensome administrative requirements. Noncompliance exposed traffickers to severe federal penalties, whereas compliance would often subject them to prosecution under state law. Thus, while the Marihuana Tax Act did not declare the drug illegal per se, the onerous administrative requirements, the prohibitively expensive taxes, and the risks attendant on compliance practically curtailed the marijuana trade.
Then in 1970, after declaration of the national “war on drugs,” federal drug policy underwent a significant transformation. A number of noteworthy events precipitated this policy shift. First, in Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6 (1969), this Court held certain provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act and other narcotics legislation unconstitutional. Second, at the end of his term, President Johnson fundamentally reorganized the federal drug control agencies. The Bureau of Narcotics, then housed in the Department of the Treasury, merged with the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, then housed in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), to create the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, currently housed in the Department of Justice. Finally, prompted by a perceived need to consolidate the growing number of piecemeal drug laws and to enhance federal drug enforcement powers, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act.
Title II of that Act, the CSA, repealed most of the earlier antidrug laws in favor of a comprehensive regime to combat the international and interstate traffic in illicit drugs. The main objectives of the CSA were to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances. Congress was particularly concerned with the need to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.
To effectuate these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA. 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a). The CSA categorizes all controlled substances into five schedules. §812. The drugs are grouped together based on their accepted medical uses, the potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body. §§811, 812. Each schedule is associated with a distinct set of controls regarding the manufacture, distribution, and use of the substances listed therein. §§821-830. The CSA and its implementing regulations set forth strict requirements regarding registration, labeling and packaging, production quotas, drug security, and recordkeeping. Ibid.; 21 CFR § 1301 et seq. (2004).
In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U. S. C. § 812(c). This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW “that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway.” Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. § 812(b)(1). These three factors, in varying gradations, are also used to categorize drugs in the other four schedules. For example, Schedule II substances also have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence, but unlike Schedule I drugs, they have a currently accepted medical use. § 812(b)(2). By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study. § § 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 490 (2001).
The CSA provides for the periodic updating of schedules and delegates authority to the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to add, remove, or transfer substances to, from, or between schedules. §811. Despite considerable efforts to reschedule marijuana, it remains a Schedule I drug.
1=1 1=( )=l
Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress’ commerce power. Brief for Respondents 22,38. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents’ challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA’s categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.
In assessing the validity of congressional regulation, none of our Commerce Clause cases can be viewed in isolation. As charted in considerable detail in United States v. Lopez, our understanding of the reach of the Commerce Clause, as well as Congress’ assertion of authority thereunder, has evolved over time. The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers’ response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887, 24 Stat. 379, and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 2 et seq.
Cases decided during that “new era,” which now spans more than a century, have identified three general categories of regulation in which Congress is authorized to engage under its commerce power. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150 (1971). Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce. Ibid. Third, Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Ibid.; NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937). Only the third category is implicated in the case at hand.
Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e. g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128-129 (1942). As we stated in Wick-ard, “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. When Congress decides that the “‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See Perez, 402 U. S., at 154-155 (“ ‘[W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so’ ” (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 259 (1927))). In this vein, we have reiterated that when “ ‘a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.’ ” E. g., Lopez, 514 U. S., at 558 (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196, n. 27 (1968); emphasis deleted).
Our decision in Wickard, 317 U. S. 111, is of particular relevance. In Wickard, we upheld the application of regulations promulgated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 31, which were designed to control the volume of wheat moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and consequent abnormally low prices. The regulations established an allotment of 11.1 acres for Filburn’s 1941 wheat crop, but he sowed 23 acres, intending to use the excess by consuming it on his own farm. Filburn argued that even though we had sustained Congress’ power to regulate the production of goods for commerce, that power did not authorize “federal regulation [of] production not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm.” Wickard, 317 U. S., at 118. Justice Jackson’s opinion for a unanimous Court rejected this submission. He wrote:
“The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That ap-pellee’s own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.” Id., at 127-128.
Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market. Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed “to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses...” and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets. See nn. 20-21, supra. In Wickard, we had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.
More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U. S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
Nonetheless, respondents suggest that Wickard differs from this case in three respects: (1) the Agricultural Adjustment Act, unlike the CSA, exempted small farming operations; (2) Wickard involved a “quintessential economic activity” — a commercial farm — whereas respondents do not sell marijuana; and (3) the Wickard record made it clear that the aggregate production of wheat for use on farms had a significant impact on market prices. Those differences, though factually accurate, do not diminish the precedential force of this Court’s reasoning.
The fact that Filburn’s own impact on the market was “trivial by itself” was not a sufficient reason for removing him from the scope of federal regulation. 317 U. S., at 127. That the Secretary of Agriculture elected to exempt even smaller farms from regulation does not speak to his power to regulate all those whose aggregated production was significant, nor did that fact play any role in the Court’s analysis. Moreover, even though Filburn was indeed a commercial farmer, the activity he was engaged in — the cultivation of wheat for home consumption — was not treated by the Court as part of his commercial farming operation. And while it is true that the record in the Wickard case itself established the causal connection between the production for local use and the national market, we have before us findings by Congress to the same effect.
Findings in the introductory sections of the CSA explain why Congress deemed it appropriate to encompass local activities within the scope of the CSA. See n. 20, supra. The submissions of the parties and the numerous amici all seem to agree that the national, and international, market for marijuana has dimensions that are fully comparable to those defining the class of activities regulated by the Secretary pursuant to the 1938 statute. Respondents nonetheless insist that the CSA cannot be constitutionally applied to their activities because Congress did not make a specific finding that the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes based on the recommendation of a physician would substantially affect the larger interstate marijuana market. Be that as it may, we have never required Congress to make particularized findings in order to legislate, see Lopez, 514 U. S., at 562; Perez, 402 U. S., at 156, absént a special concern such as the protection of free speech, see, e. g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 664-668 (1994) (plurality opinion). While congressional findings are certainly helpful in reviewing the substance of a congressional statutory scheme, particularly when the connection to commerce is not self-evident, and while we will consider congressional findings in our analysis when they are available, the absence of particularized findings does not call into question Congress’ authority to legislate.
In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Lopez, 514 U. S., at 557; see also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 276-280 (1981); Perez, 402 U. S., at 155-156; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 299-301 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 252-253 (1964). Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U. S. C. §801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Thus, as in Wickard, when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to “regulate Commerce... among the several States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8. That the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment. As we have done many times before, we refuse to excise individual components of that larger scheme.
IV
To support their contrary submission, respondents rely heavily on two of our more recent Commerce Clause cases. In their myopic focus, they overlook the larger context of modern-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence preserved by those cases. Moreover, even in the narrow prism of respondents’ creation, they read those cases far too broadly.
Those two cases, of course, are Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, and Morrison, 529 U. S. 598. As an initial matter, the statutory challenges at issue in those cases were markedly different from the challenge respondents pursue in the case at hand. Here, respondents ask us to excise individual applications of a concededly valid statutory scheme. In contrast, in both Lopez and Morrison, the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety. This distinction is pivotal for we have often reiterated that “[wjhere the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power ‘to excise, as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez, 402 U. S., at 154 (quoting Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 193 (emphasis deleted)); see also Hodel, 452 U. S., at 308.
At issue in Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, was the validity of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which was a brief, single-subject statute making it a crime for an individual to possess a gun in a school zone. 104 Stat. 4844-4845, 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The Act did not regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity. Distinguishing our earlier cases holding that comprehensive regulatory statutes may be validly applied to local conduct that does not, when viewed in isolation, have a significant impact on interstate commerce, we held the statute invalid. We explained:
“Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.” 514 U. S., at 561.
The statutory scheme that the Government is defending in this litigation is at the opposite end of the regulatory spectrum. As explained above, the CSA, enacted in 1970 as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, 84 Stat. 1242-1284, was a lengthy and detailed statute creating a comprehensive framework for regulating the production, distribution, and possession of five classes of “controlled substances.” Most of those substances — those listed in Schedules II through V — “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.” 21 U. S. C. §801(1). The regulatory scheme is designed to foster the beneficial use of those medications, to prevent their misuse, and to prohibit entirely the possession or use of substances listed in Schedule I, except as a part of a strictly controlled research project.
While the statute provided for the periodic updating of the five schedules, Congress itself made the initial classifications. It identified 42 opiates, 22 opium derivatives, and 17 hallucinogenic substances as Schedule I drugs. 84 Stat. 1248. Marijuana was listed as the 10th item in the 3d subcategory. That classification, unlike the discrete prohibition established by the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, was merely one of many “essential part[s] of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 561. Our opinion in Lopez casts no doubt on the validity of such a program.
Nor does this Court’s holding in Morrison, 529 U. S. 598. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 1902, created a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated crimes of violence. 42 U. S. C. § 18981. The remedy was enforceable in both state and federal courts, and generally depended on proof of the violation of a state law. Despite congressional findings that such crimes had an adverse impact on interstate commerce, we held the statute unconstitutional because, like the statute in Lopez, it did not regulate economic activity. We concluded that “the noneco-nomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision” in Lopez, and that our prior cases had identified a clear pattern of analysis: “‘Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.’” Morrison, 529 U. S., at 610.
Unlike those at issue in Lopez and Morrison, the activities regulated by the CSA are quintessentially economic. “Economics” refers to “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966). The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational (and commonly utilized) means of regulating commerce in that product. Such prohibitions include specific decisions requiring that a drug be withdrawn from the market as a result of the failure to comply with regulatory requirements as well as decisions excluding Schedule I drugs entirely from the market. Because the CSA is a statute that directly regulates economic, commercial activity, our opinion in Morrison casts no doubt on its constitutionality.
The Court of Appeals was able to conclude otherwise only by isolating a “separate and distinct” class of activities that it held to be beyond the reach of federal power, defined as “the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law.” 352 F. 3d, at 1229. The court characterized this class as “different in kind from drug trafficking.” Id., at 1228. The differences between the members of a class so defined and the principal traffickers in Schedule I substances might be sufficient to justify a policy decision exempting the narrower class from the coverage of the CSA. The question, however, is whether Congress’ contrary policy judgment, i. e., its decision to include this narrower “class of activities” within the larger regulatory scheme, was constitutionally deficient. We have no difficulty concluding that Congress acted rationally in determining that none of the characteristics making up the purported class, whether viewed individually or in the aggregate, compelled an exemption from the CSA; rather, the subdivided class of activities defined by the Court of Appeals was an essential part of the larger regulatory scheme.
First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses. Moreover, the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner. Indeed, most of the substances classified in the CSA “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose.” 21 U. S. C. §801(1). Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug, the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law. The CSA requires manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, and other handlers of controlled substances to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions mandating registration with the DEA, compliance with specific production quotas, security controls to guard against diversion, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and prescription requirements. See §§ 821-830; 21 CFR § 1301 et seq. (2004). Furthermore, the dispensing of new drugs, even when doctors approve their use, must await federal approval. United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544 (1979). Accordingly, the mere fact that marijuana — like virtually every other controlled substance regulated by the CSA — is used for medicinal purposes cannot possibly serve to distinguish it from the core activities regulated by the CSA.
Nor can it serve as an “objective marke[r]” or “objective facto[r]” to arbitrarily narrow the relevant class as the dissenters suggest, post, at 47 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); post, at 68 (opinion of Thomas, J.). More fundamentally, if, as the principal dissent contends, the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is beyond the “ ‘outer limits’ of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority,” post, at 42 (opinion of O’Connor, J.), it must also be true that such personal use of marijuana (or any other homegrown drug) for recreational purposes is also beyond those “ ‘outer limits,’ ” whether or not a State elects to authorize or even regulate such use. Justice Thomas’ separate dissent suffers from the same sweeping implications. That is, the dissenters’ rationale logically extends to place any federal regulation (including quality, prescription, or quantity controls) of any locally cultivated and possessed controlled substance for any purpose beyond the “‘outer limits’” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors, and family members) may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance. The congressional judgment that an exemption for such a significant segment of the total market would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. Indeed, that judgment is not only rational, but “visible to the naked eye,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 563, under any commonsense appraisal of the probable consequences of such an open-ended exemption.
Second, limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation “in accordance with state law” cannot serve to place respondents’ activities beyond congressional reach. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is “ ‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,”’ however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405, 426 (1925)). See also 392 U. S., at 195-196; Wickard, 317 U. S., at 124 (“ ‘[N]o form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA or Act), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), increases the sentences of certain federal defendants who have three prior convictions "for a violent felony," including "burglary, arson, or extortion." To determine whether a past conviction is for one of those crimes, courts use what has become known as the "categorical approach": They compare the elements of the statute forming the basis of the defendant's conviction with the elements of the "generic" crime-i.e., the offense as commonly understood. The prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate only if the statute's elements are the same as, or narrower than, those of the generic offense.
We have previously approved a variant of this method-labeled (not very inventively) the "modified categorical approach"-when a prior conviction is for violating a so-called "divisible statute." That kind of statute sets out one or more elements of the offense in the alternative-for example, stating that burglary involves entry into a building or an automobile. If one alternative (say, a building) matches an element in the generic offense, but the other (say, an automobile) does not, the modified categorical approach permits sentencing courts to consult a limited class of documents, such as indictments and jury instructions, to determine which alternative formed the basis of the defendant's prior conviction. The court can then do what the categorical approach demands: compare the elements of the crime of conviction (including the alternative element used in the case) with the elements of the generic crime.
This case presents the question whether sentencing courts may also consult those additional documents when a defendant was convicted under an "indivisible" statute-i.e., one not containing alternative elements-that criminalizes a broader swath of conduct than the relevant generic offense. That would enable a court to decide, based on information about a case's underlying facts, that the defendant's prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate even though the elements of the crime fail to satisfy our categorical test. Because that result would contravene our prior decisions and the principles underlying them, we hold that sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach when the crime of which the defendant was convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements.
I
Petitioner Michael Descamps was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). That unadorned offense carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The Government, however, sought an enhanced sentence under ACCA, based on Descamps' prior state convictions for burglary, robbery, and felony harassment.
ACCA prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for a person who violates § 922(g) and "has three previous convictions... for a violent felony or a serious drug offense." § 924(e)(1). The Act defines a "violent felony" to mean any felony, whether state or federal, that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another," or that "is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." § 924(e)(2)(B).
Descamps argued that his prior burglary conviction could not count as an ACCA predicate offense under our categorical approach. He had pleaded guilty to violating California Penal Code Ann. § 459 (West 2010), which provides that a "person who enters" certain locations "with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary." That statute does not require the entry to have been unlawful in the way most burglary laws do. Whereas burglary statutes generally demand breaking and entering or similar conduct, California's does not: It covers, for example, a shoplifter who enters a store, like any customer, during normal business hours. See People v. Barry, 94 Cal. 481, 483-484, 29 P. 1026, 1026-1027 (1892). In sweeping so widely, the state law goes beyond the normal, "generic" definition of burglary. According to Descamps, that asymmetry of offense elements precluded his conviction under § 459 from serving as an ACCA predicate, whether or not his own burglary involved an unlawful entry that could have satisfied the requirements of the generic crime.
The District Court disagreed. According to the court, our modified categorical approach permitted it to examine certain documents, including the record of the plea colloquy, to discover whether Descamps had "admitted the elements of a generic burglary" when entering his plea. App. 50a. And that transcript, the court ruled, showed that Descamps had done so. At the plea hearing, the prosecutor proffered that the crime "'involve[d] the breaking and entering of a grocery store,' " and Descamps failed to object to that statement. Ibid. The plea proceedings, the District Court thought, thus established that Descamps' prior conviction qualified as a generic burglary (and so as a "violent felony") under ACCA. Applying the requisite penalty enhancement, the court sentenced Descamps to 262 months in prison-more than twice the term he would otherwise have received.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on its recently issued decision in United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (2011) (en banc) (per curiam ). There, a divided en banc court took much the same view of the modified categorical approach as had the District Court in this case. The en banc court held that when a sentencing court considers a conviction under § 459 -or any other statute that is "categorically broader than the generic offense"-the court may scrutinize certain documents to determine the factual basis of the conviction. See id., at 940. Applying that approach, the Court of Appeals here found that Descamps' plea, as revealed in the colloquy, "rested on facts that satisfy the elements of the generic definition of burglary." 466 Fed.Appx. 563, 565 (2012).
We granted certiorari, 567 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 90, 183 L.Ed.2d 730 (2012), to resolve a Circuit split on whether the modified categorical approach applies to statutes like § 459 that contain a single, "indivisible" set of elements sweeping more broadly than the corresponding generic offense. We hold that it does not, and so reverse.
II
Our caselaw explaining the categorical approach and its "modified" counterpart all but resolves this case. In those decisions, as shown below, the modified approach serves a limited function: It helps effectuate the categorical analysis when a divisible statute, listing potential offense elements in the alternative, renders opaque which element played a part in the defendant's conviction. So understood, the modified approach cannot convert Descamps' conviction under § 459 into an ACCA predicate, because that state law defines burglary not alternatively, but only more broadly than the generic offense.
We begin with Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), which established the rule for determining when a defendant's prior conviction counts as one of ACCA's enumerated predicate offenses (e.g., burglary). Taylor adopted a "formal categorical approach": Sentencing courts may "look only to the statutory definitions"-i.e., the elements-of a defendant's prior offenses, and not "to the particular facts underlying those convictions." Id., at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143. If the relevant statute has the same elements as the "generic" ACCA crime, then the prior conviction can serve as an ACCA predicate; so too if the statute defines the crime more narrowly, because anyone convicted under that law is "necessarily... guilty of all the [generic crime's] elements." Id., at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143. But if the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic crime, a conviction under that law cannot count as an ACCA predicate, even if the defendant actually committed the offense in its generic form. The key, we emphasized, is elements, not facts. So, for example, we held that a defendant can receive an ACCA enhancement for burglary only if he was convicted of a crime having "the basic elements" of generic burglary-i.e., "unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime." Ibid. And indeed, we indicated that the very statute at issue here, § 459, does not fit that bill because "California defines 'burglary' so broadly as to include shoplifting." Id., at 591, 110 S.Ct. 2143.
At the same time, Taylor recognized a "narrow range of cases" in which sentencing courts-applying what we would later dub the "modified categorical approach"-may look beyond the statutory elements to "the charging paper and jury instructions" used in a case. Id., at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. To explain when courts should resort to that approach, we hypothesized a statute with alternative elements-more particularly, a burglary statute (otherwise conforming to the generic crime) that prohibits "entry of an automobile as well as a building." Ibid. One of those alternatives (a building) corresponds to an element in generic burglary, whereas the other (an automobile) does not. In a typical case brought under the statute, the prosecutor charges one of those two alternatives, and the judge instructs the jury accordingly. So if the case involves entry into a building, the jury is "actually required to find all the elements of generic burglary," as the categorical approach demands. Ibid. But the statute alone does not disclose whether that has occurred. Because the statute is "divisible"-i.e., comprises multiple, alternative versions of the crime-a later sentencing court cannot tell, without reviewing something more, if the defendant's conviction was for the generic (building) or non-generic (automobile) form of burglary. Hence Taylor permitted sentencing courts, as a tool for implementing the categorical approach, to examine a limited class of documents to determine which of a statute's alternative elements formed the basis of the defendant's prior conviction.
In Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), the hypothetical we posited in Taylor became real: We confronted a Massachusetts burglary statute covering entries into "boats and cars" as well as buildings. 544 U.S., at 17, 125 S.Ct. 1254. The defendant there pleaded guilty to violating the statute, and we first confirmed that Taylor's categorical approach applies not just to jury verdicts, but also to plea agreements. That meant, we held, that a conviction based on a guilty plea can qualify as an ACCA predicate only if the defendant "necessarily admitted [the] elements of the generic offense." Id., at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. But as we had anticipated in Taylor, the divisible nature of the Massachusetts burglary statute confounded that inquiry: No one could know, just from looking at the statute, which version of the offense Shepard was convicted of. Accordingly, we again authorized sentencing courts to scrutinize a restricted set of materials-here, "the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant"-to determine if the defendant had pleaded guilty to entering a building or, alternatively, a car or boat. Ibid. Yet we again underscored the narrow scope of that review: It was not to determine "what the defendant and state judge must have understood as the factual basis of the prior plea," but only to assess whether the plea was to the version of the crime in the Massachusetts statute (burglary of a building) corresponding to the generic offense. Id., at 25-26, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (plurality opinion).
Two more recent decisions have further emphasized the elements-based rationale-applicable only to divisible statutes-for examining documents like an indictment or plea agreement. In Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), we discussed another Massachusetts statute, this one prohibiting " 'Breaking and Entering at Night' " in any of four alternative places: a "building, ship, vessel, or vehicle." Id., at 35, 129 S.Ct. 2294. We recognized that when a statute so "refer[s] to several different crimes," not all of which qualify as an ACCA predicate, a court must determine which crime formed the basis of the defendant's conviction. Ibid. That is why, we explained, Taylor and Shepard developed the modified categorical approach. By reviewing the extra-statutory materials approved in those cases, courts could discover "which statutory phrase," contained within a statute listing "several different" crimes, "covered a prior conviction." 557 U.S., at 41, 129 S.Ct. 2294. And a year later, we repeated that understanding of when and why courts can resort to those documents: "[T]he'modified categorical approach' that we have approved permits a court to determine which statutory phrase was the basis for the conviction." Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 144, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) (citation omitted).
Applied in that way-which is the only way we have ever allowed-the modified approach merely helps implement the categorical approach when a defendant was convicted of violating a divisible statute. The modified approach thus acts not as an exception, but instead as a tool. It retains the categorical approach's central feature: a focus on the elements, rather than the facts, of a crime. And it preserves the categorical approach's basic method: comparing those elements with the generic offense's. All the modified approach adds is a mechanism for making that comparison when a statute lists multiple, alternative elements, and so effectively creates "several different... crimes." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 41, 129 S.Ct. 2294. If at least one, but not all of those crimes matches the generic version, a court needs a way to find out which the defendant was convicted of. That is the job, as we have always understood it, of the modified approach: to identify, from among several alternatives, the crime of conviction so that the court can compare it to the generic offense.
The modified approach thus has no role to play in this case. The dispute here does not concern any list of alternative elements. Rather, it involves a simple discrepancy between generic burglary and the crime established in § 459. The former requires an unlawful entry along the lines of breaking and entering. See 3 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 21.1(a) (2d ed. 2003) (hereinafter LaFave). The latter does not, and indeed covers simple shoplifting, as even the Government acknowledges. See Brief for United States 38; Barry, 94 Cal., at 483-484, 29 P., at 1026-1027. In Taylor's words, then, § 459"define[s] burglary more broadly" than the generic offense. 495 U.S., at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143. And because that is true-because California, to get a conviction, need not prove that Descamps broke and entered-a § 459 violation cannot serve as an ACCA predicate. Whether Descamps did break and enter makes no difference. And likewise, whether he ever admitted to breaking and entering is irrelevant. Our decisions authorize review of the plea colloquy or other approved extra-statutory documents only when a statute defines burglary not (as here) overbroadly, but instead alternatively, with one statutory phrase corresponding to the generic crime and another not. In that circumstance, a court may look to the additional documents to determine which of the statutory offenses (generic or non-generic) formed the basis of the defendant's conviction. But here no uncertainty of that kind exists, and so the categorical approach needs no help from its modified partner. We know Descamps' crime of conviction, and it does not correspond to the relevant generic offense. Under our prior decisions, the inquiry is over.
III
The Court of Appeals took a different view. Dismissing everything we have said on the subject as "lack[ing] conclusive weight," the Ninth Circuit held in Aguila-Montes that the modified categorical approach could turn a conviction under any statute into an ACCA predicate offense. 655 F.3d, at 931. The statute, like § 459, could contain a single, indivisible set of elements covering far more conduct than the generic crime-and still, a sentencing court could "conside[r] to some degree the factual basis for the defendant's conviction" or, otherwise stated, "the particular acts the defendant committed." Id., at 935-936. More specifically, the court could look to reliable materials (the charging document, jury instructions, plea colloquy, and so forth) to determine "what facts" can "confident[ly]" be thought to underlie the defendant's conviction in light of the " prosecutorial theory of the case" and the "facts put forward by the government." Id., at 936-937. It makes no difference, in the Ninth Circuit's view, whether "specific words in the statute" of conviction "'actually required' " the jury (or judge accepting a plea) "to find a particular generic element." Id., at 936 (quoting Taylor, 495 U.S., at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143; internal quotation marks omitted). That approach-which an objecting judge aptly called "modified factual," 655 F.3d, at 948 (Berzon, J., concurring in judgment)-turns an elements-based inquiry into an evidence-based one. It asks not whether "statutory definitions" necessarily require an adjudicator to find the generic offense, but instead whether the prosecutor's case realistically led the adjudicator to make that determination. And it makes examination of extra-statutory documents not a tool used in a "narrow range of cases" to identify the relevant element from a statute with multiple alternatives, but rather a device employed in every case to evaluate the facts that the judge or jury found. By this point, it should be clear that the Ninth Circuit's new way of identifying ACCA predicates has no roots in our precedents. But more: Aguila-Montes subverts those decisions, conflicting with each of the rationales supporting the categorical approach and threatening to undo all its benefits.
A
This Court offered three grounds for establishing our elements-centric, "formal categorical approach." Taylor, 495 U.S., at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143. First, it comports with ACCA's text and history. Second, it avoids the Sixth Amendment concerns that would arise from sentencing courts' making findings of fact that properly belong to juries. And third, it averts "the practical difficulties and potential unfairness of a factual approach." Id., at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2143. When assessed in light of those three reasons, the Ninth Circuit's ruling strikes out swinging.
Start with the statutory text and history. As we have long recognized, ACCA increases the sentence of a defendant who has three "previous convictions" for a violent felony-not a defendant who has thrice committed such a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) ; see Taylor, 495 U.S., at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143. That language shows, as Taylor explained, that "Congress intended the sentencing court to look only to the fact that the defendant had been convicted of crimes falling within certain categories, and not to the facts underlying the prior convictions." Ibid. ; see Shepard, 544 U.S., at 19, 125 S.Ct. 1254. If Congress had wanted to increase a sentence based on the facts of a prior offense, it presumably would have said so; other statutes, in other contexts, speak in just that way. See Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 36, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (construing an immigration statute as requiring a " 'circumstance-specific,' not a 'categorical,' " approach). But in ACCA, Taylor found, Congress made a deliberate decision to treat every conviction of a crime in the same manner: During the lengthy debate preceding the statute's enactment, "no one suggested that a particular crime might sometimes count towards enhancement and sometimes not, depending on the facts of the case." 495 U.S., at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2143. Congress instead meant ACCA to function as an on-off switch, directing that a prior crime would qualify as a predicate offense in all cases or in none.
The Ninth Circuit's approach runs headlong into that congressional choice. Instead of reviewing documents like an indictment or plea colloquy only to determine "which statutory phrase was the basis for the conviction," the Ninth Circuit looks to those materials to discover what the defendant actually did. Johnson, 559 U.S., at 144, 130 S.Ct. 1265. This case demonstrates the point. Descamps was not convicted of generic burglary, because (as the Government agrees) § 459 does not contain that crime's required unlawful-entry element. See Brief for United States 38, 43-44. At most, the colloquy showed that Descamps committed generic burglary, and so hypothetically could have been convicted under a law criminalizing that conduct. But that is just what we said, in Taylor and elsewhere, is not enough. See 495 U.S., at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143 ; Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ----, ----, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2586, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010) (rejecting such a " 'hypothetical approach' " given a similar statute's directive to "look to the conviction itself," rather than "to what might have or could have been charged"). And the necessary result of the Ninth Circuit's method is exactly the differential treatment we thought Congress, in enacting ACCA, took care to prevent. In the two years since Aguila-Montes, the Ninth Circuit has treated some, but not other, convictions under § 459 as ACCA predicates, based on minor variations in the cases' plea documents. Compare, e.g., 466 Fed.Appx., at 565 (Descamps' § 459 conviction counts as generic burglary), with 655 F.3d, at 946 (Aguila-Montes' does not).
Similarly, consider (though Aguila-Montes did not) the categorical approach's Sixth Amendment underpinnings. We have held that "[o]ther 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." Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Under ACCA, the court's finding of a predicate offense indisputably increases the maximum penalty. Accordingly, that finding would (at the least) raise serious Sixth Amendment concerns if it went beyond merely identifying a prior conviction. Those concerns, we recognized in Shepard, counsel against allowing a sentencing court to "make a disputed" determination "about what the defendant and state judge must have understood as the factual basis of the prior plea," or what the jury in a prior trial must have accepted as the theory of the crime. 544 U.S., at 25, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (plurality opinion); see id., at 28, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (stating that such a finding would "giv[e] rise to constitutional error, not doubt"). Hence our insistence on the categorical approach.
Yet again, the Ninth Circuit's ruling flouts our reasoning-here, by extending judicial factfinding beyond the recognition of a prior conviction. Our modified categorical approach merely assists the sentencing court in identifying the defendant's crime of conviction, as we have held the Sixth Amendment permits. But the Ninth Circuit's reworking authorizes the court to try to discern what a trial showed, or a plea proceeding revealed, about the defendant's underlying conduct. See Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d, at 937. And there's the constitutional rub. The Sixth Amendment contemplates that a jury-not a sentencing court-will find such facts, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. And the only facts the court can be sure the jury so found are those constituting elements of the offense-as distinct from amplifying but legally extraneous circumstances. See, e.g., Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999). Similarly, as Shepard indicated, when a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, he waives his right to a jury determination of only that offense's elements; whatever he says, or fails to say, about superfluous facts cannot license a later sentencing court to impose extra punishment. See 544 U.S., at 24-26, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (plurality opinion). So when the District Court here enhanced Descamps' sentence, based on his supposed acquiescence to a prosecutorial statement (that he "broke and entered") irrelevant to the crime charged, the court did just what we have said it cannot: rely on its own finding about a non-elemental fact to increase a defendant's maximum sentence.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit's decision creates the same "daunting" difficulties and inequities that first encouraged us to adopt the categorical approach. Taylor, 495 U.S., at 601-602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. In case after case, sentencing courts following Aguila-Montes would have to expend resources examining (often aged) documents for evidence that a defendant admitted in a plea colloquy, or a prosecutor showed at trial, facts that, although unnecessary to the crime of conviction, satisfy an element of the relevant generic offense. The meaning of those documents will often be uncertain. And the statements of fact in them may be downright wrong. A defendant, after all, often has little incentive to contest facts that are not elements of the charged offense-and may have good reason not to. At trial, extraneous facts and arguments may confuse the jury. (Indeed, the court may prohibit them for that reason.) And during plea hearings, the defendant may not wish to irk the prosecutor or court by squabbling about superfluous factual allegations. In this case, for example, Descamps may have let the prosecutor's statement go by because it was irrelevant to the proceedings. He likely was not thinking about the possibility that his silence could come back to haunt him in an ACCA sentencing 30 years in the future. (Actually, he could not have been thinking that thought: ACCA was not even on the books at the time of Descamps' burglary conviction.)
Still worse, the Aguila-Montes approach will deprive some defendants of the benefits of their negotiated plea deals. Assume (as happens every day) that a defendant surrenders his right to trial in exchange for the government's agreement that he plead guilty to a less serious crime, whose elements do not match an ACCA offense. Under the Ninth Circuit's view, a later sentencing court could still treat the defendant as though he had pleaded to an ACCA predicate, based on legally extraneous statements found in the old record. Taylor recognized the problem: "[I]f a guilty plea to a lesser, nonburglary offense was the result of a plea bargain," the Court stated, "it would seem unfair to impose a sentence enhancement as if the defendant had pleaded guilty" to generic burglary. 495 U.S., at 601-602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. That way of proceeding, on top of everything else, would allow a later sentencing court to rewrite the parties' bargain.
B
The Ninth Circuit defended its (excessively) modified approach by denying any real distinction between divisible and indivisible statutes extending further than the generic offense. "The only conceptual difference," the court reasoned, "is that [a divisible statute] creates an explicitly finite list of possible means of commission, while [an indivisible one] creates an implied list of every means of commission that otherwise fits the definition of a given crime." Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d, at 927. For example, an indivisible statute "requir[ing] use of a 'weapon' is not meaningfully different"-or so says the Ninth Circuit-"from a statute that simply lists every kind of weapon in existence... ('gun, axe, sword, baton, slingshot, knife, machete, bat,' and so on)." Ibid. In a similar way, every indivisible statute can be imaginatively reconstructed as a divisible one. And if that is true, the Ninth Circuit asks, why limit the modified categorical approach only to explicitly divisible statutes?
The simple answer is: Because only divisible statutes enable a sentencing court to conclude that a jury (or judge at a plea hearing) has convicted the defendant of every element of the generic crime. A prosecutor charging a violation of a divisible statute must generally select the relevant element from its list of alternatives. See, e.g., The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, 104, 22 L.Ed. 320 (1874) ("[A]n indictment or a criminal information which charges the person accused, in the disjunctive, with being guilty of one or of another of several offences, would be destitute of the necessary certainty, and would be wholly insufficient"). And the jury, as instructions in the case will make clear, must then find that element, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. So assume, along the lines of the Ninth Circuit's example, that a statute criminalizes assault with any of eight specified weapons; and suppose further, as the Ninth Circuit did, that only assault with a gun counts as an ACCA offense. A later sentencing court need only check the charging documents and instructions ("Do they refer to a gun or something else?") to determine whether in convicting a defendant under that divisible statute, the jury necessarily found that he committed the ACCA-qualifying crime.
None of that is true of an overbroad, indivisible statute. A sentencing court, to be sure, can hypothetically reconceive such a statute in divisible terms. So, as Aguila-Montes reveals, a court blessed with sufficient time and imagination could devise a laundry list of potential "weapons"-not just the eight the Ninth Circuit mentioned, but also (for starters) grenades, pipe bombs, spears, tire irons, BB guns, nunchucks, and crossbows. But the thing about hypothetical lists is that they are, well, hypothetical. As long as the statute itself requires only an indeterminate "weapon," that is all the indictment must (or is likely to) allege and all the jury instructions must (or are likely to) mention. And most important, that is all the jury must find to convict the defendant. The jurors need not all agree on whether the defendant used a gun or a knife or a tire iron (or any other particular weapon that might appear in an imagined divisible statute), because the actual statute requires the jury to find only a "weapon." And even if in many cases, the jury could have readily reached consensus on the weapon used, a later sentencing court cannot supply that missing judgment. Whatever the underlying facts or the evidence presented, the defendant still would not have been convicted, in the deliberate and considered way the Constitution guarantees, of an offense with the same (or narrower) elements as the supposed generic crime (assault with a gun).
Indeed, accepting the Ninth Circuit's contrary reasoning would altogether collapse the distinction between a categorical and a fact-specific approach. After all, the Ninth Circuit's "weapons" example is just the tip of the iceberg: Courts can go much further in reconceiving indivisible statutes as impliedly divisible ones. In fact, every element of every statute can be imaginatively transformed as the Ninth Circuit suggests-so that every crime is seen as containing an infinite number of sub-crimes corresponding to "all the possible ways an individual can commit" it. Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d, at 927. (Think: Professor Plum, in the ballroom, with the candlestick?; Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory, with the rope, on a snowy day, to cover up his affair with Mrs. Peacock?) If a sentencing court, as the Ninth Circuit holds, can compare each of those "implied... means of commission" to the generic ACCA offense, ibid. (emphasis deleted), then the categorical approach is at an end. At that point, the court is merely asking whether a particular set of facts leading to a conviction conforms to a generic ACCA offense. And that is what we have expressly and repeatedly forbidden. Courts may modify the categorical approach to accommodate alternative "statutory definitions." Ibid. ; cf. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218, 225, 114 S.Ct. 2223, 129 L.Ed.2d 182 (1994) ("'[T]o modify' means to change moderately or in minor fashion"). They may not, by pretending that every fact pattern is an "implied" statutory definition, Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d, at 927, convert that approach into its opposite.
IV
The Government tries to distance itself from the Ninth Circuit by offering a purportedly narrower theory-that although an indivisible statute that is "truly missing" an element of the generic offense cannot give rise to an ACCA conviction, California's burglary law can do so because it merely "contains a broader version of the [generic] element of unlawfulness of entry." Brief for United States 11-12. The Government's argument proceeds in three steps. It begins from the premise that sentencing courts applying ACCA should consider not only the statute defining a prior crime but also any judicial interpretations of it. Next, the Government points to a California decision holding (not surprisingly) that a defendant cannot "burglariz[e] his own home"; the case's reasoning, the Government notes, is that § 459 (though not saying so explicitly) requires "an entry which invades a possessory right." People v. Gauze, 15 Cal.3d 709, 713-716, 125 Cal.Rptr. 773, 542 P.2d 1365, 1367-1368 (1975). Given that precedent, the Government contends, § 459 includes a kind of "unlawful entry" element, although it is broader than the generic crime's analogous requirement. Finally, the Government asserts that sentencing courts may use the modified approach "to determine whether a particular defendant's conviction under" such an overbroad statute actually "was for [the] generic" crime. Brief for United States 11.
Although elaborately developed in the Government's brief, this argument's first two steps turn out to be sideshows. We may reserve the question whether, in determining a crime's elements, a sentencing court should take account not only of the relevant statute's text, but of judicial rulings interpreting it. And we may assume, as the Government insists, that California caselaw treats § 459 as including an element of entry "invading a possessory right"-although, truth be told, we find the state decisions on that score contradictory and confusing. Even on those assumptions, § 459's elements do not come into line with generic burglary's. As the Government concedes, almost every entry onto another's property with intent to steal-including, for example, a shop
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the issue as to whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels the exclusion, in a state criminal trial, apart from any consideration of reliability, of pretrihl identification evidence obtained by a police procedure that was both suggestive and unnecessary. This Court’s decisions in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (1967), and Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (1972), are particularly implicated.
I
Jimmy D. Glover, a full-time trooper of the Connecticut State Police, in 1970 was assigned to the Narcotics Division in an undercover capacity. On May 5 of that year, about 7:45 p. m., e. d. t., and while there was still daylight, Glover and Henry Alton Brown, an informant, went to an apartment building at 201 Westland, in Hartford, for the purpose of purchasing narcotics from “Dickie Boy” Cicero, a known narcotics dealer. Cicero, it was thought, lived on the third floor of that apartment building. Tr. 45-46, 68. Glover and Brown entered the building, observed by backup Officers D’Onofrio and Gaffey, and proceeded by stairs to the third floor. Glover knocked at the door of one of the two apartments served by the stairway. The area was illuminated by natural light from a window in the third floor hallway. Id., at 27-28. The door was opened 12 to 18 inches in response to the knock. Glover observed a man standing at the door and, behind him, a woman. Brown identified himself. Glover then asked for “two things” of narcotics. Id., at 29. The man at the door held out his hand, and Glover gave him two $10 bills. The door closed. Soon the man returned and handed Glover two glassine bags. While the door was open, Glover stood within two feet of the person from whom he made the purchase and observed his face. Five to seven minutes elapsed from the time the door first opened until it closed the second time. Id., at 30-33.
Glover and Brown then left the building. This was about eight minutes after their arrival. Glover drove to headquarters where he described the seller to D’Onofrio and Gaffey. Glover at that time did not know the identity of the seller. Id., at 36. He described him as being “a colored man, approximately five feet eleven inches tall, dark complexion, black hair, short Afro style, and having high cheekbones, and of heavy build. He was wearing at the time blue pants and a plaid shirt.” Id., at 36-37. D’Onofrio, suspecting from this description that respondent might be the seller, obtained a photograph of respondent from the Records Division of the Hartford Police Department. He left it at Glover’s office. D’Onofrio was not acquainted with respondent personally, but did know him by sight and had seen him “[s]everal times” prior to May 5. Id., at 63-65. Glover, when alone, viewed the photograph for the first time upon his return to headquarters on May 7; he identified the person shown as the one from whom he had purchased the narcotics. Id., at 36-38.
The toxicological report on the contents of the glassine bags revealed the presence of heroin. The report was dated July 16, 1970. Id., at 75-76.
Respondent was arrested on July 27 while visiting at the apartment of a Mrs. Ramsey on the third floor of 201 West-land. This was the apartment at which the narcotics sale had taken place on May 5.
Respondent was charged, in a two-count information, with possession and sale of heroin, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. (Rev. of 1958, as amended in 1969), §§ 19-481a and 19-480a (1977). At his trial in January 1971, the photograph from which Glover had identified respondent was received in evidence without objection on the part of the defense. Tr. 38. Glover also testified that, although he had not seen respondent in the eight months that had elapsed since the sale, “there [was] no doubt whatsoever” in his mind that the person shown on the photograph was respondent. Id., at 41-42. Glover also made a positive in-court identification without objection. Id., at 37-38.
No explanation was offered by the prosecution for the failure to utilize a photographic array or to conduct a lineup.
Respondent, who took the stand in his own defense, testified that on May 5, the day in question, he had been ill at his Albany Avenue apartment (“a lot of back pains, muscle spasms... a bad heart... high blood pressure... neuralgia in my face, and sinus,” id., at 106), and that at no time on that particular day had he been at 201 Westland. Id., at 106, 113-114. His wife testified that she recalled, after her husband had refreshed her memory, that he was home all day on May 5. Id., at 164-166. Doctor Wesley M. Vietzke, an internist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut, testified that respondent had consulted him on April 15, 1970, and that he took a medical history from him, heard his complaints about his back and facial pain, and discovered that he had high blood pressure. Id., at 129-131. The physician found respondent, subjectively, “in great discomfort.” Id., at 135. Respondent in fact underwent surgery for a herniated disc at L5 and SI on August 17. Id., at 157.
The jury found respondent guilty on both counts of the information. He received a. sentence of not less than six nor more than nine years. His conviction was affirmed per curiam by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. State v. Brathwaite, 164 Conn. 617, 325 A. 2d 284 (1973). That court noted the absence of an objection to Glover’s in-court identification and concluded that respondent “has not shown that substantial injustice resulted from the admission of this evidence.” Id., at 619, 325 A. 2d, at 285. Under Connecticut law, substantial injustice must be shown before a claim of error not made or passed on by the trial court will be considered on appeal. Ibid.
Fourteen months later, respondent filed a petition for ha-beas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. He alleged that the admission of the identification testimony at his state trial deprived him of due process of law to which he was entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court, by an unreported written opinion based on the court’s review of the state trial transcript, dismissed respondent’s petition. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, with instructions to issue the writ unless the State gave notice of a desire to retry respondent and the new trial occurred within a reasonable time to be fixed by the District Judge. 527 F. 2d 363 (1975).
In brief summary, the court felt that evidence as to the photograph should have been excluded, regardless of reliability, because the examination of the single photograph was unnecessary and suggestive. And, in the court's view, the evidence was unreliable in any event. We granted certiorari. 425 U. S. 957 (1976).
II
Stovall v. Denno, supra, decided in 1967, concerned a petitioner who had been convicted in a New York court of murder. He was arrested the day following the crime and was taken by the police to a hospital where the victim’s wife, also wounded in the assault, was a patient. After observing Stovall and hearing him speak, she identified him as the murderer. She later made an in-court identification. On federal habeas, Stovall claimed the identification testimony violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals, en banc, affirmed. This Court also affirmed. On the identification issue, the Court reviewed the practice of showing a suspect singly for purposes of identification, and the claim that this was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that it constituted a denial of due process of law. The Court noted that the practice “has been widely condemned,” 388 U. S., at 302, but it concluded that “a claimed violation of due process of law in the conduct of a confrontation depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding it.” Ibid. In that case, showing Stovall to.the victim’s spouse “was imperative.” The Court then quoted the observations of the Court of Appeals, 355 F. 2d 731, 735 (CA2 1966), to the effect that the spouse was the only person who could possibly exonerate the accused; that the hospital was not far from the courthouse and jail; that no one knew how long she might live; that she was not able to visit the jail; and that taking Stovall to the hospital room was the only feasible procedure, and, under the circumstances, “ 'the usual police station line-up... was out of the question.’ ” 388 U. S., at 302.
Neil v. Biggers, supra, decided in 1972, concerned a respondent who had been convicted in a Tennessee court of rape, on evidence consisting in part of the victim’s visual and voice identification of Biggers at a station-house showup seven months after the crime. The victim had been in her assailant’s presence for some time and had directly observed him indoors and under a full moon outdoors. She testified that she had “no doubt” that Biggers was her assailant. She previously had given the police a description of the assailant. She had made no identification of others presented at previous showups, lineups, or through photographs. On federal habeas, the District Court held that the confrontation was so suggestive as to violate due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court reversed on that issue, and held that the evidence properly had been allowed to go to the jury. The Court reviewed Stovall and certain later cases where it had considered the scope of due process protection against the admission of evidence derived from suggestive identification procedures, namely, Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968); Foster v. California, 394 U. S. 440 (1969); and Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970). The Court concluded that general guidelines emerged from these cases “as to the relationship between suggestiveness and misidentification.” The “admission of evidence of a showup without more does not violate due process.” 409 U. S., at 198. The Court expressed concern about the lapse of seven months between the crime and the confrontation and observed that this “would be a seriously negative factor in most cases.” Id., at 201. The “central question,” however, was “whether under the 'totality of the circumstances' the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive.” Id., at 199. Applying that test, the Court found “no substantial likelihood of misidentification. The evidence was properly allowed to go to the jury.” Id., at 201.
Biggers well might be seen to provide an unambiguous answer to the question before us: The admission of testimony concerning a suggestive and unnecessary identification procedure does not violate due process so long as the identification possesses sufficient aspects of reliability. In one passage, however, the Court observed that the challenged procedure occurred pre-Stovall and that a strict rule would make little sense with regard to a confrontation that preceded the Court’s first indication that a suggestive procedure might lead to the exclusion of evidence. Id., at 199. One perhaps might argue that, by implication, the Court suggested that a different rule could apply post-Stóvall. The question before us, then, is simply whether the Biggers analysis applies to post-Stovall confrontations as well to those pre-Stovall.
Ill
In the present case the District Court observed that the “sole evidence tying Brathwaite to the possession and sale of the heroin consisted in his identifications by the police undercover agent, Jimmy Glover.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a. On the constitutional issue, the court stated that the first inquiry was whether the police used an impermissibly suggestive procedure in obtaining the out-of-court identification. If so, the second inquiry is whether, under all the circumstances, that suggestive procedure gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Id., at 9a. Biggers and Simmons were cited. The court noted that in the Second Circuit, its controlling court, it was clear that “this type of identification procedure [display of a single photograph] is impermissibly suggestive,” and turned to the second inquiry. App. to Pet. for Cert. 9a. The factors Biggers specified for consideration were recited and applied. The court concluded that there was no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. It referred to the facts: Glover was within two feet of the seller. The duration of the confrontation was at least a “couple of minutes.” There was natural light from a window or skylight and there was adequate light to see clearly in the hall. Glover “certainly was paying attention to" identify the seller.” Id., at 10a. He was a trained police officer who realized that later he would have to find and arrest the person with whom he was dealing. He gave a detailed description to D’Onofrio. The reliability of this description was supported by the fact that it enabled D’Onofrio to pick out a single photograph that was thereafter positively identified by Glover. Only two days elapsed between the crime and the photographic identification. Despite the fact that another eight months passed before the in-court identification, Glover had “no doubt” that Brathwaite was the person who had sold him heroin.
The Court of Appeals confirmed that the exhibition of the single photograph to Glover was “impermissibly suggestive,” 527 F. 2d, at 366, and felt that, in addition, “it was unnecessarily so.” Id., at 367. There was no emergency and little urgency. The court said that prior to the decision in Biggers, except in cases of harmless error, “a conviction secured as the result of admitting an identification obtained by impermissibly suggestive and unnecessary measures could not stand.” Ibid. It noted what it felt might be opposing inferences to be drawn from passages in Biggers, but concluded that the case preserved the principle “requiring the exclusion of identifications resulting from 'unnecessarily suggestive confrontation’ ” in post-Stovall situations. 527 F. 2d, at 368. The court also concluded that for -post-Stovall identifications, Biggers had not changed the existing rule. Thus: “Evidence of an identification unnecessarily obtained by impermissibly suggestive means must be excluded under Stovall.... No rules less stringent than these can force police administrators and prosecutors to adopt procedures that will give fair assurance against the awful risks of misidentification.” 527 F. 2d, at 371. Finally, the court said, even if this conclusion were wrong, the writ, nevertheless, should issue. It took judicial notice that on May 5, 1970, sunset at Hartford was at 7:53 p. m. It characterized Glover’s duty as an undercover agent as one “to cause arrests to be made,” and his description of the suspect as one that “could have applied to hundreds of Hartford black males.” Ibid. The in-court identification had “little meaning,” for Brathwaite was at the counsel table. The fact that respondent was arrested in the very apartment where the sale was made was subject to a “not implausible” explanation from the respondent, “although evidently not credited by the jury.” And the court was troubled by “the long and unexplained delay” in the arrest. It was too great a danger that the respondent was convicted because he was a man D’Onofrio had previously observed near the scene, was thought to be a likely offender, and was arrested when he was known to be in Mrs. Ramsey’s apartment, rather than because Glover “really remembered him as the seller.” Id., at 371-372.
IY
Petitioner at the outset acknowledges that “the procedure in the instant case was suggestive [because only one photograph was used] and unnecessary” [because there was no emergency or exigent circumstance]. Brief for Petitioner 10; Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. The respondent, in agreement with the Court of Appeals, proposes a per se rule of exclusion that he claims is dictated by the demands of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. He rightly observes that this is the first case in which this Court has had occasion to rule upon strictly post-Stovall out-of-court identification evidence of the challenged kind.
Since the decision in Biggers, the Courts of Appeals appear to have developed at least two approaches to such evidence. See Pulaski, Neil v. Biggers: The Supreme Court Dismantles the Wade Trilogy’s Due Process Protection, 26 Stan. L. Rev. 1097, 1111-1114 (1974). The first, or per se approach, employed by the Second Circuit in the present case, focuses on the procedures employed and requires exclusion of the out-of-court identification evidence, without regard to reliability, whenever it has been obtained through unnecessarily suggested confrontation procedures. The justifications advanced are the elimination of evidence of uncertain reliability, deterrence of the police and prosecutors, and the stated “fair assurance against the awful risks of misidentification.” 527 F. 2d, at 371. See Smith v. Coiner, 473 F. 2d 877, 882 (CA4), cert. denied sub nom. Wallace v. Smith, 414 U. S. 1115 (1973).
The second, or more lenient, approach is one that continues to rely on the totality of the circumstances. It permits the admission of the confrontation evidence if, despite the suggestive aspect, the out-of-court identification possesses certain features of reliability. Its adherents feel that the per se approach is not mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This second approach, in contrast to the other, is ad hoc and serves to limit the societal costs imposed by a sanction that excludes relevant evidence from consideration and evaluation by the trier of fact. See United States ex rel. Kirby v. Sturges, 510 F. 2d 397, 407-408 (CA7) (opinion by Judge, now Mr. Justice, Stevens), cert. denied, 421 U. S. 1016 (1975); Stanley v. Cox, 486 F. 2d 48 (CA4 1973), cert. denied sub nom. Stanley v. Slayton, 416 U. S. 958 (1974).
Mr. Justice Stevens,
in writing for the Seventh Circuit in Kirby, supra, observed: “There is surprising unanimity among scholars in regarding such a rule [the per se approach] as essential to avoid serious risk of miscarriage of justice.” 510 F. 2d, at 405. He pointed out that well-known federal judges have taken the position that “evidence of, or derived from, a showup identification should be inadmissible unless the prosecutor can justify his failure to use a more reliable identification procedure.” Id., at 406. Indeed, the ALI Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure §§ 160.1 and 160.2 (1975) (hereafter Model Code) frowns upon the use of a showup or the display of only a single photograph.
The respondent here stresses the same theme and the need for deterrence of improper identification practice, a factor he regards as pre-eminent. Photographic identification, it is said, continues to be needlessly employed. He notes that the legislative regulation “the Court had hoped [United States v.] Wade[, 388 U. S. 218, 239 (1967),] would engender,” Brief for Respondent 15, has not been forthcoming. He argues that a totality rule cannot be expected to have a significant deterrent impact; only a strict rule of exclusion will have direct and immediate impact on law enforcement agents. Identification evidence is so convincing to the jury that sweeping exclusionary rules are required. Fairness of the trial is threatened by suggestive confrontation evidence, and thus, it is said, an exclusionary rule has an established constitutional predicate.
There are, of course, several interests to be considered and taken into account. The driving force behind United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 (1967) (right to counsel at a post-indictment lineup), and Stovall, all decided on the same day, was the Court’s concern with the problems of eyewitness identification. Usually the witness must testify about an encounter with a total stranger under circumstances of emergency or emotional stress. The witness’ recollection of the stranger can be distorted easily by the circumstances or by later actions of the police. Thus, Wade and its companion cases reflect the concern that the jury not hear eyewitness testimony unless that evidence has aspects of reliability. It must be observed that both approaches before us are responsive to this concern. The per se rule, however, goes too far since its application automatically and peremptorily, and without consideration of alleviating factors, keeps evidence from the jury that is reliable and relevant.
The second factor is deterrence. Although the per se approach has the more significant deterrent effect, the totality approach also has an influence on police behavior. The police will guard against unnecessarily suggestive procedures under the totality rule, as well as the per se one, for fear that their actions will lead to the exclusion of identifications as unreliable.
The third factor is the effect on the administration of justice. Here the per se approach suffers serious drawbacks. Since it denies the trier reliable evidence, it may result, on occasion, in the guilty going free. Also, because of its rigidity, the per se approach may make error by the trial judge more likely than the totality approach. And in those cases in which the admission of identification evidence is error under the per se approach but not under the totality approach— cases in which the identification is reliable despite an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure — reversal is a Draconian sanction. Certainly, inflexible rules of exclusion that may frustrate rather than promote justice have not been viewed recently by this Court with unlimited enthusiasm. See, for example, the several opinions in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977). See also United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433 (1976).
It is true, as has been noted, that the Court in Biggers referred to the pr e-Stovall character of the confrontation in that case. 409 U. S., at 199. But that observation was only one factor in the judgmental process. It does not translate into a holding that post-Stovall confrontation evidence automatically is to be excluded.
The standard, after all, is that of fairness as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Lovasco, 431 U. S. 783, 790 (1977); Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 170-172 (1952). Stovall, with its reference to “the totality of the circumstances,” 388 U. S., at 302,,and Biggers, with its continuing stress on the same totality, 409 U. S., at 199, did not, singly or together, establish a strict exclusionary rule or new standard of due process. Judge Leventhal, although speaking pre-Biggers and of a pr e-Wade situation, correctly has described Stovall as protecting an evidentiary interest and, at the same time, as recognizing the limited extent of that interest in our adversary system.
We therefore conclude that reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony for both pre- and post-Stovall confrontations. The factors to be considered are set out in Biggers. 409 U. S., at 199-200. These include the opportunity of the witness to view the. criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.
V
We turn, then, to the facts of this case and apply the analysis:
1. The opportunity to view. Glover testified that for two to three minutes he stood at the apartment door, within two feet of the respondent. The door opened twice, and each time the man stood at the door. The moments passed, the conversation took place, and payment was made. Glover looked directly at his vendor. It was near sunset, to be sure, but the sun had not yet set, so it was not dark or even dusk or twilight. Natural light from outside entered the hallway through a window. There was natural light, as well, from inside the apartment.
2. The degree of attention. Glover was not a casual or passing observer, as is so often the case with eyewitness identification. Trooper Glover was a trained police officer on duty — and specialized and dangerous duty — when he called at the third floor of 201 Westland in Hartford on May 5, 1970. Glover himself was a Negro and unlikely to perceive only general features of “hundreds of Hartford black males,” as the Court of Appeals stated. 527 F. 2d, at 371. It is true that Glover’s duty was that of ferreting out narcotics offenders and that he would be expected in his work to produce results. But it is also true that, as a specially trained, assigned, and experienced officer, he could be expected to pay scrupulous attention to detail, for hé knew that subsequently he would have to find and arrest his vendor. In addition, he knew that his claimed observations would be subject later to close scrutiny and examination at any trial.
3. The accuracy of the description. Glover’s description was given to D’Onofrio within minutes after the transaction. It included the vendor’s race, his height, his build, the color and style of his hair, and the high cheekbone facial feature. It also included clothing the vendor wore. No claim has been made that respondent did not possess the physical characteristics so described. D’Onofrio reacted positively at once. Two days later, when Glover was alone, he viewed the photograph D’Onofrio produced and identified its subject as the narcotics seller.
4. The witness’ level of certainty. There is no dispute that the photograph in question was that of respondent. Glover, in response to a question whether the photograph was that of the person from whom he made the purchase, testified: “There is no question whatsoever.” Tr. 38. This positive assurance was repeated. Id., at 41-42.
5. The time between the crime and the confrontation. Glover’s description of his vendor was given to D’Onofrio within minutes of the crime. The photographic identification took place only two days later. We do not have here the passage of weeks or months between the crime and the viewing of the photograph.
These indicators of Glover’s ability to make an accurate identification are hardly outweighed by the corrupting effect of the challenged identification itself. Although identifications arising from single-photograph displays may be viewed in general with suspicion, see Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S., at 383, we find in the instant case little pressure on the witness to acquiesce in the suggestion that such a display entails. D’Onofrio had left the photograph at Glover’s office and was not present when Glover first viewed it two days after the event. There thus was little urgency and Glover could view the photograph at his leisure. And since Glover examined the photograph alone, there was no coercive pressure to make an identification arising from the presence of another. The identification was made in circumstances allowing care and reflection.
Although it plays no part in our analysis, all this assurance as to the reliability of the identification is hardly undermined by the facts that respondent was arrested in the very apartment where the sale had taken place, and that he acknowledged his frequent visits to that apartment.
Surely, we cannot say that under all the circumstances of this case there is “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Id., at 384. Short of that point, such evidence is for the jury to weigh. We are content to rely upon the good sense and judgment of American juries, for evidence with some element of untrustworthiness is customary grist for the jury mill. Juries are not so susceptible that they cannot measure intelligently the weight of identification testimony that has some questionable feature.
Of course, it would have been better had D’Onofrio presented Glover with a photographic array including “so far as practicable... a reasonable number of persons similar to any person then suspected whose likeness is included in the array.” Model Code § 160.2 (2). The use of that procedure would have enhanced the force of the identification at trial and would have avoided the risk that the evidence would be excluded as unreliable. But we are not disposed to view D’Onofrio’s failure as one of constitutional dimension to be enforced by a rigorous and unbending exclusionary rule. The defect, if there be one, goes to weight and not to substance.
We conclude that the criteria laid down in Biggers are to be applied in determining the admissibility of evidence offered by the prosecution concerning a post-Stovall identification, and that those criteria are satisfactorily met and complied with here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The references are to the transcript of the trial in the Superior Court of Hartford County, Conn. The United States District Court, on federal habeas, pursuant to agreement of the parties, Tr. of Oral. Arg. 23, conducted no evidentiary hearing.
It appears that the door on which Glover knocked may not have been that of the Cicero apartment. Petitioner concedes, in any event, that the transaction effected “was with some other person than had been intended.” Id., at 4.
This was Glover’s testimony. Brown later was called as a witness for the prosecution. He testified on direct examination that, due to his then use of heroin, he had no clear recollection of the details of the incident. Tr. 81-82. On cross-examination, as in an interview with defense counsel the preceding day, he said that it was a woman who opened the door, received the money, and thereafter produced the narcotics. Id., at 84, 86--87. On redirect, he acknowledged that he was using heroin daily at the time, that he had had some that day, and that there was “an inability to recall and remember events.” Id., at 88-89.
Respondent testified: “Lots of times I have been there before in that building.” He also testified that Mrs. Ramsey was a friend of his wife, that her apartment was the only one in the building he ever visited, and that he and his family, consisting of his wife and five children, did not live there but at 453 Albany Avenue, Hartford. Id,., at 111-113.
These statutes have since been amended in ways that do not affect' the present litigation. See 1971 Conn. Pub. Acts 812, § 1; 1972 Conn. Pub. Acts 278, §§25 and 26; Conn. Pub. Acts 73-137, § 10; Conn. Pub. Acts 74-332, §§ 1 and 3; Conn. Pub. Acts 75-567, § 65.
Neither party submitted a request to the District Court for an independent factual hearing on respondent’s claims. See n. 1, supra.
Although no objection was made in the state trial to the admission of the identification testimony and the photograph, the issue of their propriety as evidence was raised on the appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. Petitioner has asserted no claims related to the failure of the respondent either to exhaust state remedies or to make contemporaneous objections. The District Court and the Court of Appeals, each for a somewhat different reason, App. to Pet. for Cert. 7a-8a; 527 F. 2d, at 366, concluded that the merits were properly before them. We are not inclined now to rule otherwise.
Simmons involved photographs, mostly group ones, shown to bank-teller victims who made in-court identifications. The Court discussed the “chance of misidentification,” 390 U. S., at 383; declined to prohibit the procedure “either in the exercise of our supervisory power or, still less, as a matter of constitutional requirement,” id,., at 384; and held that each case must be considered on its facts and that a conviction would be set aside only if the identification procedure “was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Ibid. The out-of-court identification was not offered. Mr. Justice Black would have denied Simmons’ due process claim as frivolous. Id., at 395-396.
Foster concerned repeated confrontations between a suspect and the manager of an office that had been robbed. At a second lineup, but not at the first and not at a personal one-to-one confrontation, the manager identified the suspect. At trial he testified as to this and made an in-court identification. The Court reaffirmed the Stovall standard and then con-eluded that the repeated confrontations were so suggestive as to violate due process. The case was remanded for the state courts to consider the question of harmless error.
In Coleman a plurality of the Court was of the view that the trial court did not err when it found that the victim’s in-court identifications did not stem from a lineup procedure so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. 399 U. S., at 5-6.
Mr. Justice Marshall argues in dissent that our cases have “established two different due process tests for two very different situations.” Post, at 122. Pretrial identifications are to be covered by Stovall, which is said to require exclusion of evidence concerning unnecessarily suggestive pretrial identifications without regard to reliability. In-court identifications, on the other hand, are to be governed by Simmons and admissibility turns on reliability. The Court’s cases are sorted into one category or the other. Biggers, which clearly adopts the reliability of the identification as the guiding factor in the admissibility of both pretrial and in-court identifications, is condemned for mixing the two lines and for adopting a uniform rule.
Although it must be acknowledged that our cases are not uniform in their emphasis, they hardly suggest the formal structure the dissent would impose on them. If our cases truly established two different rules, one might expect at some point at least passing reference to the fact. There is none. And if Biggers departed so grievously from the past cases, it is surprising that there was not at least some mention of the point in Mr. Justice BrenNAN’s dissent. In fact, the cases are not so readily sorted as the dissent suggests. Although Foster involved both in-court and out-of-court identifications, the Court seemed to apply only a single standard for both. And although Coleman involved only an in-court identification, the plurality cited Stovall for the guiding rule that the claim was to be assessed on the “totality of the surrounding circumstances.’’ 399 U. S., at 4. Thus, Biggers is not properly seen as a departure from the past cases, but as a synthesis of them.
Although the per se approach demands the exclusion of testimony concerning unnecessarily suggestive identifications, it does permit the admission of testimony concerning a subsequent identification, including an in-court identification, if the subsequent
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720 (1977), the State of Illinois brought suit on its own behalf and on behalf of a number of local governmental entities seeking treble damages under §4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15(a), for an alleged conspiracy to fix the price of concrete block in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1. The State and the local governments were all indirect purchasers of concrete block — that is, they did not purchase concrete block directly from the price-fixing defendants but rather purchased products or contracted for construction into which the concrete block was incorporated by a prior purchaser. The Court held that, with limited exceptions, only overcharged direct purchasers, and not subsequent indirect purchasers, were persons “injured in [their] business or property” within the meaning of § 4, and that therefore the State of Illinois was not entitled to recover under federal law for the portion of the overcharge passed on to it.
Appellants in the present case, the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, and Minnesota, brought suit in the appropriate federal courts on their own behalf and on behalf of classes of all governmental entities within each State, excluding the Federal Government, seeking treble damages under §4 of the Clayton Act for an alleged nationwide conspiracy to fix prices of cement in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Appellants are, at least in part, indirect purchasers of cement, and so under Illinois Brick, like the State of Illinois in that case, would not be entitled to recover on their indirect purchaser claims under § 4 unless those claims fell within one of the exceptions. In their complaints, however, appellants also alleged violations of their respective state antitrust laws under which, as a matter of state law, indirect purchasers arguably are allowed to recover for all overcharges passed on to them by direct purchasers. The claims under these state indirect purchaser statutes are the focus of this case.
Numerous similar actions were filed by other plaintiffs in various District Courts, and the actions were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In re Cement and Concrete Antitrust Litigation, 437 F. Supp. 750 (JPML 1977). The District Court certified the actions as class actions and established a number of plaintiff classes. Between July 1979 and October 1981, several major defendants settled with the various classes, resulting in a settlement fund in excess of $32 million. The settlements left distribution of the fund for later resolution, subject to approval of the District Court.
Appellants sought payment out of the settlement fund for their state indirect purchaser claims. Appellees, class members who are direct purchasers, objected. When the District Court approved a plan for distributing the settlement fund, it refused to allow the claims against the fund pursuant to state indirect purchaser statutes. According to the District Court, “[s]uch statutes are clear attempts to frustrate the purposes and objectives of Congress, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Illinois Brick, and, accordingly, are preempted by federal law.” App. to Juris. Statement A-31 (emphasis omitted).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. In re Cement and Concrete Antitrust Litigation, 817 F. 2d 1435 (1987). The Court of Appeals identified “three purposes or objectives of federal antitrust law in this context,” as defined by Illinois Brick and Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U. S. 481 (1968): avoiding unnecessarily complicated litigation; providing direct purchasers with incentives to bring private antitrust actions; and avoiding multiple liability of defendants. 817 F. 2d, at 1445. If state laws permitting indirect purchasers to recover were construed to restrict direct purchasers to suing only for the amount of any overcharge they have absorbed, the Court of Appeals was of the view that state law conflicted directly with federal law as construed in Illinois Brick. Alternatively, if state law permitted indirect purchasers to bring claims for damages in addition to the claims brought by direct purchasers, it would “impermissibly interfere with the three policy goals outlined in Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick.” 817 F. 2d, at 1445. The Court of Appeals therefore held that state indirect purchaser claims that did not satisfy any exception to Illinois Brick were pre-empted.
Appellants appealed to this Court, invoking our jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2). We noted probable jurisdiction, 488 U. S. 814 (1988), and we now reverse.
We should first make it clear exactly what the issue is before us. These cases alleged violations of both the Sherman Act and state antitrust Acts. The settlements, as we understand it, covered both the federal and the state-law claims; the settlement fund was intended to be distributed in complete satisfaction of those claims. Under federal law, no indirect purchaser is entitled to sue for damages for a Sherman Act violation, and there is no claim here that state law could provide a remedy for the federal violation that federal law forbids. Had these cases gone to trial and a Sherman Act violation been proved, only direct purchasers would have been entitled to damages for that violation, and there is no suggestion by the parties that the same rule should not apply to distributing that part of the fund that was meant to settle the Sherman Act claims. The issue before us is whether this rule limiting recoveries under the Sherman Act also prevents indirect purchasers from recovering damages flowing from violations of state law, despite express state statutory provisions giving such purchasers a damages cause of action.
The path to be followed in pre-emption cases is laid out by our cases. It is accepted that Congress has the authority, in exercising its Article I powers, to pre-empt state law. In the absence of an express statement by Congress that state law is pre-empted, there are two other bases for finding pre-emption. First, when Congress intends that federal law occupy a given field, state law in that field is pre-empted. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190, 212-213 (1983). Second, even if Congress has not occupied the field, state law is nevertheless pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when compliance with both state and federal law is impossible, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or when the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941). See, e. g., Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 248 (1984).
In this case, in addition, appellees must overcome the presumption against finding pre-emption of state law in areas traditionally regulated by the States. See Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 716 (1985). When Congress legislates in a field traditionally occupied by the States, “we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). Given the long history of state common-law and statutory remedies against monopolies and unfair business practices it is plain that this is an area traditionally regulated by the States. Cf. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, supra, at 146 (regulation to “prevent the deception of consumers”).
In light of these principles, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the state indirect purchaser statutes are preempted. There is no claim that the federal antitrust laws expressly pre-empt state laws permitting indirect purchaser recovery. Moreover, appellees concede that Congress has not pre-empted the field of antitrust law. Brief for Appellee ARC America Corp. 10, n. 5; Brief for Appellees Allied Concrete, Inc., et al. 4. Congress intended the federal antitrust laws to supplement, not displace, state antitrust remedies. 21 Cong. Rec. 2457 (1890) (remarks of Sen.. Sherman); see Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co., 428 U. S. 579, 632-635 (1976) (Stewart, J., dissenting). And on several prior occasions, the Court has recognized that the federal antitrust laws do not pre-empt state law. See Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387, 403 (1941); Puerto Rico v. Shell Co., 302 U. S. 253, 259-260 (1937); cf. Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U. S. 117, 133-134 (1978).
Appellees’ only contention is that state laws permitting indirect purchaser recoveries pose an obstacle to the accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of Congress. State laws to this effect are consistent with the broad purposes of the federal antitrust laws: deterring anticompetitive conduct and ensuring the compensation of victims of that conduct. Illinois Brick, 431 U. S., at 746; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U. S. 477, 485-486 (1977). The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that such laws are inconsistent with and stand as an obstacle to effectuating the congressional purposes and policies identified in Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick In this respect, the Court of Appeals has misunderstood both Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick.
Neither of those cases addressed the pre-emptive force of the federal antitrust laws. Neither case contains any discussion of state law or of the relevant standards for pre-emption of state law. As we made clear in Illinois Brick, the issue before the Court in both that case and in Hanover Shoe was strictly a question of statutory interpretation — what was the proper construction of § 4 of the Clayton Act. See, e. g., 431 U. S., at 736.
It is one thing to consider the congressional policies identified in Illinois Brick and Hanover Shoe in defining what sort of recovery federal antitrust law authorizes; it is something altogether different, and in our view inappropriate, to consider them as defining what federal law allows States to do under their own antitrust law. As construed in Illinois Brick, § 4 of the Clayton Act authorizes only direct purchasers to recover monopoly overcharges under federal law. We construed §4 as not authorizing indirect purchasers to recover under federal law because that would be contrary to the purposes of Congress. But nothing in Illinois Brick suggests that it would be contrary to congressional purposes for States to allow indirect purchasers to recover under their own antitrust laws.
The Court of Appeals also erred in concluding that state indirect purchaser statutes interfere with accomplishing the purposes of the federal law that were identified in Illinois Brick. First, the Court of Appeals concluded that state indirect purchaser statutes interfere with the congressional purpose of avoiding unnecessarily complicated proceedings on federal antitrust claims. But these state statutes cannot and do not purport to affect remedies available under federal law. Furthermore, state indirect purchaser actions will not necessarily be brought in federal court. 817 F. 2d, at 1445. Unlike the federal indirect purchaser claims asserted in Illinois Brick, which would have been exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, 15 U. S. C. §§ 15(a), 26, claims under state indirect purchaser statutes could be brought in state courts, separately from federal actions brought by direct purchasers. Moreover, federal courts have the discretion to decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state indirect purchaser claims, even if those claims are brought in the first instance in federal court. See Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 725-726 (1966). Since many state indirect purchaser actions would be heard in state courts, at least when the federal courts determined that hearing those claims would be overly burdensome, any complication of federal direct purchaser actions in federal court would be minimal.
Second, the Court of Appeals reasoned that allowing state indirect purchaser claims could reduce the incentives of direct purchasers to bring antitrust actions by reducing their potential recoveries. The presence of indirect purchaser claims would reduce settlement offers to direct purchasers, the Court of Appeals believed, and if the total liability were to exhaust a defendant’s assets, the direct purchasers would have to share the defendant’s estate in bankruptcy with indirect purchasers. But the Court in Illinois Brick was not concerned with the risk that a plaintiff might not be able to recover its entire damages award or might be offered less to settle. Indeed, taken to its extreme, the Court of Appeals’ logic would lead to the pre-emption of any state-law claims against antitrust defendants, even if wholly unrelated, because the presence of other litigation could threaten the defendants with bankruptcy and reduce their willingness to settle. Illinois Brick was concerned that requiring direct and indirect purchasers to apportion the recovery under a single statute — § 4 of the Clayton Act — would result in no one plaintiff having a sufficient incentive to sue under that statute. State indirect purchaser statutes pose no similar risk to the enforcement of the federal law.
Appellees argue that because the defendants in these antitrust actions have settled and there is a limited settlement fund, the indirect purchasers’ claims are pre-empted because those claims will likely reduce the amount that can be paid from the fund to direct purchasers. But as we said earlier, the settlement covered both federal and state-law claims, and whatever amount is allocable to federal claims will be distributed only to direct purchasers. Indirect purchasers will participate only in distributing the funds available to claimants under state law. Even if the settlement fund is not to be divided between state and federal-law claimants, the settlement necessarily was intended to dispose of all claimants, whether claiming under federal or state law and whether direct or indirect purchasers. That direct purchasers may have to share with indirect purchasers is a function of the fact and form of settlement rather than the impermissible operation of state indirect purchaser statutes.
Third, the Court of Appeals concluded that state indirect purchaser claims might subject antitrust defendants to multiple liability, in contravention of the “express federal policy” condemning multiple liability. 817 F. 2d, at 1446 (citing Illinois Brick; Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U. S. 519, 544 (1983); and Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, 457 U. S. 465, 474-475 (1982)). But Illinois Brick, as well as Associated General Contractors and Blue Shield, all were cases construing § 4 of the Clayton Act; in none of those cases did the Court identify a federal policy against States imposing liability in addition to that imposed by federal law. Ordinarily, state causes of action are not pre-empted solely because they impose liability over and above that authorized by federal law, see Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S., at 257-258; California v. Zook, 336 U. S. 725, 736 (1949), and no clear purpose of Congress indicates that we should decide otherwise in this case.
When viewed properly, Illinois Brick was a decision construing the federal antitrust laws, not a decision defining the interrelationship between the federal and state antitrust laws. The congressional purposes on which Illinois Brick was based provide no support for a finding that state indirect purchaser statutes are pre-empted by federal law. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
So ordered.
Justice Stevens and Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 4 provides as follows:
“[A]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” 15 U. S. C. § 15(a).
The Court noted two possible exceptions: when the direct purchaser and the indirect purchaser have entered into pre-existing cost-plus contracts, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S., at 732, n. 12, and when the direct purchaser is owned or controlled by the indirect purchaser, id., at 736, n. 16.
The statutes of Alabama, California, and Minnesota expressly allow indirect purchasers to sue. See Ala. Code § 6-5-60(a) (1975) (allowing recovery by any person “injured or damaged . . . , direct or indirect”); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. § 16750(a) (West Supp. 1989) (allowing recovery “regardless of whether such injured person dealt directly or indirectly with the defendant”); Minn. Stat. §325D.57 (1988) (allowing recovery by any person “injured directly or indirectly”). A number of other jurisdictions have similar statutes. Colo. Rev. Stat. §6-4-106 (Supp. 1988); D. C. Code § 28-4509(a) (1981); Haw. Rev. Stat. §480-14(c) (1985); 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶60-7(2) (1988); Kan. Stat. Ann. §50-801(b) (Supp. 1988); Md. Com. Law Code Ann. § 11-209 (1983); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.778 (West Supp. 1988); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-9 (1972); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 57-l-3(A) (1987); R. I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-12(g) (1985); S. D. Codified Laws §37-1-33 (1986); Wis. Stat. § 133.18 (1987-1988).
The Arizona statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1408(A) (1987), generally follows the language of the Clayton Act, but it might be interpreted as a matter of state law as authorizing indirect purchasers to recover. This is appellants’ position. See Brief for Appellants 19, n. 6; Juris. Statement 9. Appellees dispute this interpretation, Brief for Appellee ARC America Corp. 21, n. 14, and the District Court and the Court of Appeals did not pass on this question given their holdings that even if the statute was so interpreted it was pre-empted by federal law. We express no opinion on this question of Arizona law.
At the time of the enactment of the Sherman Act, 21 States had already adopted their own antitrust laws. Mosk, State Antitrust Enforcement and Coordination with Federal Enforcement, 21 A. B. A. Antitrust Section 358, 363 (1962). Moreover, the Sherman Act itself, in the words of Senator Sherman, “does not announce a new principle of law, but applies old and well recognized principles of the common law to the complicated jurisdiction of our State and Federal Government.” 21 Cong. Rec. 2456 (1890).
Cf. National Cooperative Research Act of 1984, 15 U. S. C. § 4303(c) (1982 ed., Supp. V); Export Trading Company Act of 1982, 15 U. S. C. §§4016, 4002(a)(7).
In one respect, the Court of Appeals was overly narrow in its description of the congressional purposes identified in Illinois Brick. In Illinois Brick, the Court was concerned not merely that direct purchasers have sufficient incentive to bring suit under the antitrust laws, as the Court of Appeals asserted, but rather that at least some party have sufficient incentive to bring suit. Indeed, we implicitly recognized as much in noting that indirect purchasers might be allowed to bring suit in cases in which it would be easy to prove the extent to which the overcharge was passed on to them. See 431 U. S., at 732, n. 12.
Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ suggestion, 817 F. 2d, at 1445, there is no contention here that the state indirect purchaser statutes themselves seek to limit the recovery direct purchasers can obtain under federal law.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
We are called upon to deal with exceptions filed by Morton International, Inc., which protests the decision by our Special Master, Senior Circuit Judge J. Cullen Ganey, denying it leave to intervene as a party defendant in this original action. While we affirm the Master’s decision, we do so for reasons which are somewhat different from those advanced in the Master’s Report. Consequently, it will be necessary to describe the nature of the underlying controversy before the basis for our disposition of this matter will become clear.
This case arises out of a long-standing dispute between the United States and Utah over the ownership of the Great Salt Lake. The importance and difficulty of the controversy is magnified by the fact that, over the course of years, the lake has proceeded to shrink in size, laying bare some 600,000 acres of land which had formerly been a part of the lakebed (the so-called “relicted” lands). In 1966, Congress moved to resolve the controversy by passing a special Act, 80 Stat. 192, as amended, 80 Stat. 349, which both authorized the Secretary of the Interior to issue a quitclaim deed to the State for the entire federal interest in the lake properties and provided a mechanism by which the fair value of the federal interest could be ascertained. In consideration of the Secretary’s deed, Utah was obliged either to pay the Federal Government an amount fixed by the Secretary or bring a lawsuit in this Court so that the extent of the federal claim could be judicially determined.
Utah and the United States, however, are not alone in advancing claims to the still submerged and now-relicted portions of the lake. Morton also claims part of the property, and seeks to intervene to quiet its title. Our Special Master’s Report carefully sets out the nature of the competing claims of the two sovereigns and the private landlord:
“1. The State of Utah claims that on January 4, 1896, the date it was admitted to the Union, the Great Salt Lake was a navigable body of water. On the basis of this fact and the 'equal footing doctrine,’ it asserts that it is the owner of the Lake’s bed as delineated and determined by the official surveyed meander line and that the land (some 600,000 acres) left exposed by the recession of the Lake between the water’s edge and the meander line, known as 'public domain reliction,’ is part of that bed. . . .
"2. The United States claims, excluding those exposed lands lakeward from the upland transferred to patentees, title to a substantial portion (some 325,574 acres) of the exposed lands (known as ‘public domain reliction’ lands) claimed by Utah as part of the Lake’s bed. The basis for this claim is that it was the original owner of the uplands and for that reason it is entitled to the exposed lands under the common-law doctrine of reliction.
“3. Private vendees or patentees of the Lake’s uplands whose interest can be traced to the United States claim all the land lakeward fronting such uplands. Their claims do not stop at the water’s edge but continue to the thread of the Lake. They contend that the patents impliedly passed title to the relicted land to the owner of the adjoining uplands. The combined area of the exposed land claimed by this group amounts to approximately 275,000 acres. Morton is a good example of one of this group.
“4. In addition, however, the United States also claims the relicted land fronting the uplands of some of the patentees (or those claiming through them) under the so-called Basart doctrine. The total area claimed under this doctrine is approximately 108,780 acres, and is referred to as 'public land reliction under Basart.’ These private owners [including Morton], of course, disagree that the Basart doctrine is applicable to these lands.” Master’s Report 6-8.
The Special Master found that the claim raised by-Morton and the claims raised in the “main action have a question of law or fact in common” and that, consequently, “a district judge would exercise his discretion and permit [Morton] to intervene in the action.” Report 39. The Special Master, however, refused to take this step only because he found that the State of Utah had not waived its sovereign immunity as to Morton’s suit.
Upon careful consideration, we do not find it necessary to reach the ground adopted in the Report. For we have concluded that a Stipulation entered into between the United States and Utah, which was presented to the Master, has so limited the issues before this Court that the presence of Morton and similar property owners is neither necessary nor appropriate. Hence, in the exercise of our discretion, we find that the interests of justice and sound judicial administration will best be served if Morton’s motion is denied.
The entry of the Stipulation significantly changes the nature of the problem before us. If the Stipulation had never been filed, it is clear that Utah could have attempted to defeat the federal claim to the Basart lands by proving that private landlords like Morton had the best title to them. In such a situation, Morton’s right to intervene would have had a substantial basis. For if Utah sought to invoke Morton’s title to avoid payment to the United States, it would seem fairest to permit Morton to speak for itself. The Stipulation makes it clear, however, that Utah will not attempt to defeat the United States’ claim to the Basart lands by proving that the private landowners have the best title to this acreage. In other words, if Utah does not prove that it owns the lake properties, it has agreed to pay the United States regardless of the other clouds on the federal claim.
On its side, the United States has also taken steps to remove the Basart question from this lawsuit by means of the Stipulation. It has agreed that it will not demand payment for its Basart claims, if the Court finds that its claims to the other disputed acreage have no merit. Consequently, it will be unnecessary to consider whether the United States or the private landowners have title to the Basart lands in order to determine whether the State must pay fair value to the United States in consideration for the Secretary’s quitclaim deed. Thus, if the Stipulation is valid, the substantial need for Morton’s presence no longer exists.
Morton, however, attacks the validity of the Stipulation agreed upon by the two sovereigns. While it does not deny that the parties to an ordinary lawsuit may limit the issues they will tender to the Court for decision, Morton points out that this is no ordinary lawsuit, but one whose nature is defined by the special Act of Congress, supra, in which the United States waived its immunity in this litigation. Morton argues that the Stipulation has transformed the suit in a way that is contrary to Congress’ intention, and that consequently this Court should not accept the parties’ attempt to narrow the issues.
We cannot, however, accept the premise upon which Morton’s argument is based. We find that the Stipulation does not transform the action in a way which Congress would have disapproved. The structure of the relevant Act indicates decisively that Congress did not anticipate that this action would necessarily lead to an adjudication of the private parties’ claims to the Basart lands. Section 5 of the Act gave Utah the right to pay over an amount of money determined by the Secretary of the Interior after the Secretary had given “consideration to all factors he deems pertinent to an equitable resolution of the question of the proper consideration to be paid by the State of Utah . . . .” If the State had taken this option, the private landowners would never of course have had an opportunity to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court since Utah would never have filed its complaint. Consequently, it is difficult to believe that the will of Congress will be frustrated if the issues tendered to this Court by the sovereigns are structured so that we may resolve their dispute without considering the additional claims advanced by the private parties.
Similarly, we do not find any merit in Morton’s challenge to that part of the Stipulation in which the United States has promised not to demand payment for its Basart claims, if its other claims are not vindicated. Morton argues that the Solicitor General is without authority to give away potentially valuable property when Congress has expressly required that the Nation receive fair value. But this argument ignores the fact that the Solicitor General has indicated in his brief that he believes he can advance no colorable argument which could conceivably vindicate the Federal Government’s Basart interest if the Government’s right to the other disputed property is not upheld. This being so, the Solicitor General, acting under his broad authority to conduct the Federal Government’s litigation in this Court, 28 U. S. C. § 518 (1964 ed., Supp. III), was surely entitled to remove the issue from the case.
Finally, Morton claims that under Rule 19 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure it should be permitted to intervene because its absence will “leave [one] of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.” Morton contends that Utah may be obliged to pay the United States for the Basart claims in this present action, only to have another Court later find that the private landowners in fact have the best title, requiring Utah to pay again if it wishes to control the Basart lands. But Utah has never favored Morton’s motion to intervene, despite the fact that the company’s absence here may mean that the State may ultimately be obliged to pay for the lands a second time. Indeed, Utah has consistently opposed Morton’s motion. Since the Federal Rules are a guide to the conduct of original actions in this Court only “where their application is appropriate,” Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of Court, and since our original jurisdiction should be invoked sparingly, we hold that the State of Utah may properly waive the protection of Rule 19 here.
While we can perceive no compelling reason requiring the presence of Morton in this lawsuit, there are substantial reasons for denying intervention. If Morton is admitted, fairness would require the admission of any of the other 120 private landowners who wish to quiet their title to portions of the relicted lands, greatly increasing the complexity of this litigation. Moreover, if any private landlord who is a citizen of Utah should seek to intervene, we would be required to decide the difficult constitutional question as to whether this Court may retain its original jurisdiction over an action in which complete diversity of citizenship no longer exists between the contesting parties.
With the issues limited by the Stipulation, we find, as did the Special Master, that the Solicitor General may be relied upon to represent the limited interests of the private landlords in this case. While Morton doubtless wishes to have us settle its additional claims, we decline to permit intervention for the sole purpose of permitting a private party to introduce new issues which have not been raised by the sovereigns directly concerned. We are thus constrained to require the company to seek another forum which may, with greater efficiency, hear and decide its claims, together with any defenses the sovereign concerned wishes to interpose.
We also agree with the Special Master that “it is equitable and in good conscience to proceed to adjudicate the controversy between the State of Utah and the United States” in Morton’s absence, Report 47, and we hereby authorize him to proceed to the merits.
The Report of the Special Master will be placed on file and his determination denying intervention to Morton International, Inc., is approved.
r, . , , /£ iS so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Uplands are lots above and adjacent to the meander line. (This is Master Ganey’s footnote. The Master’s other footnotes have been omitted.)
The United States also advances a claim, not here detailed by the Master, to certain portions of the still submerged lands as well as the brines and minerals in the lake.
While in the original Stipulation, the two sovereigns sought to defer decision as to which of them owned the still submerged lands under the lake, as well as the lake’s brines and minerals, the Special Master ruled that the United States must contest the State’s claims to these resources in the present action. Neither the State nor the Federal Government has contested this aspect of the Master’s ruling.
Indeed, § 2 of the Act contains a proviso which declares that “the provisions of this Act shall not affect (1) any valid existing rights or interests, if any, of any person, partnership, association, corporation, or other nongovernmental entity, in or to any of the lands within and below said meander line . . . (Emphasis supplied.) This language suggests that Congress expected that the interests of the private parties would not be adjudicated here.
Thus, we need not determine the conditions under which Rule 19 (a) may properly be waived by the party it protects in an ordinary litigation in the district courts.
Before the United States and Utah entered their Stipulation, the Great Salt Lake Minerals & Chemical Corp. sought to intervene in this action. While the Master denied this motion as well as Morton’s, M&C has chosen to acquiesce in the Master’s decision so long as the Stipulation is approved. Thus, no further action on this motion is required in the light of our disposition 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: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
An interval of 22 months elapsed between petitioner’s arrest and indictment, and a further period of 12 months between his indictment and trial, upon charges of automobile theft in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 371, 2312, and 2313. The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied petitioner’s motions — made immediately after arraignment and posttrial — to dismiss the indictment on the ground that petitioner had been denied a speedy trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that under United States v. Marion, 404 U. S. 307 (1971), the 22-month “pre-indictment delay ... is not to be counted for the purposes of a Sixth Amendment motion absent a showing of actual prejudice.” 502 F. 2d 1233, 1235 (1974). This reading of Marion was incorrect. Marion presented the question whether in assessing a denial of speedy trial claim, there was to be counted a delay between the end of the criminal scheme charged and the indictment of a suspect not arrested or otherwise charged previous to the indictment. The Court held: “On its face, the protection of the [Sixth] Amendment is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been ‘accused’ in the course of that prosecution. These provisions would seem to afford no protection to those not yet accused, nor would they seem to require the Government to discover, investigate, and accuse any person within any particular period of time.” 404 U. S., at 313. In contrast, the Government constituted petitioner an “accused” when it arrested him and thereby commenced its prosecution of him. Marion made this clear, id., at 320-321, where the Court stated:
“To legally arrest and detain, the Government must assert probable cause to believe the arrestee has committed a crime. Arrest is a public act that may seriously interfere with the defendant’s liberty, whether he is free on bail or not, and that may disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his associations, subject him to public obloquy, ánd create anxiety in him, his family and his friends. These considerations were substantial underpinnings for the decision in Klopfer v. North Carolina, [386 U. S. 213 (1967)]; see also Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374, 377-378 (1969). So viewed, it is readily understandable that it is either a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge that engage the particular protections of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.
“Invocation of the speedy trial provision thus need not await indictment, information, or other formal charge.”
See also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 519-520, 532-533 (1972).
Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The Chief Justice dissents.
The Memorandum for the United States in Opposition, p. 4, states that “Marion appears to leave little doubt . . . that [the Court] believed that the policies that inform the right to a speedy trial reach beyond the indictment stage of criminal proceedings and that the right consequently attaches either at the point at which a person is arrested and held to answer on .a criminal charge or when he is formally charged by indictment or information, whichever occurs earlier Accord, United States v. Macino, 486 F. 2d 750 (CA7 1973); United States v. Cabral, 475 F. 2d 715 (CA1 1973); Edmaiston v. Neil, 452 F. 2d 494 (CA6 1971).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist joined.
The city of Mobile, Ala., has since 1911 been governed by a City Commission consisting of three members elected by the voters of the city at large. The question in this case is whether this at-large system of municipal elections violates the rights of Mobile’s Negro voters in contravention of federal statutory or constitutional law.
The appellees brought this suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Alabama as a class action on behalf of all Negro citizens of Mobile. Named as defendants were the city and its three incumbent Commissioners, who are the appellants before this Court. The complaint alleged that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at large unfairly diluted the voting strength of Negroes in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the Fifteenth Amendment. Following a bench trial, the District Court found that the constitutional rights of the appellees had been violated, entered a judgment in their favor, and ordered that the City Commission be disestablished and replaced by a municipal government consisting of a Mayor and a City Council with members elected from single-member districts. 423 F. Supp. 384. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in its entirety, 571 F. 2d 238, agreeing that Mobile’s at-large elections operated to discriminate against Negroes in violation of- the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, id., at 245, and finding that the remedy formulated by the District Court was appropriate. An appeal was taken to this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 439 U. S. 815. The case was originally argued in the 1978 Term, and was reargued in the present Term.
I
In Alabama, the form of municipal government a city may adopt is governed by state law. Until 1911, cities not covered by specific legislation were limited to governing themselves through a mayor and city council. In that year, the Alabama Legislature authorized every large municipality to adopt a commission form of government. Mobile established its City Commission in the same year, and has maintained that basic system of municipal government ever since.
The three Commissioners jointly exercise all legislative, executive, and administrative power in the municipality. They are required after election to designate one of their number as Mayor, a largely ceremonial office, but no formal provision is made for allocating specific executive or administrative duties among the three. As required by the state law enacted in 1911, each candidate for the Mobile City Commission runs for election in the city at large for a term of four years in one of three numbered posts, and may be elected only by a majority of the total vote. This is the same basic electoral system that is followed by literally thousands of municipalities and other local governmental units throughout the Nation.
II
Although required by general principles of judicial administration to do so, Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105; Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (Brandéis, J., concurring), neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed the complaint’s statutory claim— that the Mobile electoral system violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Even a cursory examination of that claim, however, clearly discloses that it adds nothing to the appellees’ complaint.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides:
“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973.
Assuming, for present purposes, that there exists a private right of action to enforce this statutory provision, it is apparent that the language of § 2 no more than elaborates upon that of the Fifteenth Amendment, and the sparse legislative history of § 2 makes clear that it was intended to have an effect no different from that of the Fifteenth Amendment itself.
Section 2 was an uncontroversial provision in proposed legislation whose other provisions engendered protracted dispute. The House Report on the bill simply recited that § 2 “grants... a right to be free from enactment or enforcement of voting qualifications... or practices which deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color.” H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 23 (1965). See also S. Rep. No. 162, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, pp. 19-20 (1965). The view that this section simply restated the prohibitions already contained in the Fifteenth Amendment was expressed without contradiction during the Senate hearings. Senator Dirksen indicated at one point that all States, whether or not covered by the preclearance provisions of § 5 of the proposed legislation, were prohibited from discriminating against Negro voters by § 2, which he termed “almost a rephrasing of the 15th [A]mendment.” Attorney General Katzenbach agreed. See Voting Rights: Hearings on S. 1564.before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 208 (1965).
In view of the section’s language and its sparse but clear legislative history, it is evident that this statutory provision adds nothing to the appellees’ Fifteenth Amendment claim. We turn, therefore, to a consideration of the validity of the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to the Fifteenth Amendment.
Ill
The Court’s early decisions under the Fifteenth Amendment established that it imposes but one limitation on the powers of the States. It forbids them to discriminate against Negroes in matters having to do with voting. See Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 665; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 389-390; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 555-556; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214. The Amendment’s command and effect are wholly negative. “The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one,” but has “invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Id., at 217-218.
Our decisions, moreover, have made clear that action by a State that is racially neutral on its face violates the Fifteenth Amendment only if motivated by a discriminatory purpose. In Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, this Court struck down a “grandfather” clause in a state constitution exempting from the requirement that voters be literate any person or the descendants of any person who had been entitled to vote before January 1,1866. It was asserted by way of defense that the provision was immune from successful challenge, since a law could not be found unconstitutional either “by attributing to the legislative authority an occult motive,” or “because of conclusions concerning its operation in practical execution and resulting discrimination arising... from inequalities naturally inhering in those who must come within the standard in order to enjoy the right to vote.” Id., at 359. Despite this argument, the Court did not hesitate to hold the grandfather clause unconstitutional, because it was not “possible to discover any basis in reason for the standard thus fixed other than the purpose” to circumvent the Fifteenth Amendment. Id., at 365.
The Court’s more recent decisions confirm the principle that racially discriminatory motivation is a necessary ingredient of a Fifteenth Amendment violation. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, the Court held that allegations of a racially motivated gerrymander of municipal boundaries stated a claim under the Fifteenth Amendment. The constitutional infirmity of the state law in that ease, according to the allegations of the complaint, was that in drawing the municipal boundaries the legislature was “solely concerned with segregating white and colored voters by fencing Negro citizens out of town so as to deprive them of their pre-existing municipal vote.” Id., at 341. The Court made clear that in the absence of such an invidious purpose, a State is constitutionally free to redraw political boundaries in any manner it chooses. Id., at 347.
In Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52, the Court upheld by like reasoning a state congressional reapportionment statute against claims that district lines had been racially gerrymandered, because the plaintiffs failed to prove that the legislature “was either motivated by racial considerations or in fact drew the districts on racial.lines”; or that the statute “was the product of a state contrivance to segregate on the basis of race or place of origin.” Id., at 56, 58. See also Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U. S. 45; Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 275-277.
While other of the Court’s Fifteenth Amendment decisions have dealt with different issues, none has questioned the necessity of showing purposeful discrimination in order to show a Fifteenth Amendment violation. The cases of Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, and Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461, for example, dealt with the question whether a State was so involved with racially discriminatory voting practices as to invoke the Amendment’s protection. Although their facts differed somewhat, the question in both cases was whether the State was sufficiently implicated in the conduct of racially exclusionary primary elections to make that discrimination an abridgment of the right to vote by a State. Since the Texas Democratic Party primary in Smith v. Allwright was regulated by statute, and only party nominees chosen in a primary were placed on the ballot for the general election, the Court concluded that the state Democratic Party had become the agency of the State, and that the State thereby had “endorse [d], adopt[ed] and enforce[d] the discrimination against Negroes, practiced by a party.” 321 U. S., at 664.
Terry v. Adams, supra, posed a more difficult question of state involvement. The primary election challenged in that case was conducted by a county political organization, the Jaybird Association, that was neither authorized nor regulated under state law. The candidates chosen in the Jaybird primary, however, invariably won in the subsequent Democratic primary and in the general election, and the Court found that the Fifteenth Amendment had been violated. Although the several supporting opinions differed in their formulation of this conclusion, there was agreement that the State was involved in the purposeful exclusion of Negroes from participation in the election process.
The appellees have argued in this Court that Smith v. Allwright and Terry v. Adams support the conclusion that the at-large system of elections in Mobile is unconstitutional, reasoning that the effect of racially polarized voting in Mobile is the same as that of a racially exclusionary primary. The only characteristic, however, of the exclusionary primaries that offended the Fifteenth Amendment was that Negroes were not permitted to vote in them. The difficult question was whether the “State ha[d] had a hand in” the patent discrimination practiced by a nominally private organization. Terry v. Adams, supra, at 473 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.).
The answer to the appellees’ argument is that, as the District Court expressly found, their freedom to vote has not been denied or abridged by anyone. The Fifteenth Amendment does not entail the right to have Negro candidates elected, and neither Smith v. Allwright nor Terry v. Adams contains any implication to the contrary. That Amendment prohibits only purposefully discriminatory denial or abridgment by government of the freedom to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Having found that Negroes in Mobile “register and vote without hindrance,’’¿the District Court and Court of Appeals were in error in believing that the appellants invaded the protection of that Amendment in the present case.
IV
The Court of Appeals also agreed with the District Court that Mobile’s at-large electoral system violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There remains for consideration, therefore, the validity of its judgment on that score.
A
The claim that at-large electoral schemes unconstitutionally deny to some persons the equal protection of the laws has been advanced in numerous cases before this Court. That contention has been raised most often with regard to multi-member constituencies within a state legislative apportionment system. The constitutional objection to multimember districts is not and cannot be that, as such, they depart from apportionment on a population basis in violation of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533; and its progeny. Rather the focus in such cases has been on the lack of representation multimem-ber districts afford various elements of the voting population in a system of representative legislative democracy. “Criticism [of multimember districts] is rooted in their winner-take-all aspects, their tendency to submerge minorities..., a general preference for legislatures reflecting community interests as closely as possible and disenchantment with political parties and elections as devices to settle policy differences between contending interests.” Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 158-159.
Despite repeated constitutional attacks upon multimember legislative districts, the Court has consistently held that they are not unconstitutional per se, e. g., White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755; Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra; Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U. S. 120; Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73; Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U. S. 433. We have recognized, however, that such legislative apportionments could violate the Fourteenth Amendment if their purpose were invidiously to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities. See White v. Regester, supra; Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra; Burns v. Richardson, supra; Fortson v. Dorsey, supra. To prove such a purpose it is not enough to show that the group allegedly discriminated against has not elected representatives in proportion to its numbers. White v. Regester, supra, at 765-766; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S., at 149-150. A plaintiff must prove that the disputed plan was “conceived or operated as [a] purposeful devic[e] to further racial... discrimination,” id., at 149.
This burden of proof is simply one aspect of the basic principle that only if there is purposeful discrimination can there be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229; Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252; Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256. The Court explicitly indicated in Washington v. Davis that this principle applies to claims of racial discrimination affecting voting just as it does to other claims of racial discrimination. Indeed, the Court’s opinion in that case viewed Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52, as an apt illustration of the principle that an illicit purpose must be proved before a constitutional violation can be found. The Court said:
“The rule is the same in other contexts. Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52 (1964), upheld a New York congressional apportionment statute against claims that district lines had been' racially gerrymandered. The challenged districts were made up predominantly of whites or of minority races, and their boundaries were irregularly drawn. The challengers did not prevail because they failed to prove that the New York Legislature 'was either motivated by racial considerations or in fact drew the districts on racial lines’; the plaintiffs had not shown that the statute 'was the product of a state contrivance to segregate on the basis of race or place of origin.’ Id., at 56, 58. The dissenters were in agreement that the issue was whether the 'boundaries... were purposefully drawn on racial lines.’ Id., at 67.” Washington v. Davis, supra, at 240.
More recently, in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., supra, the Court again relied on Wright v. Rockefeller to illustrate the principle that “‘[pjroof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” 429 U. S., at 265. Although dicta may be drawn from a few of the Court’s earlier opinions suggesting that disproportionate effects alone may establish a claim of unconstitutional racial vote dilution, the fact is that such a view is not supported by any decision of this Court. More importantly, such a view is not consistent with the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause as it has been understood in a variety of other contexts involving alleged racial discrimination. Washington v. Davis, supra (employment); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., supra (zoning); Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U. S. 189, 208 (public schools); Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 403-404 (jury selection).
In only one case has the Court sustained a claim that multi-member legislative districts unconstitutionally diluted the voting strength of a discrete group. That case was White v. Regester. There the Court upheld a constitutional challenge by Negroes and Mexiean-Americans to parts of a legislative reapportionment plan adopted by the State of Texas. The plaintiffs alleged that the multimember districts for the two counties in which they resided minimized the effect of their votes in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court held that the plaintiffs had been able to “produce evidence to support findings that the political processes leading to nomination and election were not equally open to participation by the group [s] in question.” 412 U. S., at 766, 767. In so holding, the Court relied upon evidence in the record that included a long history of official discrimination against minorities as well as indifference to their needs and interests on the part of white elected officials. The Court also found in each county additional factors that restricted the access of minority groups to the political process. In one county, Negroes effectively were excluded from the process of slating candidates for the Democratic Party, while the plaintiffs in the other county were Mexican-Americans who “suffer[ed] a cultural and language barrier” that made “participation in community processes extremely difficult, particularly... with respect to the political life” of the county. Id., at 768 (footnote omitted).
White v. Regester is thus consistent with “the basic equal protection principle that the invidious quality of a law claimed to be racially discriminatory must ultimately be traced to a racially discriminatory purpose,” Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S., at 240. The Court stated the constitutional question in White to be whether the “multimember districts [were] being used invidiously to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of racial groups,” 412 U. S., at 765 (emphasis added), strongly indicating that only a purposeful dilution of the plaintiffs’ vote would offend the Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, much of the evidence on which the Court relied in that case was relevant only for the reason that “official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact.” Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S., at 264-265. Of course, “[t]he impact of the official action— whether it ‘bears more heavily on one race than another,’ Washington v. Davis, supra, at 242 — may provide an important starting point.” Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., supra, at 266. But where the character of a law is readily explainable on grounds apart from race, as would nearly always be true where, as here, an entire system of local governance is brought into question, disproportionate impact alone cannot be decisive, and courts must look to other evidence to support a finding of discriminatory purpose. See ibid.; Washington v. Davis, supra, at 242.
We may assume, for present purposes, that an at-large election of city officials with all the legislative, executive, and administrative power of the municipal government is constitutionally indistinguishable from the election of a few members of a state legislative body in multimember districts — although this may be a rash assumption. But even making this assumption, it is clear that the evidence in the present case fell far short of showing that the appellants “conceived or operated [a]' purposeful devic[e] to further racial... discrimination.” Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S., at 149.
The District Court assessed the appellees’ claims in light of the standard that had been articulated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F. 2d 1297. That case, coming before Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, was quite evidently decided upon the misunderstanding that it is not necessary to show a discriminatory purpose in order to prove a violation of the Equal Protection Clause — that proof of a discriminatory effect is sufficient. See 485 F. 2d, at 1304-1305, and n. 16.
In light of the criteria identified in Zimmer, the District Court based its conclusion of unconstitutionality primarily on the fact that no Negro had ever been elected to the City Commission, apparently because of the pervasiveness of racially polarized voting in Mobile. The trial court also found that city officials had not been as responsive to the interests of Negroes as to those of white persons. On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that the political processes in Mobile were not equally open to Negroes, despite its seemingly inconsistent findings that there were no inhibitions against Negroes becoming candidates, and that in fact Negroes had registered and voted without hindrance. 423 F. Supp., at 387. Finally, with little additional discussion, the District Court held that Mobile’s at-large electoral system was invidiously discriminating against Negroes in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
In affirming the District Court, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reaches only purposeful discrimination, but held that one way a plaintiff may establish this illicit purpose is by adducing evidence that satisfies the criteria of its decision in Zimmer v. McKeithen, supra. Thus, because the appellees had proved an “aggregate” of the Zimmer factors, the Court of Appeals concluded that a discriminatory purpose had been proved. That approach, however, is inconsistent with our decisions in Washington v. Davis, supra, and Arlington Heights, supra. Although the presence of the indicia relied on in Zimmer may afford some evidence of a discriminatory purpose, satisfaction of those criteria is not of itself sufficient proof of such a purpose. The so-called Zimmer criteria upon which the District Court and the Court of Appeals relied were most assuredly insufficient to prove an unconstitutionally discriminatory purpose in the present case.
First, the two courts found it highly significant that no Negro had been elected to the Mobile City Commission. From this fact they concluded that the processes leading to nomination and election were not open equally to Negroes. But the District Court’s findings of fact, unquestioned on appeal, make clear that Negroes register and vote in Mobile “without hindrance,” and that there are no official obstacles in the way of Negroes who wish to become candidates for election to the Commission. Indeed, it was undisputed that the only active “slating” organization in the city is comprised of Negroes. It may be that Negro candidates have been defeated, but that fact alone does not work a constitutional deprivation. Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S., at 160; see Arlington Heights, 429 U. S., at 266, and n. 15.
Second, the District Court relied in part on its finding that the persons who were elected to the Commission discriminated against Negroes in municipal employment and in dispensing public services. If that is the case, those discriminated against may be entitled to relief under the Constitution, albeit of a sort quite different from that sought in the present case. The Equal Protection Clause proscribes purposeful discrimination because of race by any unit of state government, whatever the method of its election. But evidence of discrimination by white officials in Mobile is relevant only as the most tenuous and circumstantial evidence of the constitutional invalidity of the electoral system under which they attained their offices.
Third, the District Court and the Court of Appeals supported their conclusion by drawing upon the substantial history of official racial discrimination in Alabama. But past discrimination cannot, in the manner of original sin, condemn governmental action that is not itself unlawful. The ultimate question remains whether a discriminatory intent has been proved in a given case. More distant instances of official discrimination in other cases are of limited help in resolving that question.
Finally, the District Court and the Court of Appeals pointed to the mechanics of the at-large electoral system itself as proof that the votes of Negroes were being invidiously canceled out. But those features of that electoral system, such as the majority vote requirement, tend naturally to disadvantage any voting minority, as we noted in White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755. They are far from proof that the at-large electoral scheme represents purposeful discrimination against Negro voters.
B
We turn finally to the arguments advanced in Part I of Mr. Justice Marshall’s dissenting opinion. The theory of this dissenting opinion — a theory much more extreme than that espoused by the District Court or the Court of Appeals— appears to be that every “political group/’ or at least every such group that is in the minority, has a federal constitutional right to elect candidates in proportion to its numbers. Moreover, a political group’s “right” to have its candidates elected is said to be a “fundamental interest,” the infringement of which may be established without proof that a State has acted with the purpose of impairing anybody’s access to the political process. This dissenting opinion finds the “right” infringed in the present case because no Negro has been elected to the Mobile City Commission.
Whatever appeal the dissenting opinion’s view may have as a matter of political theory, it is not the law. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require proportional representation as an imperative of political organization. The entitlement that the dissenting opinion assumes to exist simply is not to be found in the Constitution of the United States.
It is of course true that a law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 634, 638; id., at 642-644 (concurring opinion). See also San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 17, 30-32. But plainly “[i]t is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws,” id., at 33. See Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56, 74; Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485. Accordingly, where a state law does not impair a right or liberty protected by the Constitution, there is no occasion to depart from “the settled mode of constitutional analysis of legis-lat[ion]... involving questions of economic and social policy,” San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, supra, at 33. Mr. Justice Marshall’s dissenting opinion would discard these fixed principles in favor of a judicial inventiveness that would go “far toward making this Court a ‘super-legislature.’ ” Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 655, 661 (Harlan, J., dissenting). We are not free to do so.
More than 100 years ago the Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one....” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 178. See Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U. S., at 50-51. It is for the States “to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised..., absent of course the discrimination which the Constitution condemns,” ibid. It is true, as the dissenting opinion states, that the Equal Protection Clause confers a substantive right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other qualified voters. See Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S., at 576. But this right to equal participation in the electoral process does not protect any “political group,” however defined, from electoral defeat.
The dissenting opinion erroneously discovers the asserted entitlement to group representation within the “one person, one vote” principle of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, and its progeny. Those cases established that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the right of each voter to “have his vote weighted equally with those of all other citizens.” 377 U. S., at 576. The Court recognized that a voter’s right to “have an equally effective voice” in the election of representatives is impaired where representation is not apportioned substantially on a population basis. In such cases, the votes of persons in more populous districts carry less weight than do those of persons in smaller districts. There can be, of course, no claim that the “one person, one vote” principle has been.violated in this case, because the city of Mobile is a unitary electoral district and the Commission elections are conducted at large. It is therefore obvious that nobody’s vote has been “diluted” in the sense in which that word was used in the Reynolds case.
The dissenting opinion places an extraordinary interpretation on these decisions, an interpretation not justified by Reynolds v. Sims itself or by any other decision of this Court. It is, of course, true that the right of a person to vote on an equal basis with other voters draws much of its significance from the political associations that its exercise reflects, but it is an altogether different matter to conclude that political groups themselves have an independent constitutional claim to representation. And the Court’s decisions hold squarely that they do not. See United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144, 166-167; id., at 179-180 (opinion concurring in judgment); White v. Regester, 412 U. S., at 765-766; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S., at 149-150, 153-154, 156-157.
The fact is that the Court has sternly set its face against the claim, however phrased, that the Constitution somehow guarantees proportional representation. In Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra, the trial court had found that a multimember state legislative district had invidiously deprived Negroes and poor persons of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence whatever of discrimination against them. Reversing the trial court, this Court said:
“The District Court’s holding, although on the facts of this case limited to guaranteeing one racial group representation, is not easily contained. It is expressive of the more general proposition that any group with distinctive interests must be represented in legislative halls if it is numerous enough to command at least one seat and represents a majority living in an area sufficiently compact to constitute a single-member district. This approach would make it difficult to reject claims of Democrats, Republicans, or members of any political organization in Marion County who live in what would be safe districts in a single-member district system but who in one year or another, or year after year, are submerged in a one-sided multi-member district vote. There are also union oriented workers, the university community, religious or ethnic groups occupying identifiable areas of our heterogeneous cities and urban areas. Indeed, it would be difficult for a great many, if not most, multi-member districts to survive analysis under the District Court's view unless combined with some voting arrangement such as proportional representation or cumulative voting aimed at providing representation for minority parties or interests. At the very least, affirmance of the District Court would spawn endless litigation concerning the multi-member district systems now widely employed in this country.” Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra, at 156-157 (footnotes omitted).
V
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Approximately 35.4% of the residents of Mobile are Negro.
79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973. The complaint also contained claims based on the First and Thirteenth Amendments and on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 42 U. S. C. § 1985 (3) (1976 ed., Supp. II). Those claims have not been pressed in this Court.
The District Court has stayed its orders pending disposition of the present appeal.
Ala. Code §11-43 (1975).
Act No. 281,1911 Ala. Acts, p. 330.
In 1965 the Alabama Legislature enacted Act No. 823, 1965 Ala. Acts, p. 1539, § 2 of which designated specific administrative tasks to be performed by each Commissioner and provided that the title of Mayor be rotated among the three. After the present lawsuit was commenced, the city of Mobile belatedly submitted Act No. 823 to the Attorney General of the United States under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. The Attorney General objected to the legislation on the ground that the city had not shown that § 2 of the Act would not have the effect of abridging the right of Negroes to vote. No suit has been brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia to seek clearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act and, accordingly, § 2 of Act No. 823 is in abeyance.
According to the 1979 Municipal Year Book, most municipalities of over 25,000 people conducted at-large elections of their city commissioners or council members as of 1977. Id., at 98-99. It is reasonable to suppose that an even larger majority of other municipalities did so.
Cf. Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544. But see Trans-america Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11; Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560.
Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment provides:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
The Court has repeatedly cited Gomillion v. Lightfoot for the principle that an invidious purpose must be adduced to support a claim of unconstitutionality. See Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 272; Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 265, 266; Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 240.
Mr. Justice Marshall has elsewhere described the fair import of the Gomillion and Wright cases: “In the two Fifteenth Amendment redistricting cases, Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52 (1964), and Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In this narcotics case a two-count indictment charged petitioner with (1) the purchase of 224 grains of heroin from an unstamped package, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 4704 (a); and (2) receiving and concealing this same drug knowing it to have been unlawfully imported, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 174. The Government introduced into evidence the heroin itself, and testimony that petitioner had been in possession of it. On each count it relied, for proof of the elements of the offense, on the statutory presumptions provided by Congress. While petitioner took the stand, his defense was an alibi and there was therefore a total absence of any explanation by him of his possession of the prohibited drug. Upon being found guilty on each count by a jury, on an instruction that proof of possession of unstamped heroin, in the absence of explanation, might support a conviction on each of the charges in view of the separate statutory presumptions, petitioner was sentenced to consecutive sentences of five years’ imprisonment and a $1 fine on each count. Attack is made not only on the validity of the instructions but also on the consecutive sentences. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 248 F. 2d 196 (C. A. 8th Cir., 1957). In view of the importance of the question in the enforcement of the narcotic laws, we granted certiorari. 357 U. S. 935 (1958). We agree with the Court of Appeals. This disposition requires neither a detail of the facts which may be found in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, supra, nor of the court’s instructions, of which petitioner now complains.
Congress provided in 1919 that buying narcotics, except in or from the original stamped package, was an offense punishable by fine of not more than $2,000 and imprisonment for not more than five years. The 1919 Act specifically provided that “the absence of appropriate tax-paid stamps . . . shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section by the person in whose possession same may be found.” Long before, on February 9, 1909, Congress had provided that receiving and concealing unlawfully imported narcotics should likewise be an offense. The Act provided that once the defendant on trial “is shown to have, or to have had, possession of [the narcotic drug] such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”
Petitioner does not challenge the power of the Congress to adopt these statutes, nor does he attack the separateness of the offenses created, the distinct punishments provided, nor the presumptions therein authorized. But he says that where the presumptions are coupled with a single act of possession of unstamped narcotics cumulative sentences are not permissible, and the ones here imposed must fall under the doctrine of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299 (1932). We think not.
As we see it, Gore v. United States, 357 U. S. 386 (1958), controls the question here. There, consecutive sentences were upheld on three counts of an indictment charging (1) sale of narcotics not pursuant to a written order form; (2) purchase, sale and distribution not in or from a stamped package; and (3) transportation and concealment of illegally imported narcotics. The three offenses derived from one transaction, a sale of narcotics. It will be noted that two of the offenses there charged are present here' where the one fact proved by direct evidence is possession, rather than a sale. The Court reasoned that “three violations of three separate offenses created by Congress at three different times;” indicated a clear and continuing purpose on. its part “of dealing more and more strictly with, and seeking to throttle more and more by different legal devices, the traffic in narcotics. Both in the unfolding of the substantive provisions of law and in the scale of punishments, Congress has manifested an attitude not of lenity but of severity toward violation of the narcotics laws.” Supra, at 391. We see no significant differences between the two cases. The direct proof in Gore was of a sale of heroin without a written order charged in one of the three counts upon which the consecutive sentences were based. Resort to the statutory presumptions was made to establish the other two counts on which those sentences were assessed. Here the direct evidence proved possession of the unstamped drug, and resort was made to the statutory presumptions fpr support of the two offenses charged.
Petitioner insists that each offense here requires proof of only the single fact of possession, which brings it within the rule in Blockburger, supra. However, petitioner completely overlooks the fact that the “acts or transactions” prohibited by the respective statutes cannot be equated to possession alone. Let us analyze the offenses. Under the first count of the indictment, the prosecution must prove a purchase of narcotics, other than in of from the original stamped package. In order to establish these ultimate facts, the prosecutor may put on direct evidence of possession of the unstamped heroin and the statutory presumption of § 4704 (a) then has the effect of establishing, prima facie, that there was in fact a purchase and that the purchase was other than in of from the original stamped package. In. this case, the heroin itself was introduced in evidence, thus the jury could determine whether or not it was stamped. Similarly, under the second count, the prosecution was obligated to prove three ultimate facts: (1) that the heroin was received and concealed; (2) that it had been imported contrary to law; and (3) that petitioner knew of the unlawful importation. After putting on direct' evidence of the possession, the prosecution was aided by the statutory presumption of § 174 that the ultimate facts of the violation — entirely different, it must be noted, from those of the first count — were also present.
Thus, the violation, as distinguished from the direct evidence offered to prove that violation, was distinctly different under each of the respective statutes. ' Instead of limiting his proof to an alibi, petitioner could, by offering evidence tending to controvert one presumption or the other as to the ultimate facts, have earned an acquittal : on either count and still have been found guilty on the other. Furthermore, to take advantage of the presumption of § 1-74 it is necessary only to prove possession by direct evidence; whereas to take advantage of the presumption of § 4704 (a) it is necessary to prove by direct evidence that the narcotic was unstamped as well as that it was in the defendant's possession. It follows, even if the Blockburger test were applicable, that the offenses were separate and that consecutive sentences could be imposed on each count.
. We have considered the other contentions raised by petitioner and found them to be without merit. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren'concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas disseñt.
Section 4704 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which provides as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase, sell, dispense, or distribute narcotic drugs except in the original stamped package or from the original stamped package; and the absence of appropriate taxpaid stamps, from narcotic drugs shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subsection by the person in whose possession the same may be found.”
See ' also § 7237 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which at the time of this trial provided a maximum penalty, for first offenders, of a $2,000 fine and imprisonment for five years.
Section 2 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 35 Stat. 614, as amended by the Act of November 2, 1951, 65 Stat. 767, which provided in pertinent part as follows:
“Whoever . . . receives, conceals, ... or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of any i . . narcotic drug ■after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, . . . shall be fined not more than $2,000 and imprisoned not less than two or more than five years ....
“Whenever on trial for a violation of this subdivision the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of the narcotic drug, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”
Petitioner made no objection to the court’s charge at the time of-, the trial. See Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., 30.
40 Stat. 1131.
38- Stat. 789.
40 Stat. 1131.
35 Stat. 614.
Although enacted subsequent to this conviction, the continuing purpose of Congress to wipe out the narcotics traffic is shown in § 201 of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 572, 18 U. S. C. (1952 ed., Supp. V) § 1402, wholly outlawing any possession of heroin.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents many of the same issues as Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, ante, p. 137. Petitioner, Sun Oil Company, is an independent producer making sales of natural gas to transmission companies in interstate commerce for ultimate resale to the public. In 1947 it entered into a contract with the Southern Natural Gas Company, a transmission company, for the sale of natural gas which petitioner controlled in the Gwinville Gas Field in Jefferson Davis and Simpson Counties, Mississippi. The term of the contract was 10 years and the sales price was roughly eight cents per Mcf.
After this Court’s decisions in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672, on June 7, 1954, the Commission, in a series of orders, required independent producers engaging in jurisdictional sales on or after the date of the decision to apply for certificates of public convenience and necessity pursuant to § 7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act. Under protest, petitioner applied for a certificate “authorizing the sale of natural gas in the circumstances . . . described” in its application. The described circumstances consisted simply of a reference to its contract with Southern Natural, which was at the same time submitted by petitioner as its rate schedule. In an abbreviated and consolidated proceeding disposing of over 100 separate docket certificate applications from 40-odd independent producers, scattered from Colorado and New Mexico to West Virginia, the Commission on May 28, 1956, ordered issued to petitioner and each of the other applicants a certificate of public convenience and necessity, in the terms set out in the margin. Petitioner’s contract-rate-schedule was accepted as its FPC Gas Rate Schedule No. 55.
The 1947 contract between petitioner and Southern Natural expired on August 26, 1957. The parties however entered into a new 20-year contract for continued sale of gas from the same field, commencing on September, 3, 1957. The contract called for an initial price increase of roughly 150 per cent, to 20 cents per Mcf. Petitioner took the view that the certificate it had received in 1956 was limited in term to the duration of the old contract. It accordingly filed an application for a new certificate covering the new contract, and filed the new contract as an initial rate schedule under the new certificate, pursuant to § 5 of the Act. The Commission, in a letter order of September 12, 1957, rejected the certificate application as duplicative of petitioner’s existing certificate to make sales from the field in question, and rejected the rate-schedule filing on the ground that the purported initial rate schedule was actually a change in its existing Schedule No. 55. A motion for reconsideration was later denied; and at the same time the Commission ordered suspended, under § 4 (e) of the Act, the effectiveness of the rates in the new contract, which petitioner had, after their rejection as an initial rate schedule, filed under protest, as rate changes pursuant to § 4 (d). 18 F. P. C. 609, 611. After an application for rehearing of the suspension order was rejected, petitioner petitioned for review of all these orders of the Commission in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court affirmed, by a divided vote. 266 F. 2d 222. We granted certiorari. 361 U. S. 880.
Petitioner’s contention here, as it was below, is that the initial certificate it obtained in 1956 was to remain in effect only during the life of the 1947 contract. This in its view would leave it free to discontinue interstate sales after the 1957 expiration of the contract, or to apply for a new certificate for new sales, and, not unimportantly, file the new sales contract as an initial rate schedule thereunder rather than as a rate change. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
First. The major part of petitioner’s argument is based on a want of authority in the Commission, over objection, to grant an independent producer a certificate for a longer duration than the term of a sales contract which its application seeks permission to fulfill. To be sure, if the Commission had no such authority, we might take pains to read the petitioner’s application as seeking a certificate so limited in time, though, as compared with Sunray’s in the companion case, it is highly inexplicit as to its desire that only a term certificate be issued. But we have held today in the Simmy case, ante, p. 137, that in these circumstances the Commission has authority to tender a permanent certificate under an application for a term certificate; and accordingly this keystone of petitioner's argument falls.
Second. Of course, if, despite its authority to grant a permanent certificate, the Commission had in 1956 actually granted a term certificate to petitioner, petitioner would after the term have been free to apply for a new certificate to authorize the sale under the new contract. But we agree with the Commission that the 1956 certificate was a permanent one. The application itself, under the construction we have given the statute in Sunray, did not with any explicitness ask for a limited certificate. It asked for one “authorizing the sale of natural gas” under the 1947 contract; but as we said in Sunray, a permanent certificate would do that. See, ante, p. 149. And the certificate issued makes no reference to any limitation of time. This is in contrast' with explicit references to the limitation in those instances where the Commission had previously issued term certificates. The Commission’s order, which blanketed the many applications before it in the mass proceeding, is no more explicit about limitation than the application, and refers, in fact, to the certificate as both “authorizing the sale” of natural gas, and authorizing a “service,” which accords with our construction of § 7 (e) in Sunray. Under these circumstances we would hardly see any basis for overturning the Commission’s view that no limitation as to time was implied. Cf. Andrew C. Nelson, Inc., v. United States, 355 U. S. 554, 560.
Moreover, if there were any doubt as to the matter, it would be removed by the fact that the batch of certificates containing petitioner’s was issued at a time when the Commission was asserting that it lacked even the power to issue a term certificate. The certificate in question was issued May 28, 1956. The Commission had taken the position that it lacked such authority on July 25, 1955, in Sunray Oil Corp., 14 F. P. C. 877. It was not until October 29, 1956, that judicial rejection of the Commission’s position occurred. Sunray Mid-Con tinent Oil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 239 F. 2d 97, reversed on other grounds, 353 U. S. 944. Nothing in petitioner’s application shows an attempt to take issue with that conception of the Commission, which of course would mean that every certificate granted under its influence would be intended to be permanent. It would surpass belief to say that under these circumstances the Commission tendered and the applicants received these certificates under the assumption that they were limited in time to the terms of the contracts on which the applications were based.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring in Mr. Justice Harlan’s dissenting opinion, see ante, p. 159.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Whittaker and Mr. Justice Stewart, see ante, p. 159.]
Affirmed.
The pertinent provisions of § 7 (c) are set forth in our opinion in the Sunray case, ante, p. 149, n. 15.
“The Commission ORDERS:
“(A) A certificate of public convenience and necessity be and is hereby issued, upon the terms and conditions of this order/ authorizing the sale by Applicant of natural gas in interstate commerce for resale, together with the operation of any facilities, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, used for the sale of natural gas in interstate commerce, as hereinbefore described and as more fully described in the application and exhibits in this proceeding.
“(B) The certificate issued herein shall be deemed accepted and of full force and effect, unless refused in writing and under oath by Applicant within 30 days from issuance of this order.
“(C) The certificate is not transferable and shall be effective only so long as Applicant continues the acts or operations hereby authorized in accordance with the provisions of the Natural Gas Act, and the applicable rules, regulations and orders of the Commission.
“(D) The grant of the certificate herein shall not be construed as a waiver of the requirements of Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, or of Section 154 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations thereunder requiring the filing of rate schedules for the service herein authorized, and is without prejudice to any findings or orders which have been or may hereafter be made by the Commission in any proceeding now pending or hereafter instituted by or against the Applicant. Further, our action in this proceeding shall not foreclose nor prejudice any future proceedings or objection relating to the operation of any price or related provision in the gas purchase contracts herein involved.”
There are slight discrepancies in comparison between the old and new rates, due to the fact that they are computed on somewhat different pressure bases. The Commission states that giving effect to the difference would somewhat increase the spread between the old and the new rates.
For the pertinent provisions, see the Sunray opinion, ante, p. 144, n. 11.
For the provisions, see the Sunray opinion, ante, p. 145, n. 13.
The Commission takes the position that an order suspending a rate change under § 4 (e) is not directly reviewable in the Court of Appeals. But since the very same issues are presented in this case by the Commission’s rejection of the application for a new certificate, and its rejection of the filing of the 1957 contract rate as an initial rate under § 4 (e), which orders are concededly reviewable in the Court of Appeals, all the contested issues raised before the Commission were properly subject to review in.the proceedings below and here, as the Commission concedes. If the Commission was in error in rejecting the application for a new certificate and the purported initial rate filing, the § 4 (e) rate change filing, which the petitioner made under protest, doubtless would be withdrawn.
See, e. g., Louisiana-Nevada Transit Co., 2 F. P. C. 546, 549 (10 years); Ray Phebus, 2 F. P. C. 1044, 1045 (8 years); Southern Natural Gas Co., 8 F. P. C. 688, 689 (1 year).
While the Court of Appeals there affirmed the Commission’s order on other grounds from those on which it had proceeded — for which action the Court of Appeals’ judgment was reversed here — the Commission had, before the Court of Appeals, maintained its position that it was without authority to grant a limited term certificate. 239 F. 2d, at 100, n. 7. It abandoned that position when application for certiorari was made here. 353 U. S. 944.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
We are confronted in this case with an issue concerning § 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 506(d). May a debtor “strip down” a creditor’s lien on real property to the value of the collateral, as judicially determined, when that value is less than the amount of the claim secured by the lien?
I
On June 1, 1978, respondents loaned $119,000 to petitioner Aletha Dewsnup and her husband, T. LaMar Dewsnup, since deceased. The loan was accompanied by a Deed of Trust granting a lien on two parcels of Utah farmland owned by the Dewsnups.
Petitioner defaulted the following year. Under the terms of the Deed of Trust, respondents at that point could have proceeded against the real property collateral by accelerating the maturity of the loan, issuing a notice of default, and selling the land at a public foreclosure sale to satisfy the debt. See also Utah Code Ann. §§57-1-20 to 57-1-37 (1990 and Supp. 1991).
Respondents did issue a notice of default in 1981. Before the foreclosure sale took place, however, petitioner sought reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq. That bankruptcy petition was dismissed, as was a subsequent Chapter 11 petition. In June 1984, petitioner filed a petition seeking liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Code, 11 U. S. C. §701 et seq. Because of the pendency of these bankruptcy proceedings, respondents were not able to proceed to the foreclosure sale. See 11 U. S. C. §362 (1988 ed. and Supp. II).
In 1987, petitioner filed the present adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah seeking, pursuant to § 506, to “avoid” a portion of respondents’ lien. App. 3. Petitioner represented that the debt of approximately $120,000 then owed to respondents exceeded the fair market value of the land and that, therefore, the Bankruptcy Court should reduce the lien to that value. According to petitioner, this was compelled by the interrelationship of the security-reducing provision of § 506(a) and the lien-voiding provision of § 506(d). Under § 506(a) (“An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest ... is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property”), respondents would have an “allowed secured claim” only to the extent of the judicially determined value of their collateral. And under § 506(d) (“To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void”), the court would be required to void the lien as to the remaining portion of respondents’ claim, because the remaining portion was not an “allowed secured claim” within the meaning of § 506(a).
The Bankruptcy Court refused to grant this relief. In re Dewsnup, 87 B. R. 676 (1988). After a trial, it determined that the then value of the land subject to the Deed of Trust was $39,000. It indulged in the assumption that the property had been abandoned by the trustee pursuant to §554, and reasoned that once property was abandoned it no longer fell within the reach of § 506(a), which applies only to “property in which the estate has an interest,” and therefore was not covered by § 506(d).
The United States District Court, without a supporting opinion, summarily affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment of dismissal with prejudice. App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in its turn, also affirmed. In re Dewsnup, 908 F. 2d 588 (1990). Starting from the “fundamental premise” of § 506(a) that a claim is subject to reduction in security only when the estate has an interest in the property, the court reasoned that because the estate had no interest in abandoned property, § 506(a) did not apply (nor, by implication, did § 506(d)). Id., at 590-591. The court then noted that a contrary result would be inconsistent with § 722 under which a debtor has a limited right to redeem certain personal property. Id., at 592.
Because the result reached by the Court of Appeals was at odds with that reached by the Third Circuit in Gaglia v. First Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 889 F. 2d 1304, 1306-1311 (1989), and was expressly recognized by the Tenth Circuit as being in conflict, see 908 F. 2d, at 591, we granted certiorari. 498 U. S. 1081 (1991).
II
As we read their several submissions, the parties and their amici are not in agreement in their respective approaches to the problem of statutory interpretation that confronts us. Petitioner-debtor takes the position that §§ 506(a) and 506(d) are complementary and to be read together. Because, under § 506(a), a claim is secured only to the extent of the judicially determined value of the real property on which the lien is fixed, a debtor can void a lien on the property pursuant to § 506(d) to the extent the claim is no longer secured and thus is not “an allowed secured claim.” In other words, § 506(a) bifurcates classes of claims allowed under § 502 into secured claims and unsecured claims; any portion of an allowed claim deemed to be unsecured under § 506(a) is not an “allowed secured claim” within the lien-voiding scope of § 506(d). Petitioner argues that there is no exception for unsecured property abandoned by the trustee.
Petitioner’s amicus argues that the plain language of § 506(d) dictates that the proper portion of an undersecured lien on property in a Chapter 7 case is void whether or not the property is abandoned by the trustee. It further argues that the rationale of the Court of Appeals would lead to evisceration of the debtor’s right of redemption and the elimination of an undersecured creditor’s ability to participate in the distribution of the estate’s assets.
Respondents primarily assert that § 506(d) is not, as petitioner would have it, “rigidly tied” to § 506(a), Brief for Respondents 7. They argue that § 506(a) performs the function of classifying claims by true secured, status at the time of distribution of the estate to ensure fairness to unsecured claimants. In contrast, the lien-voiding § 506(d) is directed to the time at which foreclosure is to take place, and, where the trustee has abandoned the property, no bankruptcy distributional purpose is served by voiding the lien.
In the alternative, respondents, joined by the United States as amicus curiae, argue more broadly that the words “allowed secured claim” in § 506(d) need not be read as an indivisible term of art defined by reference to § 506(a), which by its terms is not a definitional provision. Rather, the words should be read term-by-term to refer to any claim that is, first, allowed, and, second, secured. Because there is no question that the claim at issue here has been “allowed” pursuant to § 502 of the Code and is secured by a lien with recourse to the underlying collateral, it .does not come within the scope of § 506(d), which voids only liens corresponding to claims that have not been allowed and secured. This reading of § 506(d), according to respondents and the United States, gives the provision the simple and sensible function of voiding a lien whenever a claim secured by the lien itself has not been allowed. It ensures that the Code’s determination not to allow the underlying claim against the debtor personally is given full effect by preventing its assertion against the debtor’s property.
Respondents point out that pre-Code bankruptcy law preserved liens like respondents’ and that there is nothing in the Code’s legislative history that reflects any intent to alter that law. Moreover, according to respondents, the “fresh start” policy cannot justify an impairment of respondents’ property rights, for the fresh start does not extend to an in rent claim against property but is limited to a discharge of personal liability.
III
The foregoing recital of the contrasting positions of the respective parties and their amici demonstrates that §506 of the Bankruptcy Code and its relationship to other provisions of that Code do embrace some ambiguities. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, ch. 506 and, in particular, ¶ 506.07 (15th ed. 1991). Hypothetical applications that come to mind and those advanced at oral argument illustrate the difficulty of interpreting the statute in a single opinion that would apply to all possible fact situations. We therefore focus upon the case before us and allow other facts to await their legal resolution on another day.
We conclude that respondents’ alternative position, espoused also by the United States, although not without its difficulty, generally is the better of the several approaches. Therefore, we hold that § 506(d) does not allow petitioner to “strip down” respondents’ lien, because respondents’ claim is secured by a lien and has been fully allowed pursuant to §502. Were we writing on a clean slate, we might be inclined to agree with petitioner that the words “allowed secured claim” must take the same meaning in § 506(d) as in § 506(a). But, given the ambiguity in the text, we are not convinced that Congress intended to depart from the pre-Code rule that liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected.
1. The practical effect of petitioner’s argument is to freeze the creditor’s secured interest at the judicially determined valuation. By this approach, the creditor would lose the benefit of any increase in the value of the property by the time of the foreclosure sale. The increase would accrue to the benefit of the debtor, a result some of the parties describe as a “windfall.”
We think, however, that the creditor’s lien stays with the real property until the foreclosure. That is what was bargained for by the mortgagor and the mortgagee. The voidness language sensibly applies only to the security aspect of the lien and then only to the real deficiency in the security. Any increase over the judicially determined valuation during bankruptcy rightly accrues to the benefit of the creditor, not to the benefit of the debtor and not to the benefit of other unsecured creditors whose claims have been allowed and who had nothing to do with the mortgagor-mortgagee bargain.
Such surely would be the result had the lienholder stayed aloof from the bankruptcy proceeding (subject, of course, to the power of other persons or entities to pull him into the proceeding pursuant to § 501), and we see no reason why his acquiescence in that proceeding should cause him to experience a forfeiture of the kind the debtor proposes. It is true that his participation in the bankruptcy results in his having the benefit of an allowed unsecured claim as well as his allowed secured claim, but that does not strike us as proper recompense for what petitioner proposes by way of the elimination of the remainder of the lien.
2. This result appears to have been clearly established before the passage of the 1978 Act. Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, a lien on real property passed through bankruptcy unaffected. This Court recently acknowledged that this was so. See Farrey v. Sanderfoot, 500 U. S. 291, 297 (1991) (“Ordinarily, liens and other secured interests survive bankruptcy”); Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U. S. 78, 84 (1991) (“Rather, a bankruptcy discharge extinguishes only one mode of enforcing a claim — namely, an action against the debtor in personam — while leaving intact another — namely, an action against the debtor in rem”).
3. Apart from reorganization proceedings, see 11 U. S. C. §§616(1) and (10) (1976 ed.), no provision of the pre-Code statute permitted involuntary reduction of the amount of a creditor’s lien for any reason other than payment on the debt. Our cases reveal the Court’s concern about this. In Long v. Bullard, 117 U. S. 617, 620-621 (1886), the Court held that a discharge in bankruptcy does not release real estate of the debtor from the lien of a mortgage created by him before the bankruptcy. And in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U. S. 555 (1935), the Court considered additions to the Bankruptcy Act effected by the Frazier-Lemke Act, 48 Stat. 1289. There the Court noted that the latter Act’s “avowed object is to take from the mortgagee rights in the specific property held as security; and to that end ‘to scale down the indebtedness’ to the present value of the property.” 295 U. S., at 594. The Court invalidated that statute under the Takings Clause. It further observed: “No instance has been found, except under the Frazier-Lemke Act, of either a statute or decision compelling the mortgagee to relinquish the property to the mortgagor free of the lien unless the debt was paid in full.” Id., at 579.
Congress must have enacted the Code with a full understanding of this practice. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 357 (1977) (“Subsection (d) permits liens to pass through the bankruptcy case unaffected”).
4. When Congress amends the bankruptcy laws, it does not write “on a clean slate.” See Emil v. Hanley, 318 U. S. 515, 521 (1943). Furthermore, this Court has been reluctant to accept arguments that would interpret the Code, however vague the particular language under consideration might be, to effect a major change in pre-Code practice that is not the subject of at least some discussion in the legislative history. See United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 380 (1988). See also Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 563 (1990); United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 244-245 (1989). Of course, where the language is unambiguous, silence in the legislative history cannot be controlling. But, given the ambiguity here, to attribute to Congress the intention to grant a debtor the broad new remedy against allowed claims to the extent that they become “unsecured” for purposes of § 506(a) without the new remedy’s being mentioned somewhere in the Code itself or in the annals of Congress is not plausible, in our view, and is contrary to basic bankruptcy principles.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 506 provides in full:
“(a) An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest, or that is subject to setoff under section 553 of this title, is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property, or to the extent of the amount subject to setoff, as the case may be, and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest or the amount so subject to setoff is less than the amount of such allowed claim. Such value shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property, and in conjunction with any hearing on such disposition or use or on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.
“(b) To the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property the value of which, after any recovery under subsection (c) of this section, is greater than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim, and any reasonable fees, costs, or charges provided for under the agreement under which such claim arose.
“(c) The trustee may recover from property securing an allowed secured claim the reasonable, necessary costs and expenses of preserving, or disposing of, such property to the extent of any benefit to the holder of such claim.
“(d) To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void, unless—
“(1) such claim was disallowed only under section 502(b)(5) or 502(e) of this title; or
“(2) such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of such claim under section 501 of this title.”
Respondents expressly stated in their brief and twice again at oral argument that they adopted as an alternative position the United States’ interpretation of § 506(d). Brief for Respondents 40, n. 33; Tr. of Oral Arg. 14, 20. In dissent, however, Justice Scalia contends that respondents have not taken the same position as the United States on this issue. According to the dissent, the United States has taken the position that “a lien only ‘secures’ the claim in question up to the value of the security that is the object of the lien — and only up to that value is the lien subject to avoidance under § 506(d).” Post, at 424. In fact, the United States says: “Under [petitioner’s] reading, Section 506(d) would operate to reduce the creditor’s lien to the value of the allowed secured claim described in Section 506(a). In our view, this reading makes no sense.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 5.
Accordingly, we express no opinion as to whether the words “allowed secured claim” have different meaning in other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 67d of the 1898 Act, 30 Stat. 564, made this explicit:
“Liens given or accepted in good faith and not in contemplation of or in fraud upon this Act, and for a present consideration, which have been recorded according to law, if record thereof was necessary in order to impart notice, shall not be affected by this Act.”
The Court, with respect to this statute, has said: “Section 67d ... declares that liens given or accepted in good faith and not in contemplation of or in fraud upon this act, shall not be affected by it.” City of Richmond v. Bird, 249 U. S. 174, 177 (1919).
This precise statutory language did not appear in a reorganization of the section in the Chandler Act of 1938,52 Stat. 840. A respected bankruptcy authority convincingly explained that this was done not to remove the rule of validity but because “the draftsmen of the 1938 Act desired generally to specify only what should be invalid." 4B Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 70.70, p. 771 (14th ed. 1978) (emphasis in original). The alteration had no substantive effect. Oppenheimer v. Oldham, 178 F. 2d 386, 389 (CA5 1949).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider here the circumstances under which a defendant who has entered a plea of guilty to a criminal charge may assert a double jeopardy claim in a collateral attack upon the sentence. Respondents, upon entering guilty pleas, were convicted of two separate counts of conspiracy, but contend now that only one conspiracy existed and that double jeopardy principles require the conviction and sentence on the second count to be set aside. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that respondents were entitled to introduce evidence outside the original record supporting their claim and directed further proceedings in the District Court. We hold that the double jeopardy challenge is foreclosed by the guilty pleas and the judgments of conviction.
I
A
Respondents, Ray C. Broce and Broce Construction Co., Inc., bid for work on highway projects in Kansas. Two of the contracts awarded to them became the subject of separate indictments charging concerted acts to rig bids and suppress competition in violation of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1. The relevant portions of the indictments are set forth in the Appendix to our opinion. The first indictment charged respondents with entering into an agreement, sometime in or about April 1978, to rig bids on a particular highway project. The second charged respondents with entering into a similar agreement, sometime in or about July 1979, to rig bids on a different project. Both indictments were discussed during plea negotiations, and respondents acknowledged in plea agreements that they were subject to separate sentences on each conspiracy charged. Plea Agreement between the United States of America and Defendant Ray C. Broce, App. to Pet. for Cert. 126a, 127a; Plea Agreement between the United States of America and Defendant Broce Construction Co., Inc., App. to Pet. for Cert. 133a, 134a.
Respondents pleaded guilty to the two indictments in a single proceeding. The District Court conducted a hearing fully in accord with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and found that the pleas were free and voluntary, made with an understanding of their consequences and of the nature of the charges. Respondents had counsel at all stages and there are no allegations that counsel was ineffective. Convictions were entered on the pleas. The District Court then sentenced Broce to two years’ imprisonment on each count, the terms to run concurrently, and to a fine of $50,000 on each count. Broce was also sentenced for mail fraud under 18 U. S. C. § 1341, a conviction which is not relevant here. The corporation was fined $750,000 on each count, for a total of $1,500,000. Neither respondent having appealed, the judgments became final.
B
On the same day that respondents entered their pleas, an indictment was filed against Robert T. Beachner and Beachner Construction Co. charging a violation of both the Sherman Act and the mail fraud statute. The indictment alleged a bid-rigging conspiracy involving yet a third Kansas highway construction project. These defendants, however, chose a different path than that taken by the Broce respondents: they proceeded to trial and were acquitted. After the acquittal in the Beachner case (Beachner I), a second indictment was returned by the grand jury charging Beachner Construction Co. with three new Sherman Act violations and three new acts of mail fraud. The Sherman Act counts charged bid-rigging conspiracies on three Kansas highway projects not mentioned in Beachner I.
Once again, Beachner pursued a different strategy than that followed by Broce and Broce Construction Co. Prior to trial, Beachner moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the bid-rigging arrangements identified were merely smaller parts of one overarching conspiracy existing among Kansas highway contractors to rig highway bids within the State. In light of its acquittal in Beachner I, the company argued that a second prosecution would place it in double jeopardy.
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss. United States v. Beachner Construction Co., 555 F. Supp. 1273 (Kan. 1983) (Beachner II). It found that a “continuous, cooperative effort among Kansas highway contractors to rig bids, thereby eliminating price competition, has permeated the Kansas highway construction industry in excess of twenty-five years, including the period of April 25, 1978, to February 7, 1980, the time period encompassed by the Beachner I and Beachner II indictments.” Id., at 1277. The District Court based the finding on its determination that there had been a common objective among participants to eliminate price competition, a common method of organizing bidding for projects, and a common jargon throughout the industry, and that mutual and interdependent obligations were created among highway contractors. Concluding that the District Court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. United States v. Beachner Construction Co., 729 F. 2d 1278 (CA10 1984).
C
One might surmise that the Broce defendants watched the Beachner proceedings with awe, if not envy. What is certain is that the Broce defendants sought to profit from Beachner’s success. After the District Court issued its decision to dismiss in Beachner II, the Broce respondents filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) to vacate their own sentences on the Sherman Act charge contained in the second indictment. Relying on Beachner II, they argued that the bid-rigging schemes alleged in their indictments were but a single conspiracy. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that respondents’ earlier guilty pleas were an admission of the Government’s allegations of two conspiracies, an admission that foreclosed and concluded new arguments to the contrary. Nos. 81-20119-01 and 82-20011-01 (Kan., Nov. 18, 1983), App. to Pet. for Cert. 112a.
A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. 753 F. 2d 811 (1985). That judgment was vacated and the case reheard en banc. Citing our decisions in Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21 (1974), and Menna v. New York, 423 U. S. 61 (1975) (per curiam), a divided en banc court concluded that respondents were entitled to draw upon factual evidence outside the original record, including the Beachner II findings, to support the claim of a single conspiracy. 781 F. 2d 792 (1986). The en banc court rejected the Government’s argument that respondents had waived the right to raise their double jeopardy claim by pleading guilty, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause “does not constitute an individual right which is subject to waiver.” Id., at 795. It further rejected the Government’s contention that respondents’ guilty pleas must be construed as admissions that there had been separate conspiracies. The Court of Appeals observed that the indictments did not “specifically allege separate conspiracies,” and held that “the admissions of factual guilt subsumed in the pleas of guilty go only to the acts constituting the conspiracy and not to whether one or more conspiracies existed.” Id., at 796.
On remand, the District Court, citing Beachner II, concluded that the indictments merely charged different aspects of the same conspiracy to restrain competition. It vacated the judgments and sentences entered against both respondents on the second indictment. Nos. 81-20119-01 and 82-20011-01 (Kan., June 30, 1986), App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a. In its decision on appeal from that judgment, the Court of Appeals noted that our intervening decision in Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U. S. 1 (1987), made clear that the protection against double jeopardy is subject to waiver. Nonetheless, it concluded that while Ricketts invalidated the broader rationale underlying its earlier en banc opinion that double jeopardy protections could not be waived, it left intact its narrower holding that the guilty pleas in this case did not themselves constitute such waivers. It then held that the District Court’s finding of a single conspiracy was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed. Nos. 86-2166 and 86-2202 (CA10, Aug. 18, 1987), App. to Pet. for Cert. la. We granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 903 (1988).
II
A plea of guilty and the ensuing conviction comprehend all of the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of guilt and a lawful sentence. Accordingly, when the judgment of conviction upon a guilty plea has become final and the offender seeks to reopen the proceeding, the inquiry is ordinarily confined to whether the underlying plea was both counseled and voluntary. If the answer is in the affirmative then the conviction and the plea, as a general rule, foreclose the collateral attack. There are exceptions where on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence. We discuss those exceptions below and find them inapplicable. The general rule applies here to bar the double jeopardy claim.
A
The Government’s petition for certiorari did not seek review of the determination that the bid-rigging described in the two Broce indictments was part of one overall conspiracy. Instead, the Government challenges the theory underlying the en banc judgment in the Court of Appeals that respondents were entitled, notwithstanding their earlier guilty pleas, to a factual determination on their one-conspiracy claim. That holding was predicated on the court’s view that, in pleading guilty, respondents admitted only the acts described in the indictments, not their legal consequences. As the indictments did not include an express statement that the two conspiracies were separate, the Court of Appeals reasoned, no such concession may be inferred from the pleas.
In holding that the admissions inherent in a guilty plea “go only to the acts constituting the conspiracy,” 781 F. 2d, at 796, the Court of Appeals misapprehended the nature and effect of the plea. A guilty plea “is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242 (1969). It is an “admission that he committed the crime charged against him.” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25, 32 (1970). By entering a plea of guilty, the accused is not simply stating that he did the discrete acts described in the indictment; he is admitting guilt of a substantive crime. That is why the defendant must be instructed in open court on “the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered,” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(c)(1), and why the plea “cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts,” McCarthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459, 466 (1969).
Just as a defendant who pleads guilty to a single count admits guilt to the specified offense, so too does a defendant who pleads guilty to two counts with facial allegations of distinct offenses concede that he has committed two separate crimes. The Broce indictments alleged two distinct agreements: the first, an agreement beginning in April 1978 to rig bids on one specified highway project, and the second, an agreement beginning 15 months later to rig bids on a different project. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that because the indictments did not explicitly state that the conspiracies were separate, respondents did not concede their separate nature by pleading guilty to both. In a conspiracy charge, the term “agreement” is all but synonymous with the conspiracy itself, and as such has great operative force. We held in Braverman v. United States, 317 U. S. 49, 53 (1942), that “[t]he gist of the crime of conspiracy as defined by the statute is the agreement... to commit one or more unlawful acts,” from which it follows that “the precise nature and extent of the conspiracy must be determined by reference to the agreement which embraces and defines its objects.” A single agreement to commit several crimes constitutes one conspiracy. By the same reasoning, multiple agreements to commit separate crimes constitute multiple conspiracies. When respondents pleaded guilty to two charges of conspiracy on the explicit premise of two agreements which started at different times and embraced separate objectives, they conceded guilt to two separate offenses.
Respondents had the opportunity, instead of entering their guilty pleas, to challenge the theory of the indictments and to attempt to show the existence of only one conspiracy in a trial-type proceeding. They chose not to, and hence relinquished that entitlement. In light of Beachner, respondents may believe that they made a strategic miscalculation. Our precedents demonstrate, however, that such grounds do not justify setting aside an otherwise valid guilty plea.
In Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742 (1970), the petitioner had been charged with kidnaping in violation of what was then 18 U. S. C. § 1201(a) (1964 ed.). He entered a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty. Nine years after the plea, we had held in United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968), that the provision of § 1201(a) providing for a death penalty only upon the recommendation of the jury was unconstitutional. This was of no avail to Brady, however, because the possibility that his plea might have been influenced by an erroneous assessment of the sentencing consequences if he had proceeded to trial did not render his plea invalid. We observed:
“A defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea merely because he discovers long after the plea has been accepted that his calculus misapprehended the quality of the State’s case or the likely penalties attached to alternative courses of action. More particularly, absent misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents, a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise.” 397 U. S., at 757 (citation omitted).
Similarly, we held in McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759 (1970), that a counseled defendant may not make a collateral attack on a guilty plea on the allegation that he misjudged the admissibility of his confession. “Waiving trial entails the inherent risk that the good-faith evaluations of a reasonably competent attorney will turn out to be mistaken either as to the facts or as to what a court’s judgment might be on given facts.” Id., at 770. See also Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258, 267 (1973) (“[J]ust as it is not sufficient for the criminal defendant seeking to set aside such a plea to show that his counsel in retrospect may not have correctly appraised the constitutional significance of certain historical facts, it is likewise not sufficient that he show that if counsel had pursued a certain factual inquiry such a pursuit would have uncovered a possible constitutional infirmity in the proceedings”) (citation omitted).
Respondents have submitted the affidavit of Kenneth F. Crockett, who served as their attorney when their pleas were entered. App. 72-73. Crockett avers that he did not discuss double jeopardy issues with respondents prior to their pleas, and that respondents had not considered the possibility of raising a double jeopardy defense before pleading. Respondents contend that, under these circumstances, they cannot be held to have waived the right to raise a double jeopardy defense because there was no “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938).
Our decisions have not suggested that conscious waiver is necessary with respect to each potential defense relinquished by a plea of guilty. Waiver in that sense is not required. For example, the respondent in Tollett pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, and later filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that his plea should be set aside because black citizens had been excluded from the grand jury that indicted him. The collateral challenge was foreclosed by the earlier guilty plea. Although at the time of the indictment the facts relating to the selection of the grand jury were not known to respondent and his attorney, we held that to be irrelevant:
“If the issue were to be cast solely in terms of ‘waiver,’ the Court of Appeals was undoubtedly correct in concluding that there had been no such waiver here. But just as the guilty pleas in the Brady trilogy were found to foreclose direct inquiry into the merits of claimed antecedent constitutional violations there, we conclude that respondent’s guilty plea here alike forecloses independent inquiry into the claim of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury.” 411 U. S., at 266.
See also Menna, 423 U. S., at 62, n. 2 (“[W]aiver was not the basic ingredient of this line of cases”).
The Crockett affidavit, as a consequence, has no bearing on whether respondents’ guilty plea served as a relinquishment of their opportunity to receive a factual hearing on a double jeopardy claim. Relinquishment derives not from any inquiry into a defendant’s subjective understanding of the range of potential defenses, but from the admissions necessarily made upon entry of a voluntary plea of guilty. The trial court complied with Rule 11 in ensuring that respondents were advised that, in pleading guilty, they were admitting guilt and waiving their right to a trial of any kind. A failure by counsel to provide advice may form the basis of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, but absent such a claim it cannot serve as the predicate for setting aside a valid plea.
In sum, as we explained in Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U. S. 504, 508 (1984), “[i]t is well settled that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty made by an accused person, who has been advised by competent counsel, may not be collaterally attacked.” That principle controls here. Respondents have not called into question the voluntary and intelligent character of their pleas, and therefore are not entitled to the collateral relief they seek.
B
An exception to the rule barring collateral attack on a guilty plea was established by our decisions in Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21 (1974), and Menna v. New York, supra, but it has no application to the case at bar.
The respondent in Blackledge had been charged in North Carolina with the state-law misdemeanor of assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to state procedures, he was tried in the county District Court without a jury, but was permitted, once he was convicted, to appeal to the county Superior Court and obtain a trial de novo. After the defendant filed an appeal, the prosecutor obtained an indictment charging felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflict serious bodily injury. The defendant pleaded guilty. We held that the potential for prosecutorial vindictiveness against those who seek to exercise their right to appeal raised sufficiently serious due process concerns to require a rule forbidding the State to bring more serious charges against defendants in that position. The plea of guilty did not foreclose a subsequent challenge because in Blackledge, unlike in Brady and Tollett, the defendant’s right was “the right not to be haled into court at all upon the felony charge. The very initiation of proceedings against him . . . thus operated to deny him due process of law.” 417 U. S., at 30-31.
The petitioner in Menna had refused, after a grant of immunity, to obey a court order to testify before a grand jury. He was adjudicated in contempt of court and sentenced to a term in civil jail. After he was released, he was indicted for the same refusal to answer the questions. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced, but then appealed on double jeopardy grounds. The New York Court of Appeals concluded that Menna had waived his double jeopardy claim by pleading guilty. We reversed, citing Blackledge for the proposition that “[w]here the State is precluded by the United States Constitution from haling a defendant into court on a charge, federal law requires that a conviction on that charge be set aside even if the conviction was entered pursuant to a counseled plea of guilty.” 423 U. S,, at 62. We added, however, an important qualification:
“We do not hold that a double jeopardy claim may never be waived. We simply hold that a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that —judged on its face — the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute.” Id., at 63, n. 2 (emphasis added).
In neither Blackledge nor Menna did the defendants seek further proceedings at which to expand the record with new evidence. In those cases, the determination that the second indictment could not go forward should have been made by the presiding judge at the time the plea was entered on the basis of the existing record. Both Blackledge and Menna could be (and ultimately were) resolved without any need to venture beyond that record. In Blackledge, the concessions implicit in the defendant’s guilty plea were simply irrelevant, because the constitutional infirmity in the proceedings lay in the State’s power to bring any indictment at all. In Menna, the indictment was facially duplicative of the earlier offense of which the defendant had been.convicted and sentenced so that the admissions made by Menna’s guilty plea could not conceivably be construed to extend beyond a redundant confession to the earlier offense.
“[Filed: Nov. 17, 1981]
Respondents here, in contrast, pleaded guilty to indictments that on their face described separate conspiracies. They cannot prove their claim by relying on those indictments and the existing record. Indeed, as noted earlier, they cannot prove their claim without contradicting those indictments, and that opportunity is foreclosed by the admissions inherent in their guilty pleas. We therefore need not consider the degree to which the decision by an accused to enter into a plea bargain which incorporates concessions by the Government, such as the one agreed to here, heightens the already substantial interest the Government has in the finality of the plea. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
Excerpts from Indictments
“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS
“Criminal No. 81-20119-01
“United States of America v. Broce Construction Co., Inc., Ray C. Broce, and Gerald R. Gumm, Defendants
“V
“OFFENSE CHARGED
“11. Beginning sometime in or about April, 1978, and continuing thereafter, the exact dates being to this grand jury unknown, in the District of Kansas, Ray C. Broce, Gerald R. Gumm and Broce Construction Co., Inc., defendants herein, and others known and unknown, entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for the construction of Project No. 23-60-RS-1080(9) let by the State of Kansas on April 25, 1978, which contract involved construction work on a Federal-Aid highway in the State of Kansas, in unreasonable restraint of the above-described interstate trade and commerce in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1, commonly known as the Sherman Act.
“12. The aforesaid combination and conspiracy consisted of an agreement, understanding and concert of action among the defendants and co-conspirators, the substantial terms of which were:
“(a) To allocate to Broce Construction Co., Inc., Project No. 23-60-RS-1080(9) let by the State of Kansas on April 25, 1978; and
“(b) To submit collusive, noncompetitive, and rigged bids to the State of Kansas in connection with the above-referenced Federal-Aid highway project.
“13. For the purpose of forming and effectuating the aforesaid combination and conspiracy, the defendants and co-conspirators have done those things which, as hereinbefore charged, they have combined and conspired to do, including:
“(a) Discussing the submission of prospective bids on the above-described project let by the State of Kansas, Project No. 23-60-RS-1080(9);
“(b) Designating the successful low bidder on the above-referenced Federal-Aid highway project;
“(e) Submitting intentionally high or complementary bids on the above-referenced Federal-Aid highway project on which Broce Construction Co., Inc. had been designated as the successful low bidder;
“[Filed: Feb. 4, 1982]
“(d) Submitting bid proposals on the above-referenced Federal-Aid highway project containing false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and entries; and
“(e) Discussing the submission of prospective bids on other projects let by the State of Kansas on April 25, 1978.”
“IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
“Criminal No. 82-20011
“United States of America v. Ray C. Broce and Broce Construction Co., Inc., Defendants.
“V
“OFFENSE CHARGED
“10. Beginning sometime in or about July, 1979, and continuing thereafter, the exact dates being to this grand jury unknown, in the District of Kansas, Ray C. Broce and Broce Construction Co., Inc., defendants herein, and others known and unknown, entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for the construction of Project No. KRL 29-2(26) let by the State of Kansas on July 17, 1979, which contract involved construction work on a public highway in the State of Kansas, in unreasonable restraint of the above-described interstate trade and commerce in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1, commonly known as the Sherman Act.
“11. The aforesaid combination and conspiracy consisted of an agreement, understanding and concert of action among the defendants and co-conspirators, the substantial terms of which were:
“(a) To allocate to Broce Construction Co., Inc., Project No. KRL 29-2(26) let by the State of Kansas on July 17, 1979; and
“(b) To submit collusive, noncompetitive, and rigged bids to the State of Kansas in connection with the above-referenced public highway construction project.
“12. For the purpose of forming and effectuating the aforesaid combination and conspiracy, the defendants and co-conspirators have done those things which, as hereinbefore charged, they have combined and conspired to do, including:
“(a) Discussing the submission of prospective bids on the above-described project let by the State of Kansas, Project No. KRL 29-2(26);
“(b) Designating the successful low bidder on the above-referenced public highway construction project;
“(c) Submitting intentionally high or complementary bids on the above-referenced public highway construction project on which Broce Construction Co., Inc. had been designated as the successful low bidder;
“(d) Submitting bid proposals on the above-referenced public highway construction project containing false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and entries; and
“(e) Discussing the payment of consideration of value to another contractor to induce that contractor to submit a noncompetitive, rigged bid on the above-referenced public highway construction project.”
That is certainly how all participants viewed the indictments at the time. As noted earlier, see siupra, at 565, respondents acknowledged in their plea agreements that they were subject to receiving separate sentences for each offense to which they were pleading. Furthermore, the District Judge informed Broce at the Rule 11 hearing of the maximum punishment “on each charge,” and Broce stated that he understood. App. 36. Prior to sentencing, the Government prepared an “Official Version of the Offense” for inclusion in the presentence report which stated that there were “two separate conspiracies” giving rise to the indictments. Id., at 51. At his sentencing hearing, Broce was given an opportunity to state “any dispute with what the government has included in the pre-sentence report about the official version of the offense,” and did not dispute the statement that the conspiracies were separate ones. Id., at 63-64. We do not suggest that any of these events are necessary to our holding that respondents have forfeited the opportunity to dispute the separate nature of the conspiracies; on the contrary, the guilty pleas are alone a sufficient basis for that conclusion. We review' these incidents simply to note that our reading of the indictments is the necessary one, and was shared by all participants to the plea proceedings at the time the pleas were entered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case concerns the congressional reapportionment of the State of Texas.
On June 17, 1971, the Governor of the State of Texas signed into law Senate Bill One (S. B. 1), Tex. Acts, 62d Leg., 1st Called Sess., c. 12, p. 38, providing for the congressional redistricting of the State. S. B. 1 divided the State into 24 congressional districts for the ensuing decennium. Based upon 1970 census figures, absolute population equality among the 24 districts would mean a population of 466,530 in each district. The districts created by S. B. 1 varied from a high of 477,856 in the 13th District to a low of 458,581 in the 15th District. The 13th District exceeded the ideal district by 2.43% and the 15th District was smaller by 1.7%. The population difference between the two districts was 10,275 persons, and their total percentage deviation was 4.13%. The ratio of the 13th District to the 15th was 1.04 to 1. The average deviation of all districts from the ideal district of 466,530 was .745% or 3,421 persons.
On October 19, 1971, appellees, residents of the 6th, 13th, 16th, and 19th congressional districts, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against appellant, the Secretary of State of Texas and the chief election officer of the State. Ap-pellees alleged that the reapportionment of the Texas congressional seats as embodied in S. B. 1 violated their rights under Art. I, § 2, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They requested an injunction against the use of S. B. 1, an order requiring a new apportionment or the use of a plan submitted with their complaint, or at-large elections. The plan appended to appellees’ original complaint, which came to be called Plan B, generally followed the redistricting pattern of S. B. 1. However, the district lines were adjusted where necessary so as to achieve smaller population variances among districts. Plan B created districts varying from 466,930 to 466,234, for a total absolute deviation between the largest and smallest district of 696 persons. District 12 exceeded the ideal by .086% and District Four was under the ideal by .063%, for a total percentage deviation of .149%. Although the plan followed the district lines of S. B. 1 where possible, in order to achieve maximum population equality, Plan B cut across 18 more county lines than did S. B. I.
A three-judge court was convened. 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284. On January 10, 1972, several days prior to the scheduled hearing of the case, appellees filed an amended complaint suggesting an alternative plan, which came to be called Plan C. Plan C, unlike Plan B, substantially disregarded the configuration of the districts in S. B. 1. Instead, as the authors of the plan frankly admitted and the District Court found, Plan C represented an attempt to attain lower deviations without regard to any consideration other than population. The districts in Plan C varied in population from 467,173 as a high to 465,855 as a low, a difference of 1,318 persons. The largest district was overpopulated by .139%, and the smallest underpopulated by .145%, the total percentage deviation being .284%. Plan C had 14 districts with greater deviations than Plan B, eight districts with deviations equal to those found in Plan B, and two districts with deviations smaller than those in Plan B.
On January 21, 1972, the District Court heard argument and received into evidence various depositions. The next day, the court announced its decision. Relying upon this Court’s decision in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S. 526 (1969), the District Court declared S. B. 1 unconstitutional and enjoined appellant from “conducting or permitting any primary or general elections based upon the districts established by S. B. 1.” The District-Court ordered the adoption of Plan C as “the plan of this Court for the congressional districts of the State of Texas.” Noting that its order was entered “without prejudice to the legislative and executive branches of the State of Texas to proceed with the consideration and adoption of any other constitutionally permissible plan of congressional redistricting at a called or regular session of the Legislature,” the District Court retained jurisdiction “for the purposes of considering any such plan which might be adopted by the Legislature of the State of Texas until congressional reapportionment is enacted based on the Twentieth Decennial Census to be conducted in 1980.”
This Court, on application of appellant, granted a stay of the order of the District Court. 404 TJ. S. 1065 (1972). The 1972 congressional elections were therefore conducted under the plan embodied in S. B. 1. We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal. 409 U. S. 947 (1972).
I
The command of Art. I, § 2, that representatives be chosen “by the People of the several States” was elucidated in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964), and in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S., at 527-528, to permit only those population variances among congressional districts that “are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown.” Id., at 531. See also Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542, 546 (1969). Kirkpatrick and Wells invalidated state reapportionment statutes providing for federal congressional districts having total percentage deviations of 5.97% and 13.1%, respectively. In both cases, we concluded that the deviations did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality and were not sufficiently justified.
The percentage deviations now before us in S. B. 1 are smaller than those invalidated in Kirkpatrick and Wells, but we agree with the District Court that, under the standards of those cases, they were not “unavoidable,” and the districts were not as mathematically equal as reasonably possible. Both Plans B and C demonstrate this much, and the State does not really dispute it.' Also, as in Kirkpatrick and Wells, “we do not find legally acceptable the argument that variances are justified if they necessarily result from a State’s attempt to avoid fragmenting political subdivisions by drawing congressional district lines along existing county, municipal, or other political subdivision boundaries.” Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, supra, at 533-534.
The State asserts that the variances present in S. B. 1 nevertheless represent good-faith efforts • by the State to promote “constituency-representative relations,” a policy frankly aimed at maintaining existing relationships between incumbent congressmen and their constituents and preserving the seniority the members of the State’s delegation have achieved in the United States House of Representatives. We do not disparage this interest. We have, in the context of state reapportionment, said that the fact that “district boundaries may have been drawn in a way that minimizes the number of contests between present incumbents does not in and of itself establish invidiousness.” Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 89 n. 16 (1966). Cf. Gaffney v. Cummings, ante, at 752. But we need not decide whether this state interest is sufficient to justify the deviations at issue here, for Plan B admittedly serves this purpose as well as S. B. 1 while adhering more closely to population equality. S. B. 1 and its population variations, therefore, were not necessary to achieve the asserted state goal, and the District Court was correct in rejecting it.
Appellant also straightforwardly argues that Kirkpatrick and Wells should be modified so as not to require the “small” population variances among congressional districts involved in this case to be justified by the State. S. B. 1, it is urged, absent proof of invidiousness over and above the population variances among its districts, does not violate Art. I, § 2. It is clear, however, that at some point or level in size, population variances do import invidious devaluation of the individual's vote and represent a failure to accord him fair and effective representation. Appellant concedes this and would locate the line differently than the Court did in Kirkpatrick and Wells. Keeping in mind that congressional districts are not so intertwined and freighted with strictly local interests as are state legislative districts and that, as compared with the latter, they are relatively enormous, with each percentage point of variation representing almost 5,000 people, we are not inclined to disturb Kirkpatrick and Wells. This is particularly so in light of Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315 (1973), decided earlier this Term, where we reiterated that the Wesberry, Kirkpatrick, and Wells line of cases would continue to govern congressional reapportionments, although holding that the rigor of the rule of those cases was inappropriate for state reapportionments challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
II
The District Court properly rejected S. B. 1, but it had before it both Plan B and Plan C, and there remains the question whether the court correctly chose to implement the latter. Plan B adhered to the basic district configurations found in S. B. 1, but adjusted the district lines, where necessary, in order to achieve maximum population equality among districts. Each district in Plan B contained generally the same counties as the equivalent district in S. B. I. Plan C, on the other hand, was based entirely upon population considerations and made no attempt to adhere to the district configurations found in S. B. I. Both plans were submitted to the District Court by appellees. After deciding that S. B. 1 was unacceptable, the District Court ordered the implementation of Plan C. In announcing its decision, the court said only:
“Plan C is based solely on population and is significantly more compact and contiguous than either S. B. 1 or Plan B. . . . The Court has considered Plans B and C . . . and concludes that Plan C best effectuates the principle of 'one man, one vote’ enunciated by the Supreme Court.”
Appellant argues that, even if the District Court properly struck down S. B. 1, it should have selected Plan B rather than Plan C. Appellees defend the selection of Plan C as an exercise of the remedial discretion of the District Court, although in doing so they argue against a plan that they proposed and frequently urged upon the District Court.
From the beginning, we have recognized that “reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and that judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 586 (1964). See also, id., at 584, 586-587; id., at 588-589 (opinion of Stewart, J.). We have adhered to the view that state legislatures have “primary jurisdiction” over legislative reapportionment. See Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656, 676 (1964); Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678, 693 (1964); Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695, 709-710, 711-712 (1964); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S., at 84-85; Ely v. Klahr, 403 U. S. 108, 114 (1971); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 160-161 (1971); Sixty-seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens, 406 U. S. 187, 195-201 (1972); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S., at 327. Just as a federal district court, in the context of legislative reapportionment, should follow the policies and preferences of the State, as expressed in statutory and constitutional provisions or in the reapportionment plans proposed by the state legislature, whenever adherence to state policy does not detract from the requirements of the Federal Constitution, we hold that a district court should similarly honor state policies in the context of congressional reapportionment. In fashioning a reapportionment plan or in choosing among plans, a district court should not pre-empt the legislative task nor “intrude upon state policy any more than necessary.” Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra, at 160.
Here, it is clear that Plan B, to a greater extent than did Plan C, adhered to the desires of the state legislature while attempting to achieve population equality among districts. S. B. 1, a duly enacted statute of the State of Texas, established the State’s 24 congressional districts with locations and configurations found appropriate by the duly elected members of the two houses of the Texas Legislature. As we have often noted, reapportionment is a complicated process. Districting inevitably has sharp political impact and inevitably political decisions must be made by those charged with the task. See Gaffney v. Cummings, ante, at 753. Here those decisions were made by the legislature in pursuit of what were deemed important state interests. Its decisions should not be unnecessarily put aside in the course of fashioning relief appropriate to remedy what were held to be impermissible population variations between congressional districts.
Plan B, as all parties concede, represented an attempt to adhere to the districting preferences of the state legislature while eliminating population variances. Indeed, Plan B achieved the goal of population equality to a greater extent than did Plan C. Despite the existence of Plan B, the District Court ordered implementation of Plan C, which, as conceded by all parties, ignored legislative districting policy and constructed districts solely on the basis of population considerations. The District Court erred in -this choice. Given the alternatives, the court should not have imposed Plan C, with its very different political impact, on the State. It should have implemented Plan B, which most clearly approximated the reapportionment plan of the state legislature, while satisfying constitutional requirements. The court said only that Plan C is “significantly more compact and contiguous” than Plan B. But both Plan B and Plan C feature contiguous districts, and, even if the districts in Plan C can be called more compact, the District Court’s preferences do not override whatever state goals were embodied in S. B. 1 and, derivatively, in Plan B. “The remedial powers of an equity court must be adequate to the task, but they are not unlimited. Here the District Court erred in so broadly brushing aside state apportionment policy without solid constitutional or equitable grounds for doing so.” Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra, at 161. If there was a good reason for adopting Plan C rather than Plan B, the District Court failed to state it.
Of course, the District Court should defer to state policy in fashioning relief only where that policy is consistent with constitutional norms and is not itself vulnerable to legal challenge. The District Court should not, in the name of state policy, refrain from providing remedies fully adequate to redress constitutional violations which have been adjudicated and must be rectified. But here, the District Court did not suggest or hold that the legislative policy of districting so as to preserve the constituencies of congressional incumbents was unconstitutional or even undesirable. We repeat what we have said in the context of state legislative reapportionment: “The fact that district boundaries may have been drawn in a way that minimizes the number of contests between present incumbents does not in and of itself establish invidiousness.” Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S., at 89 n. 16. Cf. Gaffney v. Cummings, ante, at 752; Taylor v. McKeithen, 407 U. S. 191 (1972). And we note that appellees themselves submitted Plan B to the District Court and defended it on the basis that it adhered to state goals, as embodied in S. B. 1, while eliminating impermissible deviations.
The judgment of the District Court invalidating S. B. 1 is affirmed. The adoption of Plan C is, however, reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Prior to the passage of S. B. 1, the Texas Senate had twice defeated redistricting bills, passed by the House, with total deviations smaller than the total deviation in S. B. 1.
The redistricting of the 24 Texas congressional districts under S. B. 1 follows:
At a subsequent pretrial conference, the Fourteenth Amendment claims were eliminated.
Plan B resulted in the following districting:
District Population Absolute Variance from Ideal
1 466,545 + 15
2 466,565 + 35
3 466,266 -264
4 466,234 -296
5 466,620 + 90
District Population Absolute Variance from Ideal
466,285 6 -245
466,336 7 -194
466,704 8 + 174
466,678 9 + 148
466,313 10 -217
466,258 11 -272
466,930 12 +400
466,663 13 + 133
466,437 14 - 93
466,359 15 -171
466,663 16 + 133
466,432 17 - 98
466,520 18 - 10
466,649 19 + 119
466,514 20 - 16
466,753 21 +223
466,707 22 + 177
466,424 23 -106
466,875 24 +345
Plan C resulted in the following districts:
District Population Absolute Variance from Ideal
1 465,986 -544
2 466,817 +287
3 466,835 +305
4 467,108 +578
5 466,258 -272
6 467,023 +493
7 466,336 -194
8 466,704 +174
9 466,678 +148
10 466,303 -227
11 466,569 + 39
12 466,926 +396
13 467,173 +648
14 466,437 - 93
15 466,359 -171
16 465,941 -589
17 466,340 -190
18 466,520 - 10
19 466,154 -376
20 466,654 +124
21 466,875 +345
22 466,707 +177
23 466,167 -363
24 465,855 -675
The District Court’s entire discussion of its reasons for selecting Plan C follows:
“Defendant has not submitted any plan of reapportionment as an alternative to S. B. 1. Plaintiffs have proposed two plans, B and C. Plan B is based on S. B. 1, but has a significantly lower deviation than S. B. 1. Plan C is based solely on population and is significantly more compact and contiguous than either S. B. 1 or Plan B. . . . The Court has considered Plans B and C, as well as the plan submitted by the intervening plaintiffs, and concludes that Plan C best effectuates the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ enunciated by the Supreme Court.”
The District Court's order also granted leave to intervene to Van Henry Archer, Chairman of the Bexar County Republican Party, and others. The intervenors, appellees in this Court, filed a suggested reapportionment plan with their complaint-in-intervention which was rejected by the District Court and is not pressed here. The District Court also retained jurisdiction for the purpose of extending the impending February 7, 1972, filing date for congressional candidates “in the event it is made known to [the District] Court that a called session of the Legislature will include congressional reapportionment.” However, the Governor refused to call a special session of the legislature.
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler “reject[ed] Missouri’s argument that there is a fixed numerical or percentage population variance small enough to be considered de minimis and to satisfy without question the ‘as nearly as practicable’ standard.” 394 U. S., at 530. We concluded, “Unless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such [good-faith] effort, the State must justify each variance, no matter how small.” Id., at 531.
Prior to the passage of S. B. 1, the Texas House twice passed a congressional reapportionment bill with lower deviations. Each bill had a total deviation of 2.5%. Although both bills were ultimately defeated in the Senate, their passage by the House, and indeed their very existence, indicates that it was possible and practicable to construct a redistricting scheme with lower population deviations among districts than those embodied in S. B. 1.
“Appellant earnestly submits that the term 'constituency-representative relations’ is the more accurate term; indeed it is very hard to see why those who are so concerned about representation should stigmatize as a mere euphemism a term which brings in both parties to the representational relationship .... (The assumptions seem to be that while a Congressman may like his job, no constituency can like its Congressman, or care whether he continues to represent it or not — and that no Congressman can possibly learn to know his constituency well enough to serve it better than he can serve another constituency selected for him by, it may be, a young mathematician in Dallas.) Under either name, appellant would defend this motive as entirely proper, if the burden of that defense fell upon him on the facts herein.” Brief for Appellant 72.
It appears that the two plans passed by the House and defeated by the Senate may also have fostered this goal while achieving lower population variances.
Appellant contends that the authors of S. B. 1, and the legislature in passing on the plan, took into account projected population shifts among the districts. Remembering that the congressional districting plan will be in effect for at least 10 years and five congressional elections, the appellant argues that the legislature might properly consider population changes in devising a redistricting plan. In Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, we recognized that “[w]here these shifts can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy, States that are redistrieting may properly consider them.” 394 U. S., at 535. We were, however, careful to note:
“By this we mean to open no avenue for subterfuge. Findings as to population trends must be thoroughly documented and applied throughout the State in a systematic, not an ad hoc, manner.” Ibid.
In the present case, we conclude that Texas’ attempt to justify the deviations found in S. B. 1 falls far short of this standard. The record is barren, with the exception of scattered and vague assertions in deposition testimony, of adequate documentation of the projected population shifts and firm evidence that the alleged shifts were in fact relied upon.
There is also some suggestion that passage of S. B. 1 was preceded by a dispute as to who would fill the Second District congressional seat. The State does not urge this alleged goal as a justification for the deviations in S. B. 1, nor can we tell from this record whether S. B. 1 in fact resolved this dispute.
The court had before it a plan submitted by the plaintiffs-intervenors and, possibly, other plans. Only Plan B and Plan C appear to have been seriously urged by the parties and considered by the court, and only those plans are defended before this Court.
“Plan B, presented by Appellees, merely took the plan of the legislature and adjusted that plan to achieve greater equality to present to the court, in a graphic manner, what the legislature could have done if it had been disposed to make an attempt at population equality . . . Brief for Appellees 25.
Appellees’ amended complaint explained Plan C, as follows:
“That had the legislature desired to enact a statute consonant with the mandate of Article I, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, that is a plan which made each district as compact and contiguous and as nearly equal in population to each other district as practicable, taking into account solely population and not taking into account 'social/ 'cultural/ 'economic’ or ‘other factors’ including preservation of incumbent congressman, it could have enacted a plan the same as or substantially similar to that plan set forth in Exhibit C annexed hereto and herewith incorporated by reference as though set forth at length herein. That such plan is hereinafter referred to as ‘Plan C.’”
S. B. 1 is conceded also to have sought adherence to county lines. While Plan B admittedly cuts more county lines than does Plan C, it also achieves lower deviations. Because both Plan B and Plan C were required to fracture more political boundaries than did S. B. 1, in order to achieve population equality among districts, appellant does not contend that Plan B is unacceptable because of more cutting of county lines.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
During its tax year ending December 31,1958, respondent refunded $505,536.54 to two of its customers for overcharges during the six preceding years. Respondent, an Oklahoma producer of natural gas, had set its prices during the earlier years in accordance with a minimum price order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. After that order was vacated as a result of a decision of this Court, Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 355 U. S. 425 (1958), respondent found it necessary to settle a number of claims filed by its customers; the repayments in question represent settlements of two of those claims. Since respondent had claimed an unrestricted right to its sales receipts during the years 1952 through 1957, it had included the $505,536.54 in its gross income in those years. The amount was also included in respondent’s “gross income from the property” as defined in § 613 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the section which allows taxpayers to deduct a fixed percentage of certain receipts to compensate for the depletion of natural resources from which they derive income. Allowable percentage depletion for receipts from oil and gas wells is fixed at 27%% of the “gross income from the property.” Since respondent claimed and the Commissioner allowed percentage depletion deductions during these years, 27%% of the receipts in question was added to the depletion allowances to which respondent would otherwise have been entitled. Accordingly, the actual increase in respondent’s taxable income attributable to the receipts in question was not $505,536.64, but only $366,513.99. Yet, when respondent made its refunds in 1958, it attempted to deduct the full $505,536.54. The Commissioner objected and assessed a deficiency. Respondent paid and, after its claim for a refund had been disallowed, began the present suit. The Government won in the District Court, 255 F. Supp. 228 (D. C. N. D. Okla. 1966), but the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, 392 F. 2d 128 (1968). Upon petition by the Government, we granted certiorari, 393 U. S. 820 (1968), to consider whether the Court of Appeals decision had allowed respondent “the practical equivalent of double deduction,” Charles Ilfeld Co. v. Hernandez, 292 U. S. 62, 68 (1934), in conflict with past decisions of this Court and sound principles of tax law. We reverse.
I.
The present problem is an outgrowth of the so-called “claim-of-right” doctrine. Mr. Justice Brandeis, speaking for a unanimous Court in North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U. S. 417, 424 (1932), gave that doctrine its classic formulation. “If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.” Should it later appear that the taxpayer was not entitled to keep the money, Mr. Justice Brandéis explained, he would be entitled to a deduction in the year of repayment; the taxes due for the year of receipt would not be affected. This approach was dictated by Congress’ adoption of an annual accounting system as an integral part of the tax code. See Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U. S. 359, 365-366 (1931). Of course, the tax benefit from the deduction in the year of repayment might differ from the increase in taxes attributable to the receipt; for example, tax rates might have changed, or the taxpayer might be in a different tax “bracket.” See Healy v. Commissioner, 345 U. S. 278, 284-285 (1953). But as the doctrine was originally formulated, these discrepancies were accepted as an unavoidable consequence of the annual accounting system.
Section 1341 of the 1954 Code was enacted to alleviate some of the inequities which Congress felt existed in this area. See H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 86-87 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 118-119 (1954). As an alternative to the deduction in the year of repayment which prior law allowed, §1341 (a)(5) permits certain taxpayers to recompute their taxes for the year of receipt. Whenever § 1341 (a)(5) applies, taxes for the current year are to be reduced by the amount taxes were increased in the year or years of receipt because the disputed items were included in gross income. Nevertheless, it is clear that Congress did not intend to tamper with the underlying claim-of-right doctrine; it only provided an alternative for certain cases in which the new approach favored the taxpayer. When the new approach was not advantageous to the taxpayer, the old law was to apply under § 1341 (a)(4).
In this case, the parties have stipulated that § 1341 (a) (5) does not apply. Accordingly, as the courts below recognized, respondent’s taxes must be computed under § 1341 (a) (4) and thus, in effect, without regard to the special relief Congress provided through the enactment of § 1341. Nevertheless, respondent argues, and the Court of Appeals seems to have held, that the language used in § 1341 requires that respondent be allowed a deduction for the full amount it refunded to its customers. We think the section has no such significance.
In describing the situations in which the section applies, § 1341 (a)(2) talks of cases in which “a deduction is allowable for the taxable year because it was established after the close of [the year or years of receipt] that the taxpayer did not have an unrestricted right to such item . . . The “item” referred to is first mentioned in § 1341 (a)(1); it is the item included in gross income in the year of receipt. The section does not imply in any way that the “deduction” and the “item” must necessarily be equal in amount. In fact, the use of the words “a deduction” and the placement of § 1341 in subchapter Q — the subchapter dealing largely with side effects of the annual accounting system — make it clear that it is necessary to refer to other portions of the Code to discover how much of a deduction is allowable. The regulations promulgated under the section make the necessity for such a cross-reference clear. Treas. Reg. on Income Tax (1954 Code) § 1.1341-1 (26 CFR § 1.1341-1). Therefore, when § 1341 (a) (4) — the subsection applicable here — speaks of “the tax . . . computed with such deduction,” it is referring to the deduction mentioned in § 1341 (a) (2); and that deduction must be determined, not by any mechanical equation with the “item” originally included in gross income, but by reference to the applicable sections of the Code and the case law developed under those sections.
II.
There is some dispute between the parties about whether the refunds in question are deductible as losses under § 165 of the 1954 Code or as business expenses under § 162. Although in some situations the distinction may have relevance, cf. Equitable Life Ins. Co. of Iowa v. United States, 340 F. 2d 9 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1965), we do not think it makes any difference here. In either case, the Code should not be interpreted to allow respondent “the practical equivalent of double deduction,” Charles Ilfeld Co. v. Hernandez, 292 U. S. 62, 68 (1934), absent a clear declaration of intent by Congress. See United States v. Ludey, 274 U. S. 295 (1927). Accordingly, to avoid that result in this case, the deduction allowable in the year of repayment must be reduced by the percentage depletion allowance which respondent claimed and the Commissioner allowed in the years of receipt as a result of the inclusion of the later-refunded items in respondent’s “gross income from the property” in those years. Any other approach would allow respondent a total of $1.27% in deductions for every $1 refunded to its customers.
Under the annual accounting system dictated by the Code, each year’s tax must be definitively calculable at the end of the tax year. “It is the essence of any system of taxation that it should produce revenue ascertainable, and payable to the government, at regular intervals.” Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., supra, at 365. In cases arising under the claim-of-right doctrine, this emphasis on the annual accounting period normally requires that the tax consequences of a receipt should not determine the size of the deduction allowable in the year of repayment. There is no requirement that the deduction save the taxpayer the exact amount of taxes he paid because of the inclusion of the item in income for a prior year. See Healy v. Commissioner, supra.
Nevertheless, the annual accounting concept does not require us to close our eyes to what happened in prior years. For instance, it is well settled that the prior year may be examined to determine whether the repayment gives rise to a regular loss or a capital loss. Arrow- smith v. Commissioner, 344 U. S. 6 (1952). The rationale for the Arrowsmith rule is easy to see; if money was taxed at a special lower rate when received, the taxpayer would be accorded an unfair tax windfall if repayments were generally deductible from receipts taxable at the higher rate applicable to ordinary income. The Court in Arrowsmith was unwilling to infer that Congress intended such a result.
This case is really no different. In essence, oil and gas producers are taxed on only 72%% of their “gross income from the property” whenever they claim percentage depletion. The remainder of their oil and gas receipts is in reality tax exempt. We cannot believe that Congress intended to give taxpayers a deduction for refunding money that was not taxed when received. Cf. O’Meara v. Commissioner, 8 T. C. 622, 634—635 (1947). Accordingly, Arrowsmith teaches that the full amount of the repayment cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be allowed as a deduction.
This result does no violence to the annual accounting system. Here, as in Arrowsmith, the earlier returns are not being reopened. And no attempt is being made to require the tax savings from the deduction to equal the tax consequences of the receipts in prior years. In addition, the approach here adopted will affect only a few cases. The percentage depletion allowance is quite unusual; unlike most other deductions provided by the Code, it allows a fixed portion of gross income to go untaxed. As a result, the depletion allowance increases in years when disputed amounts are received under claim of right; there is no corresponding decrease in the allowance because of later deductions for repayments. Therefore, if a deduction for 100% of the repayments were allowed, every time money is received and later repaid the taxpayer would make a profit equivalent to the taxes on 27%% of the amount refunded. In other situations when the taxes on a receipt do not equal the tax benefits of a repayment, either the taxpayer or the Government may, depending on circumstances, be the beneficiary. Here, the taxpayer always wins and the Government always loses. We cannot believe that Congress would have intended such an inequitable result.
The parties have stipulated that respondent is entitled to a judgment for $20,932.64 plus statutory interest for claims unrelated to the matter in controversy here; the District Court entered a judgment for that amount. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with instructions that it be returned to the District Court for re-entry of the original District Court judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
Section 1341 (a) provides:
“If—
“(1) an item was included in gross income for a prior taxable year (or years) because it appeared that the taxpayer had an unrestricted right to such item;
“(2) a deduction is allowable for the taxable year because it was established after the close of such prior taxable year (or years) that the taxpayer did not have an unrestricted right to such item or to a portion of such item; and
“(3) the amount of such deduction exceeds $3,000,
“then the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year shall be the lesser of the following:
“(4) the tax for the taxable year computed with such deduction; or
“(5) an amount equal to—
“(A) the tax for the taxable year computed without such deduction, minus
“(B) the decrease in tax under this chapter (or the corresponding provisions of prior revenue laws) for the prior taxable year (or years) which would result solely from the exclusion of such item (or portion thereof) from gross income for such prior taxable year (or years).
“For purposes of paragraph (5)(B), the corresponding provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 shall be chapter 1 of such code (other than subchapter E, relating to self-employment income) and subchapter E of chapter 2 of such code.”
Section 1341 (b) (2) contains an exclusion covering certain eases involving sales of stock in trade or inventory. However, because of special treatment given refunds made by regulated public utilities, both parties agree that § 1341 (b) (2) is inapplicable to this case and that, accordingly, § 1341 (a) applies.
In the case of an accrual-basis taxpayer, the legislative history makes it clear that the deduction is allowable at the proper time for accrual. H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., a294 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 451-452 (1954).
The Commissioner has long recognized that a deduction under some section is allowable. G. C. M. 16730, XV-1 Cum. Bull. 179 (1936).
The analogy would be even more striking if in Arrowsmith the individual taxpayers had not utilized the alternative tax for capital gains, as they were permitted to do by what is now § 1201 of the 1954 Code. Where the 25% alternative tax is not used, individual taxpayers are taxed at ordinary rates on 50% of their capital gains. See § 1202. In such a situation, the rule of the Arrowsmith case prevents taxpayers from deducting 100% of an item refunded when they were taxed on only 50% of it when it was received. Although Arrowsmith prevents this inequitable result by treating the repayment as a capital loss, rather than by disallowing 50% of the deduction, the policy behind the decision is applicable in this case. Here it would be inequitable to allow a 100% deduction when only 72%% was taxed on receipt.
Compare the analogous approach utilized under the “tax benefit” rule. Alice Phelan Sullivan Corp. v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 659, 381 F. 2d 399 (1967); see Internal Revenue Code of 1954 § 111. In keeping with the analogy, the Commissioner has indicated that the Government will only seek to reduce the deduction in the year of repayment to the extent that the depletion allowance attributable to the receipt directly or indirectly reduced taxable income. Proposed Treas. Reg. § 1.613-2 (e)(8), 33 Fed. Reg. 10702-10703 (1968).
The 10% standard deduction mentioned in Mr. Justice Stewart's dissent, post, at 697, differs in that it allows as a deduction a percentage of adjusted gross income, rather than of gross income. See § 141 ; cf. §§ 170, 213. As a result, repayments may in certain cases cause a decrease in the 10% standard deduction allowable in the year of repayment, assuming that the repayment is of the character to be deducted in calculating adjusted gross income. See § 62.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURGdelivered the opinion of the Court.
An unsuccessful litigant in a federal district court may take an appeal, as a matter of right, from a "final decisio[n] of the district cour[t]." 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The question here presented: Is the right to appeal secured by § 1291affected when a case is consolidated for pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation (or MDL) authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1407?
Petitioners Ellen Gelboim and Linda Zacher filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York a class-action complaint raising a single claim. They alleged that a number of banks, acting in concert, had violated federal antitrust law. Their case was consolidated for pretrial proceedings together with some 60 other cases, commenced in different districts, raising "one or more common questions of fact," § 1407(a).
The defendant banks, respondents here, moved to dismiss the Gelboim-Zacher complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs had suffered no antitrust injury. The District Court granted the motion, denied leave to amend the complaint, and dismissed the case in its entirety. Other cases made part of the multidistrict pretrial proceedings, however, presented discrete claims and remained before the District Court.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, acting on its own motion, dismissed the appeal filed by Gelboim and Zacher for want of appellate jurisdiction. We reverse the Second Circuit's judgment and hold that the Gelboim-Zacher complaint retained its independent status for purposes of appellate jurisdiction under § 1291. Petitioners' right to appeal ripened when the District Court dismissed their case, not upon eventual completion of multidistrict proceedings in all of the consolidated cases.
I
Three legal prescriptions figure in this case: Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291and 1407, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Section 1291gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over appeals from "all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." A "final decision" is one "by which a district court disassociates itself from a case."Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n,514 U.S. 35, 42, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995). While decisions of this Court have accorded § 1291a "practical rather than a technical construction," Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter,558 U.S. 100, 106, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009)(quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949)), the statute's core application is to rulings that terminate an action, see Catlin v. United States,324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945)(final decision is "one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment").
Rule 54(b)permits district courts to authorize immediate appeal of dispositive rulings on separate claims in a civil action raising multiple claims:
"When an action presents more than one claim for relief ... or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay."
Rule 54(b)relaxes "the former general practice that, in multiple claims actions, allthe claims had to be finally decided before an appeal could be entertained from a final decision upon any of them." Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey,351 U.S. 427, 434, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956). The Federal Rules allow a plaintiff to "state [in one complaint] as many separate claims ... as it has." Rule 8(d)(3). Rule 54(b)was adopted in view of the breadth of the "civil action" the Rules allow, specifically "to avoid the possible injustice" of "delay[ing] judgment o[n] a distinctly separate claim [pending] adjudication of the entire case." Report of Advisory Committee on Proposed Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure 70 (1946) (explaining that Rule 54(b)was recast in 1946 to avoid confusion and misapplication); see Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp.,338 U.S. 507, 511, 70 S.Ct. 322, 94 L.Ed. 299 (1950)(Rule 54(b)responded to liberalized joinder of claims and parties under the Federal Rules, which "increased the danger of hardship and denial of justice through delay if each issue must await the determination of all issues as to all parties before a final judgment can be had"). The Rule thus aimed to augment, not diminish, appeal opportunity.
Section 1407is of more recent vintage. Enacted in 1968 in response to a growing number of complex but related cases filed in multiple districts, § 1407authorizes the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer civil actions "involving one or more common questions of fact ... to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings" in order to "promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions." § 1407(a); see H.R.Rep. No. 1130, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1968) (§ 1407codified procedures used in the early 1960's to resolve more than 1,800 separate actions filed against electrical equipment manufacturers in 33 District Courts, all of the actions seeking damages for antitrust law violations).
Transfer under § 1407aims to "eliminate duplication in discovery, avoid conflicting rulings and schedules, reduce litigation cost, and save the time and effort of the parties, the attorneys, the witnesses, and the courts." Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.131, p. 220 (4th ed. 2004). "Each action" transferred pursuant to § 1407, the provision instructs, "shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of ... pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated." § 1407(a).
II
The London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is a benchmark interest rate disseminated by the British Bankers' Association based on the rate at which certain banks predict they can borrow funds. LIBOR is a reference point in determining interest rates for financial instruments in the United States and globally.
In August 2011, the JPML established MDL No. 2262 (LIBOR MDL) for cases involving allegations that the banks named as defendants understated their borrowing costs, thereby depressing LIBOR and enabling the banks to pay lower interest rates on financial instruments sold to investors. In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation,802 F.Supp.2d 1380 (JPML 2011). Composing the LIBOR MDL, over 60 actions, commenced in California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, were coordinated or consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In June 2012, the District Court entertained a motion to dismiss four categories of cases included in the MDL. The first three categories involved putative class actions, each with a single lead case: (1) the Gelboim-Zacher action, filed on behalf of purchasers of bonds with LIBOR-linked interest rates; (2) an action filed on behalf of purchasers of over-the-counter LIBOR-based instruments (OTC plaintiffs); (3) an action filed on behalf of purchasers of LIBOR-based instruments on exchanges (Exchange plaintiffs). The fourth category, not relevant here, comprised a set of individual actions filed by Charles Schwab Corporation and related entities. The Gelboim-Zacher complaint asserted a federal antitrust claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and that claim only, while the complaints in the other actions asserted a federal antitrust claim in addition to other differently based federal and state claims.
Determining that no plaintiff could assert a cognizable antitrust injury, the District Court granted the banks' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' antitrust claims-the sole claim raised in the Gelboim-Zacher complaint. Assuming that the Gelboim-Zacher plaintiffs were entitled to an immediate appeal of right under § 1291because their suit had been "dismissed in [its] entirety," App. to Pet. for Cert. 219a, the District Court granted Rule 54(b)certifications to the OTC and Exchange plaintiffs authorizing them to appeal the dismissal of their antitrust claims while their other claims remained pending in the District Court.
On its own initiative, the Second Circuit dismissed the Gelboim-Zacher appeal because the "orde[r] appealed from did not dispose of all claims in the consolidated action." Id.,at 2a.The District Court thereafter withdrew its Rule 54(b)certifications in the OTC and Exchange plaintiffs' actions and, "given the reaction of the Second Circuit," App. 294, denied petitioners' request for a Rule 54(b)certification.
We granted review of the Second Circuit's judgment dismissing the Gelboim-Zacher appeal. 573 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2876, 189 L.Ed.2d 832 (2014). Before this Court, petitioners Gelboim and Zacher contend that the order dismissing their case in its entirety removed them from the consolidated proceeding, thereby triggering their right to appeal under § 1291. Respondent banks urge that consolidated cases proceed as one unit for the duration of the consolidation. Consequently, they maintain, there is no appeal of right from an order dismissing fewer than all consolidated claims, thus the sole avenue for appeal while the consolidation continues is Rule 54(b). Agreeing with Gelboim and Zacher, we reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment.
III
Cases consolidated for MDL pretrial proceedings ordinarily retain their separate identities,so an order disposing of one of the discrete cases in its entirety should qualify under § 1291as an appealable final decision. Section 1407refers to individual "actions" which may be transferred to a single district court, not to any monolithic multidistrict "action" created by transfer. See Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach,523 U.S. 26, 37, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998)(§ 1407does not "imbu[e] transferred actions with some new and distinctive ... character").And Congress anticipated that, during the pendency of pretrial proceedings, final decisions might be rendered in one or more of the actions consolidated pursuant to § 1407. It specified that "at or before the conclusion of ... pretrial proceedings," each of the transferred actions must be remanded to the originating district "unless [the action] shall have been previously terminated." § 1407(a)(emphasis added).
The District Court's order dismissing the Gelboim-Zacher complaint for lack of antitrust injury, without leave to amend, had the hallmarks of a final decision. Ruling on the merits of the case, the District Court completed its adjudication of petitioners' complaint and terminated their action. As a result of the District Court's disposition, petitioners are no longer participants in the consolidated proceedings. Nothing about the initial consolidation of their civil action with other cases in the LIBOR MDL renders the dismissal of their complaint in any way tentative or incomplete. As is ordinarily the case, the § 1407consolidation offered convenience for the parties and promoted efficient judicial administration, but did not meld the Gelboim-Zacher action and others in the MDL into a single unit. Cf. supra,at 904, n. 3.
The banks' view that, in a § 1407consolidation, no appeal of right accrues until the consolidation ends would leave plaintiffs like Gelboim and Zacher in a quandary about the proper timing of their appeals. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, which this Court has called "jurisdictional," Bowles v. Russell,551 U.S. 205, 209, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007), a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed "within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from," Rule 4(a)(1)(A). If plaintiffs whose actions have been dismissed with prejudice by a district court must await the termination of pretrial proceedings in all consolidated cases, what event or order would start the 30-day clock? When pretrial consolidation concludes, there may be no occasion for the entry of any judgment. Orders may issue returning cases to their originating courts,but an order of that genre would not qualify as the dispositive ruling Gelboim and Zacher seek to overturn on appeal. And surely would-be appellants need not await final disposition of all cases in their originating districts, long after pretrial consolidation under § 1407could even arguably justify treating the cases as a judicial unit.
The sensible solution to the appeal-clock trigger is evident: When the transferee court overseeing pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation grants a defendant's dispositive motion "on all issues in some transferred cases, [those cases] become immediately appealable ... while cases where other issues remain would not be appealable at that time." D. Herr, Multidistrict Litigation Manual § 9:21, p. 312 (2014).
The banks express concern that plaintiffs with the weakest cases may be positioned to appeal because their complaint states only one claim, while plaintiffs with stronger cases will be unable to appeal simultaneously because they have other claims still pending. Brief for Respondents 46-47. Rule 54(b)attends to this concern. District courts may grant certifications under that Rule, thereby enabling plaintiffs in actions that have not been dismissed in their entirety to pursue immediate appellate review. That is just what happened in this very case. The District Court granted Rule 54(b)certifications to the OTC and Exchange plaintiffs so they could appeal at the same time Gelboim and Zacher could. See supra,at 903 - 904. And if the MDL court believes that further proceedings might be relevant to a claim a defendant moves to dismiss, the court ordinarily can defer ruling on the motion, thus allowing all plaintiffs to participate in the ongoing MDL proceedings.
While Rule 54(b)can aid parties with multiple-claim complaints-here, the OTC and Exchange plaintiffs, supra,at 903 - 904-the rule, properly read, is of no avail to Gelboim and Zacher. Rule 54(b)addresses orders finally adjudicating fewer than all claims presented in a civil action complaint. It "does not apply to a single claim action nor to a multiple claims action in which all of the claims have been finally decided." Mackey,351 U.S., at 435, 76 S.Ct. 895; see Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel,424 U.S. 737, 742-743, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976)(Rule 54(b)inapplicable where "complaint advanced a single legal theory which was applied to only one set of facts"). In short, Rule 54(b)is designed to permit acceleration of appeals in multiple-claim cases, not to retard appeals in single-claim cases.
Section 1292(b), the banks conceded at argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-41, is inapposite here. It allows district courts to designate for review interlocutory orders"not otherwise appealable," where immediate appeal "may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." § 1292(b). The designation may be accepted or rejected in the discretion of the court of appeals. Ibid. See generally Solimine, Revitalizing Interlocutory Appeals in the Federal Courts, 58 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 1165 (1990); Note, Interlocutory Appeals in the Federal Courts Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), 88 Harv. L.Rev. 607 (1975). It suffices to note that there is nothing "interlocutory" about the dismissal order in the Gelboim-Zacher action.
* * *
For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit deeming the District Court's dismissal of the Gelboim-Zacher complaint unripe for appellate review, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Compare Rule 54(b), which lodges discretion to authorize appeals in district courts, with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which authorizes courts of appeals to permit an immediate appeal from a district court order granting or denying class-action certification.
The Second Circuit "strong[ly] presum[es]" that a "judgment in a consolidated [proceeding] that does not dispose of all [consolidated] claims ... is not appealable absent Rule 54(b)certification." Hageman v. City Investing Co.,851 F.2d 69, 71 (1988). In this regard, the Circuit does not differentiate between all-purpose consolidations, see ibid.(actions "could originally have been brought as one action" and there was "no indication that the cases were consolidated only for limited purposes"); Houbigant, Inc. v. IMG Fragrance Brands, LLC,627 F.3d 497, 498 (2010)(actions consolidated "for all purposes"), and, as this case illustrates, § 1407consolidations for pretrial proceedings only. The presumption may be overcome in "highly unusual circumstances," Hageman,851 F.2d, at 71, but the Second Circuit has not elaborated on what those circumstances might be.
Parties may elect to file a "master complaint" and a corresponding "consolidated answer," which supersede prior individual pleadings. In such a case, the transferee court may treat the master pleadings as merging the discrete actions for the duration of the MDL pretrial proceedings. In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation,731 F.3d 586, 590-592 (C.A.6 2013). No merger occurs, however, when "the master complaint is not meant to be a pleading with legal effect but only an administrative summary of the claims brought by all the plaintiffs." Id.,at 590.
We express no opinion on whether an order deciding one of multiple cases combined in an all-purpose consolidation qualifies under § 1291as a final decision appealable of right. See Brown v. United States,976 F.2d 1104, 1107 (C.A.7 1992)(cases consolidated for all purposes "become a single judicial unit," but where the consolidation is for limited purposes only, "a decision disposing of all the claims in only one of the cases is a final decision subject to immediate appeal").
In delineating the narrow scope of the "collateral-order" doctrine, we have cautioned against permitting piecemeal, prejudgmentappeals. Those admonitions, cited by the banks, Brief for Respondents 18-19, are not pertinent here. Under the collateral order doctrine, an order may be deemed "final" if it disposes of a matter "separable from, and collateral to" the merits of the main proceeding, "too important to be denied review," and "too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated." Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order dismissing the Gelboim-Zacher complaint in its entirety was in no sense "collateral," i.e.,"independent of the cause itself." Scarcely a prejudgmentruling, the dismissal order left nothing still pending decision in the District Court.
In fact, "[f]ew cases [consolidated pursuant to § 1407] are remanded for trial; most multidistrict litigation is settled in the transferee court." Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.132, p. 223 (4th ed. 2004).
We need not decide whether or how Rule 54(b)applies to cases consolidated for all purposes involving closely related issues, actions that could have been brought under the umbrella of one complaint. Cf. supra,at 904 - 905, n. 4. The Rule surely was not designed to apply to numerous actions that the MDL panel combines for efficient pretrial proceedings because they have in common "one or more questions of fact," but otherwise vary in character.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue here is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the vacation of respondent’s Ohio murder conviction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which granted respondent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Lonberger v. Jago, 635 F. 2d 1189 (1980), and Lonberger v. Jago, 651 F. 2d 447 (1981), held that it did. The Court of Appeals held that respondent’s plea of guilty to a previous Illinois felony charge, offered and admitted into evidence at his Ohio murder trial, was invalid under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 (1969). It went on to hold that the admission into evidence of the Illinois conviction at the Ohio trial rendered respondent’s ensuing conviction in that proceeding unconstitutional under this Court’s decision in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109 (1967). The State claims that the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority, under our holding in Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539 (1981), in concluding that the prior Illinois conviction was invalid. It also contends that even if the Court of Appeals were warranted in so concluding, the admission of that conviction at the Ohio murder trial did not render the Ohio conviction constitutionally infirm. We granted certiorari to consider, inter alia, the interrelationship between Boykin v. Alabama, supra, and Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U. S. 637 (1976).
I
There is apparently no dispute with respect to the operative facts which led to respondent’s indictment and conviction for the murder of Charita Lanier in Toledo, Ohio, on the evening of January 29, 1975. Lanier was brutally murdered in the living room of her home during that evening; blood stains led from the living room to the kitchen, where the victim’s partially clothed body was found in a freezer. An autopsy revealed that the victim bled to death after her throat had been slashed, and a bent, blood-stained knife found near the scene of the crime was identified as the murder weapon. The victim’s clothing was torn and sperm was detected in her vaginal canal.
The morning after the murder, the victim’s children told police that respondent, Robert Lonberger, had been at their home the previous evening. After the children had been sent to their upstairs bedroom, they heard their mother scream. When there was no response to his questions, the older child left his bedroom and went downstairs. The lights were out and when the child attempted to turn them on respondent grabbed his hand; he ordered the child back to bed. A pack of cigarettes of respondent’s brand was found in the house and blood-stained articles of clothing were discovered in his possession.
Respondent was indicted by a state grand jury on two counts of “aggravated murder.” The first count charged that respondent had murdered Lanier with “prior calculation and design,” in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(A) (1975). The second count charged respondent with murder while committing rape, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(B) (1975). Both counts of aggravated murder included a “specification,” described below, in which the prosecution alleged that respondent previously had been convicted of an “offense of which the gist was the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill another.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2929.04(A)(5) (1975).
Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the State sought at trial to prove the specification of prior conviction for attempt to kill by introducing the record of a conviction of respondent in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. It is the introduction of this conviction into evidence in the Ohio murder trial which has been the focus of constitutional objection on the part of respondent since that time, and upon which the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit based its conclusion that respondent's conviction was constitutionally infirm. Because of its central role in this litigation, we find it desirable to describe in some detail the evidence before the Ohio court relating to this prior conviction.
It is fair to say that from the time the State first offered the record of the Illinois conviction until the present time, the opposing parties have never agreed as to the historical facts surrounding the acceptance of respondent’s plea of guilty to an indictment returned by a grand jury in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., some three years before he was tried on the Ohio murder charge. The State offered in evidence at the Ohio trial a copy of the grand jury indictment forming the basis for the Illinois charge, a certified copy of an Illinois record called a “conviction statement,” and the transcript of a hearing in the Circuit Court of Cook County occurring at the time respondent pleaded guilty.
These documents show that respondent was indicted by the Cook County grand jury in May 1971 on four counts: aggravated battery against Dorothy Maxwell, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon against Dorothy Maxwell, intentionally and knowingly attempting to kill Dorothy Maxwell by cutting her with a knife, and aggravated battery against Wendtian Maxwell with a deadly weapon. The “conviction statement,” prepared and authenticated by the Circuit Court of Cook County, recited in pertinent part that respondent was indicted for “AGGRAVATED BATTERY, ETC.,” that on March 10, 1972, respondent withdrew an earlier plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty, and that after the court “fully explained to the Defendant. . . before the entry of said PLEA OF GUILTY, the consequences of entering such PLEA OF GUILTY, the said Defendant still persisted in his PLEA OF GUILTY in manner and form as charged in the indictment in this cause.” App. 5. The third record offered in evidence in the Ohio proceedings is the transcript of the colloquy at the time of sentencing in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., id., at 6-15. It contains the following relevant exchanges at a time when the sentencing judge, respondent, respondent’s attorney, and the prosecuting attorney were shown to be present in open court:
“THE COURT: In other words, you are pleading guilty, that you did on August 25, 1968, commit the offense of aggravated battery on one Dorothy Maxwell, and that you did on the same date attempt on Dorothy Maxwell, with a knife, is that correct?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: And you did on the same date commit the offense of aggravated battery on one Wendtian Maxwell, is that correct?
“That is what you are pleading to, sir?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: And understand by pleading guilty to this indictment you are waiving your right to a trial by this Court or trial by this Court and a jury?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
“THE COURT: Understand by pleading guilty I could sentence you from one to ten on the aggravated battery, and attempt one to twenty. So, I could sentence you to the penitentiary for a maximum of from one to forty years.
“Understand that?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: What do you wish to tell me insofar as stipulation and as far as facts concerned?
“MR. RANDALL [prosecuting attorney]: Let it be stipulated by and between the parties, Indictment 71-1554, it is both sufficient in law and in fact to sustain the charges contained therein, to sustain a finding of guilty on the charges involving Robert Lonberger. . . .
“MR. XINOS [respondent’s attorney]: So stipulated.”
Before respondent’s trial on the aggravated murder charges, the Ohio trial court conducted a hearing in limine to determine whether respondent’s guilty plea to the Illinois attempted murder charge was voluntary. The Illinois records were offered, and respondent took the stand and submitted himself to direct and cross-examination primarily as to his recollection of the Illinois proceedings which had taken place three years earlier. At the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court made the following findings:
“The Court finds on the evidence presented that the defendant is an intelligent individual, well experienced in the criminal processes and well represented at all stages of the proceedings by competent and capable counsel in Illinois. On review of the certified copy of the Illinois proceedings and a transcript of the plea of guilty, the Court finds that every effort was taken to safeguard and to protect the constitutional rights of the defendant. Therefore, the Court finds that the defendant intelligently and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty in the Illinois court.” Id., at 99-100.
Evidence of respondent’s Illinois conviction was admitted at his Ohio trial, subject to an instruction that it be considered only in connection with the specification, and not as probative of guilt on the underlying murder count. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second count of aggravated murder, one including the specification of the prior charge of attempted murder; after a sentencing hearing in accordance with Ohio law, the trial court imposed a sentence of death.
Respondent’s appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals was partially successful; that court found as a matter of state law that the jury’s finding that respondent had not only murdered Charita Lanier, but raped her as well, did not satisfy the Ohio rule relating to proof of crime by circumstantial evidence. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-38. It did uphold the jury finding that respondent was guilty of the murder of Lanier, and that the specification based on the prior Illinois conviction was adequately proved. It reversed the judgment imposing a death penalty, and directed imposition of a sentence based solely on the conviction of murder. With respect to the admissibility and evidence of the prior Illinois conviction, the Ohio Court of Appeals said:
“The transcript from the Cook County Circuit Court proceedings at which appellant changed his plea to guilty indicated that he was represented by competent counsel. When questioned by the court, appellant answered affirmatively that he was pleading guilty to ‘the offense of aggravated battery on one Dorothy Maxwell, ... attempt on Dorothy Maxwell, with a knife . . . [and] the offense of aggravated battery on Wendtian Maxwell. . . .’ Appellant further affirmed that he understood that he was waiving his right to trial and to confront witnesses, that he understood the penalties that could be imposed, that he was motivated to plead guilty by an offer of a reduced sentence, and that he had not otherwise been threatened or promised anything. Through his counsel, appellant stipulated that there were sufficient facts to sustain the charges contained in the indictment. We find from the record of this proceeding and from the record of the pre-trial hearing in the instant case, that the trial court did not err in ruling that appellant’s guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly made and that the evidence of the prior conviction should be submitted to the jury.” Id., at A-42.
I — I t-H
It was the record of these proceedings in the Ohio state courts that formed the basis of respondent’s application for federal habeas in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The District Court denied relief, finding that “from a review of the record, this Court is satisfied that an ordinary person would have understood the nature of the charges to which petitioner was pleading guilty.” Id., at A-31. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court, and ordered that a writ of habeas corpus issue. Lonberger v. Jago, 635 F. 2d 1189 (1980). We granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded for reconsideration in the light of Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539 (1981). Marshall v. Lonberger, 451 U. S. 902 (1981). On remand the Court of Appeals adhered to its previous decision. Lonberger v. Jago, 651F. 2d 447 (1981). We again granted certiorari, 454 U. S. 1141 (1982), and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, referring to its earlier opinion, stated:
“The basis for our judgment was that Lonberger’s 1972 guilty plea to attempted murder was not demonstrably an intelligent one, and was therefore invalid under federal constitutional standards. This conclusion is directly contrary to the conclusions of both of the Ohio courts that considered the question of the validity of Lonberger’s 1972 plea. We now expressly hold that these factual determinations by the Ohio courts are not fairly supported by the records that were before them. This we are empowered to do by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8). Sumner v. Mata, supra, requires that federal courts state their rationales for exercise of this power.
“The basis for our disagreement with the factual determinations of the state courts can be briefly stated. The question of an effective waiver of a federal constitutional right is governed by federal standards. Boykin v. Alabama, supra, 395 U. S. at 243 .... A guilty plea, which works as a waiver of numerous constitutional rights, cannot be truly voluntary if the defendant ‘has such an incomplete understanding of the charge that his plea cannot stand as an intelligent admission of guilt.’ Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U. S. 637, 645 n. 13 . . . (1976). Accord, Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U. S. 329, 334 . ... (1941).
“The transcript of Lonberger’s 1972 plea is inadequate to show that Lonberger was aware that he was pleading guilty to a charge of attempted murder.” 651 F. 2d, at 449 (footnote omitted).
We entirely agree with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that the governing standard as to whether a plea of guilty is voluntary for purposes of the Federal Constitution is a question of federal law, Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U. S. 637 (1976); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 (1969), and not a question of fact subject to the requirements of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). But the questions of historical fact which have dogged this case from its inception — what the Illinois records show with respect to respondent’s 1972 guilty plea, what other inferences regarding those historical facts the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit could properly draw, and related questions — are obviously questions of “fact” governed by the provisions of § 2254(d).
Section 2254(d) establishes a presumption of correctness for “a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding to which the applicant for the writ and the State or an officer or agent thereof were parties, evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia. ...” One of the eight exceptions to this presumption of correctness, and the one relied upon by the Court of Appeals in this case, is where the federal habeas court, reviewing the state-court record offered to support the factual finding, “on a consideration of such part of the record as a whole concludes that such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(8).
In its treatment of the state courts’ factual findings, the Court of Appeals failed in at least one major respect to accord those determinations the “high measure of deference,” Sumner v. Mata, supra, to which they are entitled. This deference requires that a federal habeas court more than simply disagree with the state court before rejecting its factual determinations. Instead, it must conclude that the state court’s findings lacked even “fair support” in the record. The Court of Appeals’ treatment of the issue of respondent’s credibility failed to satisfy this standard. Following a recital of the findings of the Ohio trial court, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit states that “[n]o explicit findings were made concerning Lonberger’s credibility as a witness.” 651 F. 2d, at 448. Likewise, the Court of Appeals wrote:
“At the pretrial hearing, Lonberger testified that he ‘copped out to aggravated battery’ in 1972, but had no knowledge of other charges. The Ohio prosecutors attempted to discredit this testimony by introducing copies of the 1972 indictment charging Lonberger with ‘the offense of attempt.’ Lonberger denied that he had ever seen or read this indictment. The prosecutors sought to imply by their questioning of Lonberger that he must have heard of the ‘attempt’ charge either at his arraignment or in conversation with his attorneys. Lonberger testified that he had not, and the state produced no contrary evidence.” Id., at 449-450 (footnote omitted).
Finally, the Court of Appeals explicitly credited Lonberger’s testimony in a footnote rejecting the State’s reliance on Henderson v. Morgan, supra. 651 F. 2d, at 450, n. 3.
We are unsure whether the Court of Appeals’ reassessment of the effect of respondent’s testimony at the Ohio state trial court hearing was undertaken because of the failure of the trial court to make express findings as to respondent’s credibility, or whether the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit felt that it should assess for itself the weight that such evidence should have been accorded by the state trial court. In either event, we hold that it erroneously applied the “fairly supported by the record” standard enunciated in 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d).
In LaVallee v. Delle Rose, 410 U. S. 690 (1973), we dealt with a state-court hearing in which the trial judge likewise failed to make express findings as to the defendant’s credibility. We held that because it was clear under the applicable federal law that the trial court would have granted the relief sought by the defendant had it believed the defendant’s testimony, its failure to grant relief was tantamount to an express finding against the credibility of the defendant. We think the same is true in the present case. The assumption referred to in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 314-315 (1963), quoted in LaVallee v. Delle Rose, supra, at 694, “that the state trier of fact applied correct standards of federal law to the facts ...” leads inevitably to a similar conclusion here. Had the Ohio trial court credited respondent’s insistence that he had only been advised of or been aware of the battery charge at the time he pleaded guilty in Illinois, the Ohio trial court would have surely refused to allow the record of the Illinois conviction in evidence to prove the specification of attempted murder. The trial court’s ruling allowing the record of conviction to be admitted in evidence in support of the specification is tantamount to a refusal to believe the testimony of respondent.
The Court of Appeals’ reliance on respondent’s testimony, discussed above, and the fact that “the state produced no contrary evidence,” are quite wide of the mark for purposes of deciding whether factual findings are fairly supported by the record. Title 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) gives federal habeas courts no license to redetermine credibility of witnesses whose demeanor has been observed by the state trial court, but not by them. In United States v. Oregon Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326 (1952), commenting on the deference which this Court gave to the findings of a District Court on direct appeal from a judgment in a bench trial, we stated:
“As was aptly stated by the New York Court of Appeals, although in a case of a rather different substantive nature: ‘Face to face with living witnesses the original trier of the facts holds a position of advantage from which appellate judges are excluded. In doubtful cases the exercise of his power of observation often proves the most accurate method of ascertaining the truth. . . . How can we say the judge is wrong? We never saw the witnesses. ... To the sophistication and sagacity of the trial judge the law confides the duty of appraisal. ’ Boyd v. Boyd, 252 N. Y. 422, 429, 169 N. E. 632, 634.” Id., at 339.
We greatly doubt that Congress, when it used the language “fairly supported by the record” considered “as a whole” intended to authorize broader federal review of state-court credibility determinations than are authorized in appeals within the federal system itself. While disbelief of respondent’s testimony may not form the basis for any affirmative findings by the state trial court on issues with respect to which the State bore the burden of proof, it certainly negates any inferences favorable to respondent such as those drawn by the Court of Appeals, based on his testimony before the Ohio trial court.
Thus, the factual conclusions which the federal habeas courts were bound to respect in assessing respondent’s constitutional claims were the contents of the Illinois court records, the finding of the Ohio trial court that respondent was “an intelligent individual, well experienced in the criminal processes and well represented at all stages of the proceedings by competent and capable counsel in Illinois,” supra, at 428, and the similar conclusion of the Ohio Court of Appeals, and the inferences fairly deducible from these facts. These records and findings show, with respect to the attempted murder charge, that it was one of the four counts contained in the Cook County indictment returned against respondent. The “conviction certificate” recites that at the time respondent pleaded guilty, he was duly advised by the court of the consequences of pleading guilty, and nonetheless adhered to his plea. The transcript, as appears from its face and as found by the Ohio Court of Appeals, shows that respondent answered affirmatively that he was pleading guilty, inter alia, to the offense of “attempt on Dorothy Maxwell, with a knife . . . .” Respondent’s attorney, in his presence, stipulated that the indictment was “both sufficient in law and in fact to sustain the charges contained therein, to sustain a finding of guilty on the charges involving [respondent].” Ibid. There is perhaps an arguable conflict between the recitation of the “conviction certificate” and the transcript by reason of the latter’s omission of the word “murder” after the word “attempt” in the colloquy between respondent and the court. For our purposes we assume that the transcript version, which is more favorable to respondent, was accurate.
It is well established that a plea of guilty cannot be voluntary in the sense that it constitutes an intelligent admission that the accused committed the offense unless the accused has received “real notice of the true nature of the charge against him, the first and most universally recognized requirement of due process.” Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U. S. 329, 334 (1941), quoted in Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U. S., at 645. In Henderson v. Morgan, we went on to make the following observations:
“Normally the record contains either an explanation of the charge by the trial judge, or at least a representation by defense counsel that the nature of the offense has been explained to the accused. Moreover, even without such an express representation, it may be appropriate to presume that in most cases defense counsel routinely explain the nature of the offense in sufficient detail to give the accused notice of what he is being asked to admit.” Id., at 647.
Applying this standard to the factual determinations arising from the state-court proceedings which were “fairly supported by the record” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d), we disagree with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in its conclusion that respondent’s plea to the Illinois charge was not “voluntary” in the constitutional meaning of that term. We think that the application of the principles enunciated in Henderson v. Morgan, supra, lead inexorably to the conclusion that the plea was voluntary. We think a person of respondent’s intelligence and experience in the criminal justice system would have understood, from the statements made at the sentencing hearing recorded in the transcript before us, that the presiding judge was inquiring whether the defendant pleaded guilty to offenses charged in the indictment against him. This is evident from the references in the proceeding by the judge to the fact the respondent was “pleading guilty to this indictment” and by respondent’s counsel’s stipulation that the indictment sustained the plea of guilty. Supra, at 427-428. Under Henderson, respondent must be presumed to have been informed, either by his lawyers or at one of the presentencing proceedings, of the charges on which he was indicted. Given this knowledge of the indictment and the fact that the indictment contained no other attempt charges, respondent could only have understood the judge’s reference to “attempt on Dorothy Maxwell, with a knife” as a reference to the indictment’s charge of attempt to kill. It follows, therefore, both that respondent’s argument that his plea of guilty was not made knowingly must fail, and that the admission in the Ohio murder trial of the conviction based on that plea deprived respondent of no federal right. Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554 (1967). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
Both the first and the second counts of aggravated murder, and the accompanying specifications, were submitted to the jury. No verdict was returned as to the first count or the specification accompanying that charge, and neither is relevant to our decision.
Under the Ohio statute, the death sentence could be imposed only for the crime of aggravated murder, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2929.03 (1975). Even as to aggravated murder, the prosecution was required separately to allege a specification and prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstance contained in the specification, §2929.03(C). If the jury found the defendant guilty of both aggravated murder and the specification, then the trial judge was required to hold a sentencing hearing where the defendant could show mitigating circumstances, §§2929.03(D) and 2929.04. If no mitigating circumstances were found, the judge was required to impose the death sentence; a mandatory life sentence applied if mitigating circumstances were shown.
The likelihood that the state trial court would have reached such a conclusion is not diminished by the facts before us. The state courts found that respondent was represented by two lawyers who were competent and capable, and the record suggests that one of the two was a nationally respected public defender; either of them might well have informed respondent of the charges contained in the indictment against him. Moreover, respondent appeared in several court proceedings in connection with his attack on Dorothy Maxwell, at any one of which the indictment could have been read to him.
The method by which court records from one State are to be authenticated and proved in the courts of a second State, the weight to be given those records, and the extent to which they may be impeached by later oral testimony, are all matters generally left to the laws of the States. A State “is free to regulate the procedure of its courts in accordance with its own conception of policy and fairness unless in so doing it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934).
The Sixth Circuit sought to distinguish Henderson on several grounds, none of which withstands analysis. First, it relied on “Lonberger’s testimony that his lawyers did not discuss the charge of ‘attempt’ with him.” This, however, requires rejection of the state courts’ necessary conclusions as to Lonberger’s testimony, which the federal habeas court was unjustified in doing. Supra, at 433-434. In addition, the Court of Appeals thought that the fact that respondent had changed lawyers following the return of the grand jury indictment somehow made it less likely that the presumption would operate. The mere fact of a change in representation, if it has any probative value, would suggest to us that it was even more likely than usual that one of the two lawyers informed respondent of the contents of the indictment. The Court of Appeals also relied on what it thought was a vague description of the attempt-to-kill offense in the indictment and the sentencing proceedings. We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals’ apparent implication that the indictment failed to provide respondent’s counsel with sufficient information to enable them to describe to him the charges he faced: indeed, counsel stipulated that the indictment was “sufficient in law and fact” to sustain the charges against respondent. Finally, the Court of Appeals thought it “questionable whether [the Henderson presumption] is proper in a case ... in which a prior conviction forms an essential element of a later crime.” Whatever may be the case otherwise, there is surely no obstacle to use of the presumption in a case such as this, when the defendant is challenging a conviction which does not have a prior conviction as an element.
In Spencer, which we reaffirm, the Court upheld a conviction despite the introduction at the guilt-determination stage of trial of a defendant’s prior conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement. Central to our decision was the fact that the Due Process Clause does not permit the federal courts to engage in a finely tuned review of the wisdom of state evidentiary rules: “It has never been thought that [decisions under the Due Process Clause] establish this Court as a rule-making organ for the promulgation of state rules of criminal procedure.” 385 U. S., at 564. Applying these principles, we observed that the Texas procedural rules permitting introduction of the defendant’s prior conviction did not pose a sufficient danger of unfairness to the defendant to offend the Due Process Clause, in part because such evidence was accompanied by instructions limiting the jury’s use of the conviction to sentence enhancement. This analysis remains persuasive; as recognized in Parker v. Randolph, 442 U. S. 62, 73 (1979) (Rehnquist, j.), the “crucial assumption” underlying the system of trial by jury “is that juries will follow the instructions given them by the trial judge. Were this not so, it would be pointless for a trial court to instruct a jury, and even more pointless for an appellate court to reverse a criminal conviction because the jury was improperly instructed.” Cf. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979). Spencer also observed that in cases where documentary evidence is used to prove the prior crime, the evidence seldom, if ever, will be so inflammatory or “devastating,” Parker v. Randolph, supra, at 74-75, that the jury will be unable to follow its instructions. See, e. g., Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). And, of course, if the jury considers a defendant’s prior conviction only for purposes of sentence enhancement no questions of fairness arise.
Justice Stevens’ dissent appears to rest on a view that the common law regarded the admission of prior convictions as grossly unfair and subject to some sort of blanket prohibition. In fact, the common law was far more ambivalent. See, e. g., Stone, Exclusion of Similar Fact Evidence: America, 51 Harv. L. Rev. 988 (1938). Alongside the general principle that prior convictions are inadmissible, despite their relevance to guilt, 1 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 194 (3d ed. 1940), the common law developed broad, vaguely defined exceptions — such as proof of intent, identity, malice, motive, and plan — whose application is left largely to the discretion of the trial judge, see Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S., at 560-561. In short, the common law, like our decision in Spencer, implicitly recognized that any unfairness resulting from admitting prior convictions was more often than not balanced by its probative value and permitted the prosecution to introduce such evidence without demanding any particularly strong justification.
Here, as in Spencer, the trial judge gave a careful and sound instruction requiring the jury to consider respondent’s prior conviction only for purposes of the specification. The extent to which the jury can and does consider limiting instructions, or for that matter any instructions, has been fully considered in cases such as Spencer, supra, Bruton, supra, Parker, supra, and Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109 (1967). The matter was put to rest for cases such as this by our decision in Spencer, supra, in which the Court quoted the remark of Justice Cardozo in Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S., at 105, that a state rule of law “does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser or to give a surer promise of protection to the prisoner at the bar.”
Remarking on the state of the law of evidence with respect to reputation in criminal cases, the Court in Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 469, 486 (1948), said:
“We concur in the general opinion of the courts, textwriters and the profession that much of this law is archaic, paradoxical and full of compromises and compensations by which an irrational advantage to one side is offset by a poorly reasoned counterprivilege to the other. But somehow it has proved a workable even if clumsy system when moderated by discretionary controls in the hands of a wise and strong trial court. To pull one misshapen stone out of the grotesque structure is more likely simply to upset its present balance between adverse interests than to establish a rational edifice.”
If this Court was thus willing to defer to “accumulated judicial experience” at the expense of “abstract logic,” id., at 487, in a case such as Michelson which arose in the federal court system, the Due Process Clause as construed in Spencer surely cannot require a State to do more.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In 1971 a jury convicted Patrick Menillo of attempting to procure an abortion in violation of Connecticut’s criminal abortion statute. Menillo is not a physician and has never had any medical training. The Connecticut Supreme Court nevertheless overturned Menillo’s conviction, holding that under the decisions in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973), the Connecticut statute was “null and void.” As we think the Connecticut court misinterpreted Roe and Doe, we grant the State’s petition for certiorari and vacate the judgment.
The statute under which Menillo was convicted makes criminal an attempted abortion by “any person.” The Connecticut Supreme Court felt compelled to hold this statute null and void, and thus incapable of constitutional application even to someone not medically qualified to perform an abortion, because it read Roe to have done the same thing to the similar Texas statutes. But Roe did not go so far.
In Roe we held that Tex. Penal Code, Art. 1196, which permitted termination of pregnancy at any stage only to save the life of the expectant mother, unconstitutionally restricted a woman’s right to an abortion. We went on to state that as a result of the unconstitutionality of Art. 1196 the Texas abortion statutes had to fall “as a unit,” 410 U. S., at 166, and it is that statement which the Connecticut Supreme Court *and courts in some other States have read to require the invalidation' of their own statutes even as applied to abortions performed by nonphysicians. In context, however, our statement had no such effect. Jane Roe had sought to have an abortion “ 'performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions,’ ” id., at 120, and our opinion recognized only her right to an abortion under those circumstances. That the Texas statutes fell as a unit meant only that they could not be enforced, with or without Art. 1196, in contravention of a woman’s right to a clinical abortion by medically competent personnel. We did not hold the Texas statutes unenforceable against a nonphysician abortionist, for the case did not present the issue.
Moreover, the rationale of our decision supports continued enforceability of criminal abortion statutes against nonphysicians. Roe teaches that a State cannot restrict a decision by a woman, with the advice of her physician, to terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester because neither its interest in maternal health nor its interest in the potential life of the fetus is sufficiently great at that stage. But the insufficiency of the State’s interest in maternal health is predicated upon the first trimester abortion’s being as safe for the woman as normal childbirth at term, and that predicate holds true only if the abortion is performed by medically competent personnel under conditions insuring maximum safety for the woman. See 410 U. S., at 149-150, 163; cf. statement of Douglas, J., in Cheaney v. Indiana, 410 U. S. 991 (1973), denying certiorari in 259 Ind. 138, 285 N. E. 2d 265 (1972). Even during the first trimester of pregnancy, therefore, prosecutions for abortions conducted by nonphysicians infringe upon no realm of personal privacy secured by the Constitution against state interference. And after the first trimester the ever-increasing state interest in maternal health provides additional justification for such prosecutions.
As far as this Court and the Federal, Constitution are concerned, Connecticut’s statute remains fully effective against performance of abortions by nonphysicians. We express no view, of course, as to whether the same is now true under Connecticut law. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for its further consideration in light of this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice White concurs in the result.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 53-29:
“Any person who gives or administers to any woman, or advises or causes her to take or use anything, or uses any means, with intent to procure upon her a miscarriage or abortion, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life or that of her unborn child, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned in the State Prison not more than five years or both.”
See, e. g., State v. Hultgren, 295 Minn. 299, 204 N. W. 2d 197 (1973); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 454 Pa. 429, 312 A. 2d 13 (1973). The highest courts of other States have held that their criminal abortion laws can continue to be applied to laymen following Roe and Doe. E. g., People v. Bricker, 389 Mich. 524, 208 N. W. 2d 172 (1973); State v. Norflett, 67 N. J. 268, 237 A. 2d 609 (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: | 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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether federal courts have the authority to require that a plaintiff exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 701 et seq., where neither the statute nor agency rules specifically mandate exhaustion as a prerequisite to judicial re- ' view. At issue is the relationship between the judicially created doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the statutory requirements of § 10(c) of the APA.
I
Petitioner R. Gordon Darby is a self-employed South Carolina real estate developer who specializes in the development and management of multifamily rental projects. In the early 1980’s, he began working with Lonnie Garvin, Jr., a mortgage banker, who had developed a plan to enable multifamily developers to obtain single-family mortgage insurance from respondent Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Respondent Secretary of HUD (Secretary) is authorized to provide single-family mortgage insurance under § 203(b) of the National Housing Act, 48 Stat. 1249, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1709(b). Although HUD also provides mortgage insurance for multifamily projects under § 207 of the National Housing Act, 12 U. S. C. § 1713, the greater degree of oversight and control over such projects makes it less attractive for investors than the single-family mortgage insurance option.
The principal advantage of Garvin’s plan was that it promised to avoid HUD’s “Rule of Seven.” This rule prevented rental properties from receiving single-family mortgage insurance if the mortgagor already had financial interests in seven or more similar rental properties in the same project or subdivision. See 24 CFR § 203.42(a) (1992). Under Garvin’s plan, a person seeking financing would use straw purchasers as mortgage insurance applicants. Once the loans were closed, the straw purchasers would transfer title back to the development company. Because no single purchaser at the time of purchase would own more than seven rental properties within the same project, the Rule of Seven appeared not to be violated. HUD employees in South Carolina apparently assured Garvin that his plan was lawful and that he thereby would avoid the limitation of the Rule of Seven.
Darby obtained financing for three separate multiunit projects, and, through Garvin’s plan, Darby obtained single-family mortgage insurance from HUD. Although Darby successfully rented the units, a combination of low rents, falling interest rates, and a generally depressed rental market forced him into default in 1988. HUD became responsible for the payment of over $6.6 million in insurance claims.
HUD had become suspicious of Garvin’s financing plan as far back as 1983. In 1986, HUD initiated an audit but concluded that neither Darby nor Garvin had done anything wrong or misled HUD personnel. Nevertheless, in June 1989, HUD issued a limited denial of participation (LDP) that prohibited petitioners for one year from participating in any program in South Carolina administered by respondent Assistant Secretary of Housing. Two months later, the Assistant Secretary notified petitioners that HUD was also proposing to debar them from further participation in all HUD procurement contracts and in any nonprocurement transaction with any federal agency. See 24 CFR §24.200 (1992).
Petitioners’ appeals of the LDP and of the proposed debarment were consolidated, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on the consolidated appeals in December 1989. The judge issued an “Initial Decision and Order” in April 1990, finding that'the financing method used by petitioners was “a sham which improperly circumvented the Rule of Seven.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 69a. The ALJ concluded, however, that most of the relevant facts had been disclosed to local HUD employees, that petitioners lacked criminal intent, and that Darby himself “genuinely cooperated with HUD to try [to] work out his financial dilemma and avoid foreclosure.” Id., at 88a. In light of these mitigating factors, the ALJ concluded that an indefinite debarment would be punitive and that it would serve no legitimate purpose; good cause existed, however, to debar petitioners for a period of 18 months. Id., at 90a.
Under HUD regulations,
“The hearing officer’s determination shall be final unless, pursuant to 24 CFR part 26, the Secretary or the Secretary’s designee, within 30 days of receipt of a request decides as a matter of discretion to review the finding of the hearing officer. The 30 day period for deciding whether to review a determination may be extended upon written notice of such extension by the Secretary or his designee. Any party may request such a review in writing within 15 days of receipt of the hearing officer’s determination.” 24 CFR § 24.314(c) (1992).
Neither petitioners nor respondents sought further administrative review of the ALJ’s “Initial Decision and Order.”
On May 31,1990, petitioners filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. They sought an injunction and a declaration that the administrative sanctions were imposed for purposes of punishment, in violation of HUD’s own debarment regulations, and therefore were “not in accordance with law” within the meaning of § 10(e)(B)(l) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A).
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that petitioners, by forgoing the option to seek review by the Secretary, had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The District Court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss, reasoning that the administrative remedy was inadequate and that resort to that remedy would have been futile. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a. In a subsequent opinion, the District Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the “imposition of debarment in this case encroached too heavily on the punitive side of the line, and for those reasons was an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law.” Id., at 19a.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. Darby v. Kemp, 957 F. 2d 145 (1992). It recognized that neither the National Housing Act nor HUD regulations expressly mandate exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing suit. The court concluded, however, that the District Court had erred in denying respondents’ motion to dismiss, because there was no evidence to suggest that further review would have been futile or that the Secretary would have abused his discretion by indefinitely extending the time limitations for review.
The court denied petitioners’ petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 93a. In order to resolve the tension between this and the APA, as well as to settle a perceived conflict among the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 506 U. S. 952 (1992).
II
Section 10(c) of the APA bears the caption “Actions reviewable.” It provides in its first two sentences that judicial review is available for “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” and that “preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action ... is subject to review on the review of the final agency action.” The last sentence of § 10(c) reads:
“Except as otherwise expressly required by statute, agency action otherwise final is final for the purposes of this section whether or not there has been presented or determined an application for a declaratory order, for any form of reconsideration [see n. 1, supra], or, unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and provides that the action meanwhile is inoperative, for an appeal to superior agency authority.” 80 Stat. 392-393, 5 U. S. C. §704.
Petitioners argue that this provision means that a litigant seeking judicial review of a final agency action under the APA need not exhaust available administrative remedies unless such exhaustion is expressly required by statute or agency rule. According to petitioners, since § 10(c) contains an explicit exhaustion provision, federal courts are not free to require further exhaustion as a matter of judicial discretion.
Respondents contend that § 10(c) is concerned solely with timing, that is, when agency actions become “final,” and that Congress had no intention to interfere with the courts' ability to impose conditions on the timing of their exercise of jurisdiction to review final agency actions. Respondents concede that petitioners’ claim is “final” under § 10(c), for neither the National Housing Act nor applicable HUD regulations require that a litigant pursue further administrative appeals prior to seeking judicial review. However, even though nothing in § 10(c) precludes judicial review of petitioners’ claim, respondents argue that federal courts remain free under the APA to impose appropriate exhaustion requirements.
We have recognized that the judicial doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is conceptually distinct from the doctrine of finality:
“[T]he finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; the exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate.” Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172, 193 (1985).
Whether courts are free to impose an exhaustion requirement as a matter of judicial discretion depends, at least in part, on whether Congress has provided otherwise, for “[o]f ‘paramount importance’ to any exhaustion inquiry is congressional intent,” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U. S. 140, 144 (1992), quoting Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U. S. 496, 501 (1982). We therefore must consider whether § 10(c), by providing the conditions under which agency action becomes “final for the purposes of” judicial review, limits the authority of courts to impose additional exhaustion requirements as a prerequisite to judicial review.
It perhaps is surprising that it has taken over 45 years since the passage of the APA for this Court definitively to address this question. Professor Davis noted in 1958 that § 10(c) had been almost completely ignored in judicial opinions, see 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §20.08, p. 101 (1958); he reiterated that observation 25 years later, noting that the “provision is relevant in hundreds of eases and is customarily overlooked.” 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §26.12, pp. 468-469 (2d ed. 1983). Only a handful of opinions in the Courts of Appeals have considered the effect of § 10(c) on the general exhaustion doctrine. See n. 8, supra.
This Court has had occasion, however, to consider § 10(c) in other contexts. For example, in ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270 (1987), we recognized that the plain language of § 10(c), which provides that an agency action is final “whether or not there has been presented or determined an application” for any form of reconsideration, could be read to suggest that the agency action is final regardless whether a motion for reconsideration has been filed. We noted, however, that § 10(c) “has long been construed by this and other courts merely to relieve parties from the requirement of petitioning for rehearing before seeking judicial review (unless, of course, specifically required to do so by statute — see, e. g., 15 U. S. C. §§ 717r, 3416(a)), but not to prevent petitions for reconsideration that are actually filed from rendering the orders under reconsideration nonfinal” (emphasis in original). Id., at 284-285.
In Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879 (1988), we were concerned with whether relief available in the Claims Court was an “adequate remedy in a court” so as to preclude review in Federal District Court of a final agency action under the first sentence of § 10(c). We concluded that “although the primary thrust of [§ 10(c)] was to codify the exhaustion requirement,” id., at 903, Congress intended by that provision simply to avoid duplicating previously established special statutory procedures for review of agency actions.
While some dicta in these cases might be claimed to lend support to respondents’ interpretation of § 10(c), the text of the APA leaves little doubt that petitioners are correct. Under § 10(a) of the APA, “[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 (emphasis added). Although § 10(a) provides the general right to judicial review of agency actions under the APA, § 10(c) establishes when such review is available. When an aggrieved party has exhausted all administrative remedies expressly prescribed by statute or agency rule, the agency action is “final for the purposes of this section” and therefore “subject to judicial review” under the first sentence. While federal courts may be free to apply, where appropriate, other prudential doctrines of judicial administration to limit the scope and timing of judicial review, § 10(c), by its very terms, has limited the availability of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies to that which the statute or rule clearly mandates.
The last sentence of § 10(c) refers explicitly to “any form of reconsideration” and “an appeal to superior agency authority.” Congress clearly was concerned with making the exhaustion requirement unambiguous so that aggrieved parties would know precisely what administrative steps were required before judicial review would be available. If courts were able to impose additional exhaustion requirements beyond those provided by Congress or the agency, the last sentence of § 10(c) would make no sense. To adopt respondents’ reading would transform § 10(c) from a provision designed to “‘remove obstacles to judicial review of agency action,’” Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S., at 904, quoting Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U. S. 48, 51 (1955), into a trap for unwary litigants. Section 10(c) explicitly requires exhaustion of all intra-agency appeals mandated either by statute or by agency rule; it would be inconsistent with the plain language of § 10(c) for courts to require litigants to exhaust optional appeals as well.
Ill
Recourse to the legislative history of § 10(c) is unnecessary in light of the plain meaning of the statutory text. Nevertheless, we consider that history briefly because both sides have spent much of their time arguing about its implications. In its report on the APA, the Senate Judiciary Committee explained that the last sentence of § 10(c) was “designed to implement the provisions of section 8(a).” Section 8(a), now codified, as amended, as 5 U. S. C. § 557(b), provides, unless the agency requires otherwise, that an initial decision made by a hearing officer “becomes the decision of the agency without further proceedings unless there is an appeal to, or review on motion of, the agency within time provided by rule.” The Judiciary Committee explained:
“[A]n agency may permit an examiner to make the initial decision in a case, which becomes the agency’s decision in the absence of an appeal to or review by the agency. If there is such review or appeal, the examiner’s initial decision becomes inoperative until the agency determines the matter. For that reason this subsection [§ 10(c)] permits an agency also to require by rule that, if any party is not satisfied with the initial decision of a subordinate hearing officer, the party must first appeal to the agency (the decision meanwhile being inoperative) before resorting to the courts. In no case may appeal to ‘superior agency authority’ be required by rule unless the administrative decision meanwhile is inoperative, because otherwise the effect of such a requirement would be to subject the party to the agency action and to repetitious administrative process without recourse. There is a fundamental inconsistency in requiring a person to continue ‘exhausting’ administrative processes after administrative action has become, and while it remains, effective.” S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 27 (1945); Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative History 1944-1946, S. Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 213 (1946) (hereinafter Leg. Hist.).
In a statement appended to a letter dated October 19, 1945, to the Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Tom C. Clark set forth his understanding of the effect of § 10(c):
“This subsection states (subject to the provisions of section 10(a)) the acts which are reviewable under section 10. It is intended to state existing law. The last sentence makes it clear that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies with respect to finality of agency action is intended to be applied only (1) where expressly required by statute ... or (2) where the agency’s rules require that decisions by subordinate officers must be appealed to superior agency authority before the decision may be regarded as final for purposes of judicial review.” Id., at 44, Leg. Hist. 230.
Respondents place great weight on the Attorney General’s statement that § 10(c) “is intended to state existing law.” That law, according to respondents, “plainly permitted federal courts to require exhaustion of adequate administrative remedies.” Brief for Respondents 19-20. We cannot agree with this categorical pronouncement. With respect to the exhaustion of motions for administrative reconsideration or rehearing, the trend in pre-APA cases was in the opposite direction. In Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Ind., 242 U. S. 255 (1916), for example, this Court invoked the “general rule” that “one aggrieved by the rulings of such an administrative tribunal may not complain that the Constitution of the United States has been violated if he has not availed himself of the remedies prescribed by the state law for a rectification of such rulings.” Id., at 261. The state law provided only that the Railroad Commission had the authority to grant a rehearing; it did not require that a rehearing be sought. Nevertheless, “since the record shows that plaintiff in error and its associates were accorded a rehearing upon the very question of modification, but abandoned it, nothing more need be said upon that point.” Ibid.
Seven years later, in Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co., 262 U. S. 43, 48 (1923), without even mentioning the Vandalia case, the Court stated:
“It was not necessary that the Company should apply to the Commission for a rehearing before resorting to the court. While under the Public Service Commission Law any person interested in an order of the Commission has the right to apply for a rehearing, the Commission is not required to grant such rehearing unless in its judgment sufficient reasons therefor appear .... As the law does not require an application for a rehearing to be made and its granting is entirely within the discretion of the Commission, we see no reason for requiring it to be made as a condition precedent to the bringing of a suit to enjoin the enforcement of the order.”
Accord, Banton v. Belt Line R. Corp., 268 U. S. 413, 416-417 (1925) (“No application to the commission for relief was required by the state law. None was necessary as a condition precedent to the suit”).
Shortly before Congress adopted the APA, the Court, in Levers v. Anderson, 326 U. S. 219 (1945), held that where a federal statute provides that a district supervisor of the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue “may hear the application” for a rehearing of an order denying certain liquor permits, such an application was not a prerequisite to judicial review. Nothing “persuades us that the ‘may’ means must, or that the Supervisors were required to hear oral argument.” Id., at 223 (emphasis added). Despite the fact that the regulations permitted a stay pending the motion for reconsideration, the Court concluded that “the motion is in its effect so much like the normal, formal type of motion for rehearing that we cannot read into the Act an intention to make it a prerequisite to the judicial review specifically provided by Congress.” Id., at 224.
Respondents in effect concede that the trend in the law prior to the enactment of the APA was to require exhaustion of motions for administrative reconsideration or rehearing only when explicitly mandated by statute. Respondents argue, however, that the law governing the exhaustion of administrative appeals prior to the APA was significantly different from § 10(c) as petitioners would have us interpret it. Brief for Respondents 23. Respondents rely on United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161 (1904), in which the Court considered whether, under the relevant statute, an aggrieved party had to appeal an adverse decision by the Inspector of Immigration to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor before judicial review would be available. It recognized that the relevant statute “points out a mode of procedure which must be followed before there can be a resort to the courts,” id., at 167, and that a party must go through “the preliminary sifting process provided by the statutes,” id., at 170. Accord, Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Risty, 276 U. S. 567, 574-575 (1928).
Nothing in this pre-APA history, however, supports respondents’ argument that initial decisions that were “final” for purposes of judicial review were nonetheless unreviewable unless and until an administrative appeal was taken. The pre-APA cases concerning judicial review of federal agency action stand for the simple proposition that, until an administrative appeal was taken, the agency action was unreviewable because it was not yet “final.” This is hardly surprising, given the fact that few, if any, administrative agencies authorized hearing officers to make final agency decisions prior to the enactment of the APA. See Federal Administrative Law Developments — 1971, 1972 Duke L. J. 115, 295, n. 22 (“[Pjrior to the passage of the APA, the existing agencies ordinarily lacked the authority to make binding determinations at a level below that of the agency board or commission, so that section 10(c) would be expected to affect the exhaustion doctrine in only a very limited number of instances”).
The purpose of § 10(c) was to permit agencies to require an appeal to “superior agency authority” before an examiner’s initial decision became final. This was necessary because, under § 8(a), initial decisions could become final agency decisions in the absence of an agency appeal. See 5 U. S. C. § 557(b). Agencies may avoid the finality of an initial decision, first, by adopting a rule that an agency appeal be taken before judicial review is available, and, second, by providing that the initial decision would be “inoperative” pending appeal. Otherwise, the initial decision becomes final and the aggrieved party is entitled to judicial review.
Respondents also purport to find support for their view in the text and legislative history of the 1976 amendments of the APA. After eliminating the defense of sovereign immunity in APA cases, Congress provided: “Nothing herein . . . affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground,” Pub. L. 94-574, § 1, 90 Stat. 2721 (codified as 5 U. S. C. § 702). According to respondents, Congress intended by this proviso to ensure that the judicial doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies would continue to apply under the APA to permit federal courts to refuse to review agency actions that were nonetheless final under § 10(c). See S. Rep. No. 94-996, p. 11 (1976) (among the limitations on judicial review that remained unaffected by the 1976 amendments was the “failure to exhaust administrative remedies”).
Putting to one side the obvious problems with relying on postenactment legislative history, see, e. g., United States v. Texas, 507 U. S. 529, 535, n. 4 (1993); Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 650 (1990), the proviso was added in 1976 simply to make clear that “[a]ll other than the law of sovereign immunity remain unchanged,” S. Rep. No. 94-996, at 11. The elimination of the defense of sovereign immunity did not affect any other limitation on judicial review that would otherwise apply under the APA. As already discussed, the exhaustion doctrine continues to exist under the APA to the extent that it is required by statute or by agency rule as a prerequisite to judicial review. Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent between the 1976 amendments to the APA and our reading of § 10(c).
IV
We noted just last Term in a non-APA case that
“appropriate deference to Congress’ power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which a claim may be heard in a federal court requires fashioning of exhaustion principles in a manner consistent with congressional intent and any applicable statutory scheme.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U. S., at 144.
Appropriate deference in this case requires the recognition that, with respect to actions brought under the APA, Congress effectively codified the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in § 10(c). Of course, the exhaustion doctrine continues to apply as a matter of judicial discretion in cases not governed by the APA. But where the APA applies, an appeal to “superior agency authority” is a prerequisite to judicial review only when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review and the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review. Courts are not free to impose an exhaustion requirement as a rule of judicial administration where the agency action has already become “final” under § 10(c).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join all but Part III of this opinion.
Section 10(c), 80 Stat. 392-393, 5 U. S. C. § 704, provides:
“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. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to review on the review of the final agency action. Except as otherwise expressly required by statute, agency action otherwise final is final for the purposes of this section whether or not there has been presented or determined an application for a declaratory order, for any form of reconsideration, or, unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and provides that the action meanwhile is inoperative, for an appeal to superior agency authority.”
We note that the statute as codified in the United States Code refers to “any form of reconsiderations,” with the last word being in the plural. The version of § 10(c) as currently enacted, however, uses the singular “reconsideration.” See this note, supra, at 138. We quote the text as enacted in the Statutes at Large. See Stephan v. United States, 319 U. S. 423, 426 (1943) (“[T]he Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent”).
Petitioners include R. Gordon Darby and his affiliate companies: Darby Development Company; Darby Realty Company; Darby Management Company, Inc.; MD Investment; Parkbrook Acres Associates; and Park-brook Developers.
Although the primary purpose of the § 203(b) insurance program was to facilitate home ownership by owner-occupants, investors were permitted in the early 1980’s to obtain single-family insurance under certain conditions. Private investor-owners are no longer eligible for single-family mortgage insurance. See Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, § 143(b), 103 Stat. 2036.
Prior to August 31, 1955, the Rule of Seven apparently had been the Rule of Eleven. See 24 CFR §203.42 (1982) and 56 Fed. Reg. 27692 (1991).
An LDP precludes its recipient from participating in any HUD “program,” which includes “receipt of any benefit or financial assistance through grants or contractual arrangements; benefits or assistance in the form of loan guarantees or insurance; and awards of procurement contracts, notwithstanding any quid pro quo given and whether [HUD] gives anything in return.” 24 CFR § 24.710(a)(2) (1992).
According to HUD regulations, “[d]ebarment and suspension are serious actions which shall be used only in the public interest and for the Federal Government’s protection and not for purposes of punishment.” 24 CFR § 24.115(b) (1992).
The AU calculated the 18-month debarment period from June 19,1989, the date on which the LDP was imposed. The debarment would last until December 19, 1990.
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling in this case appears to be consistent with Montgomery v. Rumsfeld, 572 F. 2d 250, 253-254 (CA9 1978), and Missouri v. Bowen, 813 F. 2d 864 (CA8 1987), but is in considerable tension with United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F. 2d 432, 439-440 (CA9 1971); New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 582 F. 2d 87, 99 (CA1 1978); and Gulf Oil Corp. v. United States Dept. of Energy, 214 U. S. App. D. C. 119, 131, and n. 73, 663 F. 2d 296, 308, and n. 73 (1981).
Respondents also have argued that under HUD regulations, petitioners’ debarment remains “inoperative” pending review by the Secretary. See 48 Fed. Reg. 43304 (1983). But this fact alone is insufficient under § 10(c) to mandate exhaustion prior to judicial review, for the agency also must require such exhaustion by rule. Respondents concede that HUD imposes no such exhaustion requirement. Brief for Respondents 31.
In his manual on the APA, prepared in 1947, to which we have given some deference, see, e. g., Steadman v. SEC, 450 U. S. 91, 103, n. 22 (1981); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 546 (1978), Attorney General Clark reiterated the Department of Justice’s view that § 10(c) “embodies the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. . .. Agency action which is finally operative and decisive is reviewable.” Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 103 (1947). See also H. R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 55, n. 21 (1946); Leg. Hist. 289, n. 21 (describing agency’s authority to adopt rules requiring a party to take a timely appeal to the agency prior to seeking judicial review as “an application of the time-honored doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies”).
The Act of August 18, 1894, 28 Stat. 390, provided: “In every case where an alien is excluded from admission into the United States under any law or treaty now existing or hereafter made, the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be final, unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of [Commerce and Labor].”
In an address to the American Bar Association in 1940, Dean- Stason of the University of Michigan Law School summarized the law on exhaustion of administrative appeals: “In the event that a statute setting up an administrative tribunal also creates one or more appellate administrative tribunals, it is almost invariably held that a party who is aggrieved by action of the initial agency must first seek relief by recourse to the appellate agency or agencies.” Stason, Timing of Judicial Redress from Erroneous Administrative Action, 25 Minn. L. Rev. 560, 570 (1941). See also 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 26.12, p. 469 (2d ed. 1983) (“The pre-1946 law was established that an appeal to higher administrative authorities was a prerequisite to judicial review”).
Respondents also rely on then-Assistant Attorney General Scalia’s letter to the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure where he wrote that the Department of Justice supported the amendment in large part because it expected that many (or most) of the cases disposed of on the basis of sovereign immunity could have been decided the same way on other legal grounds such as the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. S. Rep. No. 94-996, pp. 25-26 (1976). See also 1 Recommendations and Reports of the Administrative Conference of the United States 222 (1968-1970) (urging Congress to adopt the very language that was eventually incorporated verbatim into the 1976 amendment so that “the abolition of sovereign immunity will not result in undue judicial interference with governmental operations or a flood of burdensome litigation”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit for back pay, based on petitioner’s alleged illegal removal as a member of the War Claims Commission. The facts are not in dispute. By the War Claims Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 1240, Congress established that Commission with “jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate according to law,” § 3, claims for compensating internees, prisoners of war, and religious organizations, §§ 5, 6 and 7, who suffered personal injury or property damage at the hands of the enemy in connection with World War II. The Commission was to be composed of three persons, at least two of whom were to be members of the bar, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commission was to wind up its affairs not later than three years after the expiration of the time for filing claims, originally limited to two years but extended by successive legislation first to March 1, 1951, 63 Stat. 112, and later to March 31, 1952, 65 Stat. 28. This limit on the Commission’s life was the mode by which the tenure of the Commissioners was defined, and Congress made no provision for removal of a Commissioner.
Having been duly nominated by President Truman, the petitioner was confirmed on June 2, 1950, and took office on June 8, following. On his refusal to heed a request for his resignation, he was, on December 10, 1953, removed by President Eisenhower in the following terms: “I regard it as in the national interest to complete the administration of the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, with personnel of my own selection.” The following day, the President made recess appointments to the Commission, including petitioner’s post. After Congress assembled, the President, on February 15,1954, sent the names of the new appointees to the Senate. The Senate had not confirmed these nominations when the Commission was abolished, July 1, 1954, by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1954, 68 Stat. 1279, issued pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 203. Thereupon, petitioner brought this proceeding in the Court of Claims for recovery of his salary as a War Claims Commissioner from December 10, 1953, the day of his removal by the President, to June 30, 1954, the last day of the Commission’s existence. A divided Court of Claims dismissed the petition, 135 Ct. Cl. 827, 142 F. Supp. 910. We brought the case here, 352 U. S. 980, because it presents a variant of the constitutional issue decided in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602.
Controversy pertaining to the scope and limits of the President’s power of removal fills a thick chapter of our political and judicial history. The long stretches of its history, beginning with the very first Congress, with early echoes in the Reports of this Court, were laboriously traversed in Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, and need not be retraced. President Roosevelt’s reliance upon the pronouncements of the Court in that case in removing a member of the Federal Trade Commission on the ground that “the aims and purposes of the Administration with respect to the work of the Commission can be carried out most effectively with personnel of my own selection” reflected contemporaneous professional opinion regarding the significance of the Myers decision. Speaking through a Chief Justice who himself had been President, the Court did not restrict itself to the immediate issue before it, the President’s inherent power to remove a postmaster, obviously an executive official. As of set purpose and not by way of parenthetic casualness, the Court announced that the President had inherent constitutional power of removal also of officials who have “duties of a quasi-judicial character . . . whose decisions after hearing affect interests of individuals, the discharge of which the President can not in a particular case properly influence or control.” Myers v. United States, supra, at 135. This view of presidential power was deemed to flow from his “constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed.” Ibid.
The assumption was short-lived that the Myers case recognized the President’s inherent constitutional power to remove officials, no matter what the relation of the executive to the discharge of their duties and no matter what restrictions Congress may have imposed regarding the nature of their tenure. The versatility of circumstances often mocks a natural desire for definitiveness. Within less than ten years a unanimous Court, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, narrowly confined the scope of the Myers decision to include only “all purely executive officers.” 295 U. S., at 628. The Court explicitly “disapproved” the expressions in Myers supporting the President’s inherent constitutional power to remove members of quasi-judicial bodies. 295 U. S., at 626-627. Congress had given members of the Federal Trade Commission a seven-year term and also provided for the removal of a Commissioner by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. In the present case, Congress provided for a tenure defined by the relatively short period of time during which the War Claims Commission was to operate — that is, it was to wind up not later than three years after the expiration of the time for filing of claims. But nothing was said in the Act about removal.
This is another instance in which the most appropriate legal significance must be drawn from congressional failure of explicitness. Necessarily this is a problem in probabilities. We start with one certainty. The problem of the President’s power to remove members of agencies entrusted with duties of the kind with which the War Claims Commission was charged was within the lively knowledge of Congress. Pew contests between Congress and the President have so recurringly had the attention of Congress as that pertaining to the power of removal. Not the least significant aspect of the Myers case is that on the Court’s special invitation Senator George Wharton Pepper, of Pennsylvania, presented the position of Congress at the bar of this Court.
Humphrey’s case was a cause célebre — and not least in the halls of Congress. And what is the essence of the decision in Humphrey’s case? It drew a sharp line of cleavage between officials who were part of the Executive establishment and were thus removable by virtue of the President’s constitutional powers, and those who are members of a body “to exercise its judgment without the leave or hindrance of any other official or any department of the government,” 295 U. S., at 625-626, as to whom a power of removal exists only if Congress may fairly be said to have conferred it. This sharp differentiation derives from the difference in functions between those who are part of the Executive establishment and those whose tasks require absolute freedom from Executive interference. “For it is quite evident,” again to quote Humphrey’s Executor, “that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another, cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter’s will.” 295 U. S., at 629.
Thus, the most reliable factor for drawing an inference regarding the President’s power of removal in our case is the nature of the function that Congress vested in the War Claims Commission. What were the duties that Congress confided to this Commission? And can the inference fairly be drawn from the failure of Congress to provide for removal that these Commissioners were to remain in office at the will of the President? For such is the assertion of power on which petitioner’s removal must rest. The ground of President Eisenhower’s removal of petitioner was precisely the same as President Roosevelt’s removal of Humphrey. Both Presidents desired to have Commissioners, one on the Federal Trade Commission, the other on the War Claims Commission, “of my own selection.” They wanted these Commissioners to be their men. The terms of removal in the two cases are identic and express the assumption that the agenciés of which the two Commissioners were members were subject in the discharge of their duties to the control of the Executive. An analysis of the Federal Trade Commission Act left this Court in no doubt that such was not the conception of Congress in e/eating the Federal Trade Commission. The terms of the War Claims Act of 1948 leave no doubt that such was not the conception of Congress regarding the War Claims Commission.
The history of this legislation emphatically underlines this fact. The short of it is that the origin of the Act was a bill, H. R. 4044, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., passed by the House that placed the administration of a very limited class of claims by Americans against Japan in the hands of the Federal Security Administrator and provided for a Commission to inquire into and report upon other types of claims. See H. R. Rep. No. 976, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. The Federal Security Administrator was indubitably an arm of the President. When the House bill reached the Senate, it struck out all but the enacting clause, rewrote the bill, and established a Commission with “jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate according to law” three classes of claims, as defined by §§ 5, 6 and 7. The Commission was established as an adjudicating body with all the paraphernalia by which legal claims are put to the test of proof, with finality of determination “not subject to review by any other official of the United States or by any court by mandamus or otherwise,” § 11. Awards were to be paid out of a War Claims Fund in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, whereby such claims were given even more assured collectability than adheres to judgments rendered in the Court of Claims. See S. Rep. No. 1742, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. With minor amendment, see H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2439, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 10-11, this Senate bill became law.
When Congress has for distribution among American claimants funds derived from foreign sources, it may proceed in different ways. Congress may appropriate directly; it may utilize the Executive; it may resort to the adjudicatory process. See La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 423. For Congress itself to have made appropriations for the claims with which it dealt under the War Claims Act was not practical in view of the large number of claimants and the diversity in the specific circumstances giving rise to the claims. The House bill in effect put the distribution of the narrow class of claims that it acknowledged into Executive hands, by vesting the procedure in the Federal Security Administrator. The final form of the legislation, as we have seen, left the widened range of claims to be determined by adjudication. Congress could, of course, have given jurisdiction over these claims to the District Courts or to the Court of Claims. The fact that it chose to establish a Commission to “adjudicate according to law” the classes of claims defined in the statute did not alter the intrinsic judicial character of the task with which the Commission was charged. The claims were to be “adjudicated according to law,” that is, on the merits of each claim, supported by evidence and governing legal considerations, by a body that was “entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect,” Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, supra, 295 U. S., at 629, of either the Executive or the Congress. If, as one must take for granted, the War Claims Act precluded the President from influencing the Commission in passing on a particular claim, a fortiori must it be inferred that Congress did not wish to have hang over the Commission the Damocles’ sword of removal by the President for no reason other than that he preferred to have on that Commission men of his own choosing.
For such is this case. We have not a removal for cause involving the rectitude of a member of an adjudicatory body, nor even a suspensory removal until the Senate could act upon it by confirming the appointment of a new Commissioner or otherwise dealing with the matter. Judging the matter in all the nakedness in which it is presented, namely, the claim that the President could remove a member of an adjudicatory body like the War Claims Commission merely because he wanted his own appointees on such a Commission, we are compelled to conclude that no such power is given to the President directly by the Constitution, and none is impliedly conferred upon him by statute simply because Congress said nothing about it. The philosophy of Humphrey’s Executor, in its explicit language as well as its implications, precludes such a claim.
The judgment is
Reversed.
An earlier quo warranto proceeding initiated by petitioner was dismissed; an appeal from this judgment was dismissed as moot by stipulation of the parties. The Government’s contention that that judgment estops petitioner from relitigating certain issues in the present proceeding does not, in the special circumstances presented on this record, call for consideration on the merits. It was not urged, as in the particular situation it should have been, as a “ground why the cause should not be reviewed by this court.” Rule 24 (1) of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. In thus disposing of the matter, we do not mean to imply any support on the merits of the Government’s claim.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, retirement of an employee over his objection and prior to reaching age 65 is permissible under the provisions of a bona fide retirement plan established by the employer in 1941 and joined by the employee in 1964. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the holdings of the Fifth Circuit in Brennan v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 500 F. 2d 212 (1974), and the Fourth Circuit now before us. See Zinger v. Blanchette, 549 F. 2d 901 (CA3 1977), cert. pending, No. 76-1375.
I
The operative facts were stipulated by the parties in the District Court and are not controverted here. McMann joined United Air Lines, Inc., in 1944, and continued as an employee until his retirement at age 60 in 1973. Over the years he held various positions with United and at retirement held that of technical specialist-aircraft systems. At the time McMann was first employed, United maintained a formal retirement income plan it had inaugurated in 1941, in which McMann was eligible to participate, but was not compelled to join. He voluntarily joined the plan in January 1964. The application form McMann signed showed the normal retirement age for participants in his category as 60 years.
McMann reached his 60th birthday on January 23, 1973, and was retired on February 1, 1973, over his objection. He then filed a notice of intent to sue United for violation of the Act pursuant to 29 U. S. C. § 626 (d). Although he received an opinion from the Department of Labor that United's plan was bona fide and did not appear to be a subterfuge to evade the purposes of the Act, he brought this suit.
McMann’s suit in the District Court seeking injunctive relief, reinstatement, and backpay alleged his forced retirement was solely because of his age and was unlawful under the Act. United's response was that McMann was retired in compliance with the provisions of a bona fide retirement plan which he had voluntarily joined. On facts as stipulated, the District Court granted United’s motion for summary judgment.
In the Court of Appeals it was conceded the plan was bona fide “in the sense that it exists and pays benefits.” But McMann, supported by a brief amicus curiae filed in that court by the Secretary of Labor, contended the enforcement of the age-60 retirement provision, even under a bona fide plan instituted in good faith in 1941, was a subterfuge to evade the Act.
The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that a pre-age-65 retirement falls within the meaning of “subterfuge” unless the employer can show that the “early retirement provision . . . ha[s] some economic or business purpose other than arbitrary age discrimination.” 542 F. 2d 217, 221 (1976). The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court to allow United an opportunity to show an economic or business purpose and United sought review here.
We reverse.
II
Section 2 (b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602, recites that its purpose is
“to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.” 29 U. S. C. § 621 (b).
Section 4 (a)(1) of the Act, 81 Stat. 603, makes it unlawful for an employer
“to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age . . . .” 29 U. S. C. § 623 (a)(1).
The Act covers individuals between ages 40 and 65, 29 U. S. C. § 631, but does not prohibit all forced retirements prior to age 65; some are permitted under §4 (f)(2), 81 Stat. 603, which provides:
“It shall not be unlawful for an employer ... or labor organization to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system or any bona fide employee benefit plan such as a retirement, pension, or insurance plan, which is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this [Act], except that no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual 29 U. S. C. § 623 (f)(2).
See infra, at 198-202.
McMann argues the term “normal retirement age” is not defined in the plan other than in a provision that “A Participant’s Normal Retirement Date is the first day of the month following his 60th birthday.” From this he contends normal retirement age does not mean mandatory or compelled retirement at age 60, and United therefore did not retire him “to observe the terms” of the plan as required by §4 (f)(2). As to this claim, however, we accept the analysis of the plan by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:
“While the meaning of the word 'normal’ in this context is not free from doubt, counsel agreed in oral argument on the manner in which the plan is operated in practice. The employee has no discretion whether to continue beyond the 'normal’ retirement age. United legally may retain employees such as McMann past age 60, but has never done so: its policy has been to retire all employees at the 'normal’ age. Given these facts, we conclude that for purposes of this decision, the plan should be regarded as one requiring retirement at age 60 rather than one permitting it at the option of the employer.” 542 F. 2d, at 219. (Emphasis supplied.)
McMann had filed a grievance challenging his retirement since, as a former pilot, he held a position on the pilots’ seniority roster. In that arbitration proceeding he urged that “normal” means “average” and so long as a participant is in good health and fit for duty he should be retained past age 60. The ruling in the arbitration proceeding was that “ ' [n] ormal’ means regular or standard, not average, not only as a matter of linguistics but also in the general context of retirement and pension plans and the settled practice at United.” It was also ruled that the involuntary retirement of McMann “was taken in accordance with an established practice uniformly applied to all members of the bargaining unit.”
Though the District Court made no separate finding as to the meaning of “normal” in this context, it had before it the definition ascribed in the arbitration proceeding and that award was incorporated by reference in the court’s findings and conclusions. In light of the facts stipulated by the parties and found by the District Court, we also accept the Court of Appeals’ view as to the meaning of “normal.”
In Brennan v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 500 F. 2d, at 215, the Fifth Circuit held that establishment of a bona fide retirement plan long before enactment of the Act, “eliminated] any notion that it was adopted as a subterfuge for evasion.” In rejecting the Taft reasoning, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that it distinguished between the Act and the -purposes of the Act. The distinction relied on is untenable because the Act is the vehicle by which its purposes are expressed and carried out; it is difficult to conceive of a subterfuge to evade the one which does not also evade the other.
McMann argues that § 4 (f) (2) was not intended to authorize involuntary retirement before age 65, but was only intended to make it economically feasible for employers to hire older employees by permitting the employers to give such older employees lesser retirement and other benefits than provided for younger employees. We are persuaded that the language of § 4 (f) (2) was not intended to have such a limited effect.
In Zinger v. Blanchette, 549 F. 2d 901 (1977), the Third Circuit had before it both the Taft and McMann decisions. It accepted McMann’s distinction between the Act and its purposes, which, in this setting, we do not, but nevertheless concluded:
“The primary purpose of the Act is to prevent age discrimination in hiring and discharging workers. There is, however, a clear, measurable difference between outright discharge and retirement, a distinction that cannot be overlooked in analyzing the Act. While discharge without compensation is obviously undesirable, retirement on an adequate pension is generally regarded with favor. A careful examination of the legislative history demonstrates that, while cognizant of the disruptive effect retirement may have on individuals, Congress continued to regard retirement plans favorably and chose therefore to legislate only with respect to discharge.” 549 F. 2d, at 905. (Emphasis supplied; footnote omitted.)
The dissent relies heavily upon the legislative history, which by traditional canons of interpretation is irrevelant to an unambiguous statute. However, in view of the recourse to the legislative history we turn to that aspect to demonstrate the absence of any indication of congressional intent to undermine the countless bona fide retirement plans existing in 1967 when the Act was passed. Such a pervasive impact on bona fide existing plans should not be read into the Act without a clear, unambiguous expression in the statute.
When the Senate Subcommittee was considering the bill, the then Secretary of Labor, Willard Wirtz, was asked what effect the Act would have on existing pension plans. His response was:
“It would be my judgment . . . that the effect of the provision in 4 (f) (2) [of the original bill] ... is to protect the application of almost all plans which I know anything about. ... It is intended to protect retirement plans.” Hearings on S. 830 before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 53 (1967) (hereafter Senate Hearings) .
When the present language of § 4 (f) (2) was later proposed by amendments, Mr. Wirtz again commented that established pension plans would be protected. Hearings on H. R. 4221 et al. before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 40 (1967).
Senator Javits' concern with the administration version of §4 (f)(2), expressed in 1967 when the legislation was being debated, was that it did not appear to give employers flexibility to hire older employees without incurring extraordinary expenses because of their inclusion in existing retirement plans. His concern was not, as inferred by the dissent, that involuntary retirement programs would still be allowed. He said,
“The administration bill, which permits involuntary separation under bona fide retirement plans meets only part of the problem. It does not provide any flexibility in the amount of pension benefits payable to older workers depending on their age when hired, and thus may actually encourage employers, faced with the necessity of paying greatly increased premiums, to look for excuses not to hire older workers when they might have hired them under a law granting them a degree of flexibility with respect to such matters.
“That flexibility is what we recommend.
“We also recommend that the age discrimination law should not be used as the place to fight the pension battle but that we ought to subordinate the importance of adequate pension benefits for older workers in favor of the employment of such older workers and not make the equal treatment under pension plans a condition of that employment.” Senate Hearings 27.
In keeping with this objective Senator Javits proposed the amendment, which was incorporated into the 1967 Act, calling for “a fairly broad exemption ... for bona fide retirement and seniority systems which will facilitate hiring rather than deter it and make it possible for older workers to be employed without the necessity of disrupting those systems.” Id., at 28.
The true intent behind § 4 (f) (2) was not lost on the representatives of organized labor; they viewed it as protecting an employer’s right to require pre-65 retirement pursuant to a bona fide retirement plan and objected to it on that basis. The legislative director for the AFD-CIO testified:
“We likewise do not see any reason why the legislation should, as is provided in section 4(f)(2) of the Administration bill, permit involuntary retirement of employees under 65. . . . Involuntary retirement could be forced, regardless of the age of the employee, subject only to the limitation that the retirement policy or system in effect may not be merely a subterfuge to evade the Act.” Senate Hearings 96.
In order to protect workers against involuntary retirement, the AFL-CIO suggested an “Amendment to Eliminate Provision Permitting Involuntary Retirement From the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and to Substitute Therefor Provision Safeguarding Bona Fide Seniority or Merit Systems,” which would have deleted any reference to retirement plans in the exception. Id., at 100. This amendment was rejected.
But, as noted in Zinger, 549 F. 2d, at 907, the exemption of benefit plans remained in the bill as enacted notwithstanding labor’s objection, and the labor-proposed exemption for seniority systems was added. There is no basis to view the final version of § 4 (f) (2) as an acceptance of labor’s request that the benefit-plan provision be deleted; the plain language of the statute shows it is still there, albeit in different terms.
Also added to the section when it emerged from the Senate Subcommittee is the language “except that no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual.” Rather than reading this addendum as a redundancy, as does the dissent, post, at 212, and n. 5, it is clear this is the result of Senator Javits’ concern that observance of existing retirement plan terms might discourage hiring of older workers. Supra, at 200. Giving meaning to each of these provisions leads inescapably to the conclusion they were intended to permit observance of the mandatory retirement terms of bona fide retirement plans, but that the existence of such plans could not be used as an excuse not to hire any person because of age.
There is no reason to doubt that Secretary Wirtz fully appreciated the difference between the administration and Senate bills. He was aware of Senator Javits’ concerns, and knew the Senator sought to amend the original bill to focus on the hiring of older persons notwithstanding the existence of pension plans which they might not economically be permitted to join. See Senate Hearings 40. Senator Javits’ view was enacted into law making it possible to employ such older persons without compulsion to include them in pre-existing plans.
The dissent misconceives what was said in the Senate debate. The dialogue between Senators Javits and Yarborough, the minority and majority managers of the bill, respectively, is set out below and clearly shows awareness of the continued vitality of pre-age-65 retirements.
III
Iii this case, of course, our function is narrowly confined to discerning the meaning of the statutory language; we do not pass on the wisdom of fixed mandatory retirements at a particular age. So limited, we find nothing to indicate Congress intended wholesale invalidation of retirement plans instituted in good faith before its passage, or intended to require employers to bear the burden of showing a business or economic purpose to justify bona fide pre-existing plans as the Fourth Circuit concluded. In ordinary parlance, and in dictionary definitions as well, a subterfuge is a scheme, plan, stratagem, or artifice of evasion. In the context of this statute, “subterfuge” must be given its ordinary meaning and we must assume Congress intended it in that sense. So read, a plan established in 1941, if bona fide, as is conceded here, cannot be a subterfuge to evade an Act passed 26 years later. To spell out an intent in 1941 to evade a statutory requirement not enacted until 1967 attributes, at the very least, a remarkable prescience to the employer. We reject any such per se rule requiring an employer to show an economic or business purpose in order to satisfy the subterfuge language of the Act.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The plan paid retirement benefits pursuant to a group annuity contract between United and two life insurance companies.
The same concession was made in this Court.
No brief amicus was filed on behalf of the Department of Labor in this Court, but after submission of the case following oral argument the Solicitor General wrote a letter to the Clerk of this Court stating that the Government agreed with the Eourth Circuit and was prepared to file a brief amicus within three weeks. The Rules of this Court do not allow the filing of briefs amicus after oral argument. See Rule 42. No motion for leave to file a brief amicus was filed.
We note, too, that the Department of Labor’s interpretation of § 4 (f) (2), issued nearly contemporaneously with the effective date of the Act, was that the meaning did not turn on whether or not all employees under a plan are required to retire at the same age.
“The fact that an employer may decide to permit certain employees to continue working beyond the age stipulated in the formal retirement program does not, in and of itself, render an otherwise bona fide plan invalid, insofar as the ¡exception provided in Section 4 (f) (2) is concerned.” 29 CFR §860.110 (a) (1976).
The Department’s more recent position on the section is that pre-65 retirements “are unlawful unless the mandatory retirement provision . . . is required by the terms of the plan and is not optional . . . .” U. S. Department of Labor, Annual Report on Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, p. 17 (1975). Having concluded, as did the Court of Appeals, that the United plan calls for mandatory retirement at age 60, however, we need not consider this further.
Similarly, in De Loraine v. MEBA Pension Trust, 499 F. 2d 49 (CA2), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1009 (1974), the court said a bona fide pension plan ¡established in 1955 was not a subterfuge. That case did not properly present the question of whether the Act forbade involuntary retirement before age 65 and the court did not purport to decide it. 499 F. 2d, at 51 n. 7. Steiner v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 377 F. Supp. 945, 948 (CD Cal. 1974), aff’d, No. 74-2604 (CA9, Oct. 15, 1975), likewise rejected the idea that a pension plan established long before the Act could be a subterfuge saying: “Obviously it could not have been evolved in an attempt to circumvent any public policy or law.”
Section 4 (f)(2) of the original administration bill provided: “It shall not be unlawful for an employer ... to separate involuntarily an employee under a retirement policy or system where such policy or system is not merely a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this Act . . . .”
Legislative observations 10 years after passage of the Act are in no sense part of the legislative history. See post, at 218.
“Mr. YARBOROUGH. I wish to say to the Senator that that is basically my understanding of the provision in line 22, page 20 of the bill, clause 2, subsection (f) of section 4, when it refers to retirement, pension, or insurance plan, it means that a man who would not have been employed except for this law does not have to receive the benefits of the plan. Say an applicant for employment is 55, comes in and seeks employment, and the company has bargained for a plan with its labor union that provides that certain moneys will be put up for a pension plan for anyone who worked for the employer for 20 years'so that a 55-year-old employee would not be employed past 10 years. This means he cannot be denied employment because he is 55, but he will not be able to participate in that pension plan because unlike a man hired at 44, he has no chance to earn 20 years retirement. In other words, this will not disrupt the bargained-for pension plan. This will not deny an individual employment or prospective employment but will limit his rights to obtain full consideration in the pension, retirement, or insurance plan.
“Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague. That is important to business people.” 113 Cong. Rec. 31255 (1967).
Reference is made by the dissent, post, at 219 n, 13, to a recital on §4 (f)(2) in the House Report. The House Report states:
“[Section 4 (f) (2)] applies to new and existing employee benefit plans, and to both the establishment and maintenance of such plans. This exception serves to emphasize the primary purpose of the bill — hiring of older workers — by permitting employment without necessarily including such workers in employee benefit plans. The specific exception was an amendment to the original bill, is considered vita[l] to the legislation, and was favorably received by witnesses at the hearings.” H. R. Rep. No. 805, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1967). (Emphasis supplied.)
The italicized portion shows quite clearly that the primary purpose of the bill was the hiring of older workers. A quite different question would be presented if a pre-existing bona fide plan were used as a reason for refusing to hire an older applicant for employment.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States, 340 U. S. 54, decided this day. Here, as there, the Government insured petitioner’s ship against war risks including “all consequences of hostilities or warlike operations.” The ordinary marine risks were covered by a Lloyd’s policy. The vessel, United States Army Transport David W. Branch, stranded on January 13, 1942, when an inexperienced helmsman made a mistake in steering. The Government admits that the Branch was engaged in the warlike operation of transporting military supplies and personnel between war bases, but denies that the warlike phases of the operation caused the stranding. The Court of Claims found as a fact that there was no causal connection between the “warlike operation” and the stranding, and accordingly gave judgment for the United States. 115 Ct. Cl. 290, 87 F. Supp. 866. Petitioner’s contentions for reversal here are substantially the same as those advanced in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States, supra. The reasons given for our holding there require affirmance in this case.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents for the reasons set forth in his dissent in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States, 340 U. S. 54, 70, decided this day.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Comptroller of the Currency recently relied on a statutory provision enacted in 1916 to permit national banks located in small communities to sell insurance to customers outside those communities. These cases present the unlikely question whether Congress repealed that provision in 1918. We hold that no repeal occurred.
I
Almost 80 years ago, Congress authorized any national bank “doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants... [to] act as the agent for any fire, life, or other insurance company.” Act of Sept. 7, 1916, 39 Stat. 753. In the first compilation of the United States Code, this provision appeared as section 92 of Title 12. See 12 U. S. C. § 92 (1926 ed.); see also United States Code editions of 1934, 1940, and 1946. The 1952 edition of the Code, however, omitted the insurance provision, with a note indicating that Congress had repealed it in 1918. See 12 U. S. C. § 92 (1952 ed.) (note). Though the provision has also been left out of the subsequent editions of the United States Code, including the current one (each containing in substance the same note that appeared in 1952, see United States Code editions of 1958, 1964, 1970, 1976, 1982, and 1988), the parties refer to it as “section 92,” and so will we.
Despite the absence of section 92 from the Code, Congress has assumed that it remains in force, on one occasion actually-amending it. See Gam-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, § 403(b), 96 Stat. 1511; see also Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987, § 201(b)(5), 101 Stat. 583 (imposing a 1-year moratorium on section 92 activities). The regulators concerned with the provision’s subject, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board, have likewise acted on the understanding that section 92 remains the law, see Brief for Federal Petitioners in No. 92-507, pp. 31-32; Brief for Petitioner in No. 92-484, pp. 26-28, and indeed it was a ruling by the Comptroller relying on section 92 that precipitated these cases.
The ruling came on a request by United States National Bank of Oregon (Bank), a national bank with its principal place of business in Portland, Oregon, to sell insurance through its branch in Banks, Oregon (population: 489), to customers nationwide. The Comptroller approved the request in 1986, interpreting section 92 to permit national bank branches located in communities with populations not exceeding 5,000 to sell insurance to customers not only inside but also outside those communities. See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 92-507, pp. 74a-79a. The Bank is the petitioner in the first of the cases we decide today; the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the United States are the petitioners in the other.
Respondents in both cases are various trade organizations representing insurance agents. They challenged the Comptroller’s decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the Comptroller’s ruling to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). Respondents argued, among other things, that the ruling was inconsistent with section 92, which respondents maintained permits national banks located in small communities to sell insurance only to customers in those communities. The District Court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the federal parties and the Bank, a defendant-intervenor, on the ground that the Comptroller’s interpretation was “rational and consistent with [section 92].” National Assn. of Life Underwriters v. Clarke, 736 F. Supp. 1162, 1173 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The District Court thought it “worth noting that this section no longer appears in the United States Code” as it “apparently was inadvertently repealed” in 1918; but because Congress, the Comptroller, and other courts have presumed its continuing validity, the court was content to assume that the provision exists “in proprio vigore,” meaning, we take it, of its own force. Id., at 1163, n. 2.
Respondents had not asked the District Court to rule that section 92 no longer existed, and they took the same tack before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, merely noting in their opening brief that section 92 may have been repealed in 1918 and then stating that all the relevant players had assumed its validity. The Court of Appeals, nevertheless, directed the parties to be prepared to address the status of section 92 at oral argument, and after oral argument (at which respondents’ counsel declined to argue that the provision was no longer in force) ordered supplemental briefing on the issue. In their supplemental brief, respondents urged the court to decide the question, but took no position on whether section 92 was valid law. The Court of Appeals did decide the issue, reversing the District Court’s decision and remanding with instructions to enter judgment for respondents. The court found first that, though the parties had not on their own questioned the validity of section 92, the court had a “duty” to do so, Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc. v. Clarke, 293 U. S. App. D. C. 403, 406, 955 F. 2d 731, 734 (1992); and, second, that the relevant statutes, “traditionally construed,” demonstrate that Congress repealed section 92 in 1918, id., at 407, 955 F. 2d, at 735. Judge Silberman, dissenting, would have affirmed without addressing the validity of section 92, an issue he thought was not properly before the court. Id., at 413-416, 955 F. 2d, at 741-744. The Court of Appeals denied respondents’ suggestion for rehearing en banc, with several judges filing separate statements. See 296 U. S. App. D. C. 115, 965 F. 2d 1077 (1992).
The Bank and the federal parties separately petitioned for certiorari, both petitions presenting the question whether section 92 remains in force and the Bank presenting the additional question whether the Court of Appeals properly addressed the issue. Because of a conflict on the important question whether section 92 is valid law, see American Land Title Assn. v. Clarke, 968 F. 2d 150, 151-154 (CA2 1992), cert. pending, Nos. 92-482, 92-645, we granted the petitions. 506 U. S. 1032 (1992). We now reverse.
II
Before turning to the status of section 92, we address the Bank’s threshold question, whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the issue at all. Respondents did not challenge the validity of section 92 before the District Court; they did not do so in their opening brief in the Court of Appeals or, despite the court’s invitation, at oral argument. Not until the Court of Appeals ordered supplemental briefing on the status of section 92 did respondents even urge the court to resolve the issue, while still taking no position on the merits. The Bank contends that the Court of Appeals lacked the authority to consider whether section 92 remains the law and, alternatively, that it abused its discretion in doing so. There is no need to linger long over either argument.
“The exercise of judicial power under Art. Ill of the Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy,” and “a federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.” Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U. S. 395, 401 (1975); see also Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 97 (1968). The Bank maintains that there was no case or controversy about the validity of section 92, and that in resolving the status of the provision the Court of Appeals violated the Article III prohibition against advisory opinions.
There is no doubt, however, that from the start respondents’ suit was the “pursuance of an honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights by one [party] against another,” Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 359 (1911) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), that “valuable legal rights... [would] be directly affected to a specific and substantial degree” by a decision on whether the Comptroller’s ruling was proper and lawful, Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 262 (1933), and that the Court of Appeals therefore had before it a real case and controversy extending to that issue. Though the parties did not lock horns over the status of section 92, they did clash over whether the Comptroller properly relied on section 92 as authority for his ruling, and “[w]hen an issue or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law,” Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500 U. S. 90, 99 (1991), even where the proper construction is that a law does not govern because it is not in force. “The judicial Power” extends to cases “arising under___the Laws of the United States,” Art. Ill, § 2, cl. 1, and a court properly asked to construe a law has the constitutional power to determine whether the law exists, cf. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 405 (1821) (“[I]f, in any controversy depending in a court, the cause should depend on the validity of such a law, that would be a case arising under the constitution, to which the judicial power of the United States would extend”) (Marshall, C. J.). The contrary conclusion would permit litigants, by agreeing on the legal issue presented, to extract the opinion of a court on hypothetical Acts of Congress or dubious constitutional principles, an opinion that would be difficult to characterize as anything but advisory.
Nor did prudence oblige the Court of Appeals to treat the unasserted argument that section 92 had been repealed as having been waived. Respondents argued from the start, as we noted, that section 92 was not authority for the Comptroller’s ruling, and a court may consider an issue “antecedent to... and ultimately dispositive of” the dispute before it, even an issue the parties fail to identify and brief. Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U. S. 73, 77 (1990); cf. Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., ante, at 88-89, n. 9 (addressing a legal question as to which the parties agreed on the answer). The omission of section 92 from the United States Code, moreover, along with the codifiers’ indication that the provision had been repealed, created honest doubt about whether section 92 existed as law, and a court “need not render judgment on the basis of a rule of law whose nonexistence is apparent on the face of things, simply because the parties agree upon it.” United States v. Burke, 504 U. S. 229, 246 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). While the Bank says that by initially accepting the widespread assumption that section 92 remains in force, respondents forfeited their right to have the Court of Appeals consider whether the law exists, “[tjhere can be no estoppel in the way of ascertaining the existence of a law,” South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260, 267 (1877). In addressing the status of section 92, the Court of Appeals did not stray beyond its constitutional or prudential boundaries.
The Court of Appeals, accordingly, had discretion to consider the validity of section 92, and under the circumstances did not abuse it. The court was asked to determine under the APA whether the Comptroller’s ruling was in accordance with a statutory provision that the keepers of the United States Code had suggested was no longer in force, on appeal from a District Court justifying its reliance on the law by the logic that, despite its “inadverten[t] repea[l],” section 92 remained in effect of its own force. 736 F. Supp., at 1163, n. 2. After giving the parties ample opportunity to address the issue, the Court of Appeals acted without any impropriety in refusing to accept what in effect was a stipulation on a question of law. Cf. Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley R. Co., 243 U. S. 281, 289 (1917). We need not decide whether the Court of Appeals had, as it concluded, a “duty” to address the status of section 92 (which would imply error in declining to do so), for the court’s decision to consider the issue was certainly no abuse of its discretion.
Ill
A
Though the appearance of a provision in the current edition of the United States Code is “prima facie” evidence that the provision has the force of law, 1 U. S. C. § 204(a), it is the Statutes at Large that provides the “legal evidence of laws,” § 112, and despite its omission from the Code section 92 remains on the books if the Statutes at Large so dictates. Cf. United States v. Welden, 377 U. S. 95, 98, n. 4 (1964); Stephan v. United States, 319 U. S. 423, 426 (1943) (per curiam). The analysis that underlies our conclusion that section 92 is valid law calls for familiarity with several provisions appearing in the Statutes at Large. This section provides the necessary statutory background.
The background begins in 1863 and 1864, when the Civil War Congress enacted and then reenacted the National Bank Act, which-launched the modern national banking system by providing for federal chartering of private commercial banks and empowering the newly created national banks to issue and accept a uniform national currency. Act of Feb. 25, 1863, ch. 58,12 Stat. 665; Act of June 3,1864, ch. 106,13 Stat. 99; see E. Symons, Jr., & J. White, Banking Law 22-25 (3d ed. 1991); see also 12 U. S. C. §38. In a section important for these eases, the National Bank Act set limits on the indebtedness of national banks, subject to certain exceptions. See §42,12 Stat. 677 (1863 Act); §36,13 Stat. 110 (1864 Act). Ten years later, Congress adopted the indebtedness provision again as part of the Revised Statutes of the United States, a massive revision, reorganization, and reenactment of all statutes in effeet at the time, accompanied by a simultaneous repeal of all prior ones. Rev. Stat. §§ 1-5601 (1874); see also Dwan & Feidler, The Federal Statutes — Their History and Use, 22 Minn. L. Rev. 1008, 1012-1015 (1938). Title 62 of the Revised Statutes, containing §§ 5133 through 5243, included the Nation’s banking laws, and, with a few stylistic alterations, the National Bank Act’s indebtedness provision became § 5202 of the Revised Statutes:
Sec. 5202. No association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such time actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on account of demands of the nature following:
First. Notes of circulation.
Second. Moneys deposited with or collected by the association.
Third. Bills of exchange or drafts drawn against money actually on deposit to the credit of the association, or due thereto.
Fourth. Liabilities to the stockholders of the association for dividends and reserved profits.
In 1913 Congress amended Rev. Stat. § 5202 by adding a fifth exception to the indebtedness limit. The amendment was a detail of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (Federal Reserve Act or 1913 Act), which created Federal Reserve banks and the Federal Reserve Board and required the national banks formed pursuant to the National Bank Act to become members of the new Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve Act, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251; see P. Studenski & H. Krooss, Financial History of the United States 255-262 (2d ed. 1963). The amendment came in § 13 of the 1913 Act, the first five paragraphs of which set forth the powers of the new Federal Reserve banks, such as the authority to accept and discount various forms of notes and commercial paper, including those issued by national banks. Federal Reserve Act, § 13,38 Stat. 263-264. This (subject to ellipsis) followed:
Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows: No national banking association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such time actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on account of demands of the nature following:
Fifth. Liabilities incurred under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act.
38 Stat. 264. The next and final paragraph of § 13 authorized the Federal Reserve Board to issue regulations governing the rediscount by Federal Reserve banks of bills receivable and bills of exchange. Ibid.
In 1916, Congress enacted what became section 92. It did so as part of a statute that amended various sections of the Federal Reserve Act and that, in the view of respondents and the Court of Appeals, also amended Rev. Stat. §5202. Act of Sept. 7, 1916, 39 Stat. 752 (1916 Act). Unlike the 1913 Act, the 1916 Act employed quotation marks, and those quotation marks proved critical to the Court of Appeals’s finding that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in Rev. Stat. § 5202. After amending § 11 of the Federal Reserve Act, the 1916 Act provided, without quotation marks,
[t]hat section thirteen be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
Ibid. Then followed within quotation marks several paragraphs that track the first five paragraphs of § 13 of the 1913 Act, the modifications generally expanding the powers of Federal Reserve banks. After the quotation marks closed, this appeared:
Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows: “No national banking association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such time actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on account of demands of the nature following:
“First. Notes of circulation.
“Second. Moneys deposited with or collected by the association.
“Third. Bills of exchange or drafts drawn against money actually on deposit to the credit of the association, or due thereto.
“Fourth. Liabilities to the stockholders of the association for dividends and reserve profits.
“Fifth. Liabilities incurred under the provisions of the Federal reserve Act.
“The discount and rediscount and the purchase and sale by any Federal reserve bank of any bills receivable and of domestic and foreign bills of exchange, and of acceptances authorized by this Act, shall be subject to such restrictions, limitations, and regulations as may be imposed by the Federal Reserve Board.
“That in addition to the powers now vested by law in national banking associations organized under the laws of the United States any such association located and doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants, as shown by the last preceding decennial census, may, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency, act as the agent for any fire, life, or other insurance company authorized by the authorities of the State in which said bank is located to do business in said State....
“Any member bank may accept drafts or bills of exchange drawn upon it having not more than three months’ sight to run, exclusive of days of grace, drawn under regulations to be prescribed by the Federal Reserve Board by banks or bankers in foreign countries or dependencies or insular possessions of the United States for the purpose of furnishing dollar exchange as required by the usages of trade in the respective countries, dependencies, or insular possessions. Such drafts or bills may be acquired by Federal reserve banks in such amounts and subject to such regulations, restrictions, and limitations as may be prescribed by the Federal Reserve Board....”
39 Stat. 753-754 The second-to-last paragraph just quoted is the first appearance of the provision eventually codified as 12 U. S. C. § 92. After the quotation marks closed, the 1916 Act went on to amend § 14 of the Federal Reserve Act, introducing the amendment with a phrase not surrounded by quotation marks and then placing the revised language of § 14 within quotation marks. 39 Stat. 754. The pattern was repeated for amendments of §§ 16, 24, and 25 of the Federal Reserve Act. Id., at 754-756.
The final relevant statute is the War Finance Corporation Act, ch. 45, 40 Stat. 506 (1918 Act), which in §20 amended Rev. Stat. § 5202 by, at least, adding a sixth exception to the indebtedness limit:
Sec. 20. Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
“Sec. 5202. No national banking association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such time actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on account of demands of the nature following:
“Sixth. Liabilities incurred under the provisions of the War Finance Corporation Act.”
40 Stat. 512.
B
The argument that section 92 is no longer in force, adopted by the Court of Appeals and pressed here by respondents, is simply stated: the 1916 Act placed section 92 in Rev. Stat. § 5202, and the 1918 Act eliminated all of Rev. Stat. § 5202 except the indebtedness provision (to which it added a sixth exception), thus repealing section 92. Our discussion begins with the first premise of that argument, and there it ends, for we conclude with petitioners that the 1916 Act placed section 92 not in Rev. Stat. § 5202 but in § 13 of the Federal Reserve Act; since the 1918 Act did not touch § 13, it did not affect, much less repeal, section 92.
A reader following the path of punctuation of the 1916 Act would no doubt arrive at the opposite conclusion, that the statute added section 92 to Rev. Stat. § 5202. The 1916 Act reads, without quotation marks, Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows. 39 Stat. 753. That phrase is followed by a colon and then opening quotation marks; closing quotation marks do not appear until several paragraphs later, and the paragraph that was later codified as 12 U. S. C. § 92 is one of those within the opening and closing quotation marks. The unavoidable inference from familiar rules of punctuation is that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in Rev. Stat. § 5202.
A statute’s plain meaning must be enforced, of course, and the meaning of a statute will typically heed the commands of its punctuation. But a purported plain-meaning analysis based only on punctuation is necessarily incomplete and runs the risk of distorting a statute’s true meaning. Along with punctuation, text consists of words living “a communal existence,” in Judge Learned Hand’s phrase, the meaning of each word informing the others and “all in their aggregate tak[ing] their purport from the setting in which they are used.” NLRB v. Federbush Co., 121 F. 2d 954, 957 (CA2
1941). Over and over we have stressed that “[i]n expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.” United States v. Heirs of Boisdoré, 8 How. 113,122 (1849) (quoted in more than a dozen cases, most recently Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U. S. 26, 35 (1990)); see also King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991). No more than isolated words or sentences is punctuation alone a reliable guide for discovery of a statute’s meaning. Statutory construction “is a holistic endeavor,” United Savings Assn, of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365,371 (1988), and, at a minimum, must account for a statute’s full text, language as well as punctuation, structure, and subject matter.
Here, though the deployment of quotation marks in the 1916 Act points in one direction, all of the other evidence from the statute points the other way. It points so certainly, in our view, as to allow only the conclusion that the punctuation marks were misplaced and that the 1916 Act put section 92 not in Rev. Stat. §5202 but in §13 of the Federal Reserve Act.
The first thing to notice, we think, is the 1916 Act’s structure. The Act begins by stating [tjhat the Act entitled “Federal reserve Act,” approved [19IS], be, and is hereby, amended as follows. 39 Stat. 752. It then contains what appear to be seven directory phrases not surrounded by quotation marks, each of which is followed by one or more paragraphs within opening and closing quotation marks. These are the seven phrases (the numbers and citations in brackets are ours):
[1] At the end of section eleven insert a new clause as follows:
“...” [39 Stat. 752]
[2] That section thirteen be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
..” [39 Stat. 752]
[3] Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
..” [39 Stat. 753]
[4] That subsection (e) of section fourteen, be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
..” [39 Stat. 754]
[5] That the second paragraph of section sixteen be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
[39 Stat. 754]
[6] That section twenty-four be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
“..” [39 Stat. 754]
[7] That section twenty-five be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
[39 Stat. 755]
The paragraph eventually codified as 12 U. S. C. § 92 is one of several inside the quotation marks that open after the third phrase, which “hereby amended” Rev. Stat. §5202, and that close before the fourth, and the argument that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in Rev. Stat. § 5202 hinges on the assumption that the third phrase is a directory phrase like each of the others. But the structure of the Act supports another possibility, that the third phrase does not introduce a new amendment at all. Of the seven phrases, only the third does not in terms refer to a section of the Federal Reserve Act. Congress, to be sure, was free to take a detour from its work on the Federal Reserve Act to revise the Revised Statutes. But if Congress had taken that turn, one would expect some textual indication of the point where once its work on Rev. Stat. § 5202 was done it returned to revision of the Federal Reserve Act. None of the directory phrases that follow the phrase mentioning Rev. Stat. § 5202, however, refers back to the Federal Reserve Act. The failure of the fourth phrase, for example, to say something like “subsection (e) of section fourteen of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is hereby amended” suggests that the Congress never veered from its original course, that the object of the 1916 Act was singlemindedly to revise sections of the Federal Reserve Act, and that amending the Revised Statutes was beyond the 1916 law’s scope.
Further evidence that the 1916 Act amended only the Federal Reserve Act comes from the 1916 Act’s title: An Act To amend certain sections of the Act entitled “Federal reserve Act,” approved December twenty-third, nineteen hundred and thirteen. During this era the titles of statutes that revised pre-existing laws appear to have typically mentioned each of the laws they revised. See, e. g., Act of Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, 40 Stat. 967 (“An Act to amend and reenact sections four, eleven, sixteen, nineteen, and twenty-two of the Act approved December twenty-third, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and known as the Federal reserve Act, and sections fifty-two hundred and eight and fifty-two hundred and nine, Revised Statutes”). Cf. ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 (“Federal Reserve Act”). Absent a comprehensive review it is impossible to know the extent of exceptions to this general rule, if any, and we would not cast aside the 1916 Act’s punctuation based solely on the Act’s title. Nevertheless, the omission of the Revised Statutes from the 1916 Act’s title does provide supporting evidence for the inference from the Act’s structure, that the Act did not amend Rev. Stat. § 5202. Cf. INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U. S. 183, 189 (1991) (titles within a statute “can aid in resolving an ambiguity in the legislation’s text”).
One must ask, however, why the 1916 Act stated that Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows, 39 Stat. 753, if it did not amend Rev. Stat. §5202. The answer emerges from comparing the 1916 Act with the statute that all agree it did amend, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and noticing that the identical directory phrase appeared in § 13 of the 1913 Act, which did amend Rev. Stat. §5202. As enacted in 1913, §13 contained several paragraphs granting powers to Federal Reserve banks; it then included a paragraph amending Rev. Stat. § 5202 (by adding a fifth exception to the indebtedness limit for “Pliabilities incurred under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act”), a paragraph that began Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows. 38 Stat. 264. The 1916 Act, in the portion following the phrase introducing a revision of § 13 of the 1913 Act, proceeded in the same manner. It contained several paragraphs granting powers to Federal Reserve banks, paragraphs that are somewhat revised versions of the ones that appeared in the 1913 Act, followed by the phrase introducing an amendment to Rev. Stat. § 5202 and then the language of Rev. Stat. § 5202 as it appeared in the 1913 Act. The similarity of the language of the 1916 and 1913 Acts suggests that, in order to amend § 13 in 1916, Congress restated the 1913 version of §13 in its entirety, revising the portion it intended to change and leaving the rest unaltered, including the portion that had amended Rev. Stat. § 5202.
In defending the Court of Appeals’s contrary conclusion that the 1916 Act amended Rev. Stat. §5202, respondents argue that any other reading would render meaningless the language in the 1916 Act that purports to amend that section of the Revised Statutes. But the 1916 Congress would have had good reason to carry forward that portion of the 1913 Act containing Rev. Stat. § 5202, even though in 1916 it did not intend to amend it any further. The 1916 Act revised § 13 of the 1913 Act by completely restating it with a mixture of old and new language (providing that § 13 is amended “to read as follows,” 39 Stat. 752), and a failure to restate Rev. Stat. § 5202 with its 1913 amendment could have been taken to indicate its repeal.
The final and decisive evidence that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in § 13 of the. Federal Reserve Act rather than Rev. Stat. §5202 is provided by the language and subject matter of section 92 and the paragraphs surrounding it, paragraphs within the same opening and closing quotation marks. In the paragraph preceding section 92, the 1916 Act granted the Federal Reserve Board authority to regulate the
discount and rediscount and the purchase and sale by any Federal reserve bank of any bills receivable and of domestic and foreign bills of exchange, and of acceptances authorized by this Act....
39 Stat. 753 (emphasis added). “[Tjhis Act” must mean the Federal Reserve Act, since it was §13 of the Federal Reserve Act that granted banks the authority to discount and rediscount. Use of “this Act” in the discount-and-rediscount paragraph is powerful proof that the 1916 Act placed that paragraph in the Act to which it necessarily refers, the Federal Reserve Act. That is crucial because section 92 travels together with the paragraphs that surround it; neither the language nor, certainly, the punctuation of the 1916 Act justifies separating them. Because the 1916 Act placed the paragraph preceding section 92 in §13 of the Federal Reserve Act, it follows that the 1916 Act placed section 92 there too.
We are not persuaded by respondents’ argument that the term “this Act” in the discount-and-rediscount paragraph is an antecedent reference to “the Federal reserve Act,” which is mentioned in the prior paragraph (in the fifth exception clause of Rev. Stat. § 5202). 39 Stat. 753; see also 38 Stat. 264 (1913 Act). If respondents are right, then the 1916 Act may be read as placing the discount-and-rediscount paragraph (and section 92, which necessarily accompanies it) in Rev. Stat. § 5202. But while the antecedent interpretation is arguable as construing “this Act” in the discount-andrediscount paragraph, that reading cannot attach to the other uses of “this Act” in the 1916 Act, see 39 Stat. 752, 753, 754, since none is within the vicinity of a reference to the Federal Reserve Act. Presumptively, “
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We granted certiorari in this case, 468 U. S. 1216 (1984), to decide whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies in civil liquor license revocation hearings. Some state courts have held that the exclusionary rule applies. See New York State Liquor Authority v. Finn’s Liquor Shop Inc., 24 N. Y. 2d 647, 249 N. E. 2d 440, cert. denied, 396 U. S. 840 (1969); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Leonardziak, 210 Pa. Super. 511, 233 A. 2d 606 (1967) (exclusionary rule applies in Liquor Control Board proceeding in which Board imposed fine, but could also have revoked license). Illinois, on the other hand, admits evidence obtained during a search pursuant to an invalid warrant on the reasoning that the State can and does require consent to a warrantless search as a prerequisite to the issuance of a liquor license. Daley v. Berzanskis, 47 Ill. 2d 395, 269 N. E. 2d 716 (1971).
In proceedings below, the Tiverton Board of License Commissioners had considered evidence obtained during a search of the Attic Lounge, a local liquor-serving establishment, in deciding to revoke its license. A Rhode Island judge in related criminal proceedings subsequently ruled that the evidence had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Rhode Island v. Benoit, No. N2/77-51 (Super. Ct. Newport Cty., R. L, Jan. 16, 1978). The Attic Lounge then argued that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be admitted in a civil hearing to revoke its liquor license. The Rhode Island Liquor Control Administrator reversed the decision of the Tiverton Commissioners on unrelated grounds, and directed that the license be reinstated. After losing an appeal to the State Superior Court, Civ. Action No. 78-2659 (Super. Ct., Providence Cty., R. L, Aug. 6, 1980), the Tiverton Commissioners obtained review in the Rhode Island Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari naming both the Attic Lounge and the Liquor Control Administrator as respondents. The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to liquor license revocation hearings. 463 A. 2d 161 (1983).
After this Court issued a writ of certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, considered briefs on the merits, and commenced oral argument, we learned that the Attic Lounge has gone out of business. Counsel for both the Tiverton Board of License Commissioners and the respondent Liquor Control Administrator stated at oral argument that no decision on the merits by this Court can now have an effect on the Attic Lounge’s liquor license. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28, 31. The case is therefore moot. At oral argument counsel discussed some circumstances under which a decision on the merits by this Court might conceivably affect substantive rights of interested parties. But as the Court noted in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 320, n. 5 (1974):
“ ‘[S]uch speculative contingencies afford no basis for our passing on the substantive issues [the petitioner] would have us decide,’ Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45, 49 (1969), in the absence of ‘evidence that this is a prospect of immediacy and reality.’ Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 109 (1969); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941).”
It is appropriate to remind counsel that they have a “continuing duty to inform the Court of any development which may conceivably affect the outcome” of the litigation. Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379, 391 (1975) (Burger, C. J., concurring). When a development after this Court grants certiorari or notes probable jurisdiction could have the effect of depriving the Court of jurisdiction due to the absence of a continuing case or controversy, that development should be called to the attention of the Court without delay. See this Court’s Rules 34.1(g) (petitioner’s statement of the case shall contain all that is material to the issues); 34.2 (respondent’s brief may correct any omission from petitioner’s statement); and 35.5 (parties may file supplemental briefs after briefs on the merits to point out intervening matters not contained in the merits briefs).
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as moot.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Copyright Act grants potent, decades-long monopoly protection for "original works of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). The question in this case is whether that protection extends to the annotations contained in Georgia's official annotated code.
We hold that it does not. Over a century ago, we recognized a limitation on copyright protection for certain government work product, rooted in the Copyright Act's "authorship" requirement. Under what has been dubbed the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of-and therefore cannot copyright-the works they create in the course of their official duties.
We have previously applied that doctrine to hold that non-binding, explanatory legal materials are not copyrightable when created by judges who possess the authority to make and interpret the law. See Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36, 32 L.Ed. 425 (1888). We now recognize that the same logic applies to non-binding, explanatory legal materials created by a legislative body vested with the authority to make law. Because Georgia's annotations are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its legislative duties, the government edicts doctrine puts them outside the reach of copyright protection.
I
A
The State of Georgia has one official code-the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated," or OCGA. The first page of each volume of the OCGA boasts the State's official seal and announces to readers that it is "Published Under Authority of the State."
The OCGA includes the text of every Georgia statute currently in force, as well as various non-binding supplementary materials. At issue in this case is a set of annotations that appear beneath each statutory provision. The annotations generally include summaries of judicial decisions applying a given provision, summaries of any pertinent opinions of the state attorney general, and a list of related law review articles and similar reference materials. In addition, the annotations often include editor's notes that provide information about the origins of the statutory text, such as whether it derives from a particular judicial decision or resembles an older provision that has been construed by Georgia courts. See, e.g., OCGA §§ 51-1-1, 53-4-2 (2019).
The OCGA is assembled by a state entity called the Code Revision Commission. In 1977, the Georgia Legislature established the Commission to recodify Georgia law for the first time in decades. The Commission was (and remains) tasked with consolidating disparate bills into a single Code for reenactment by the legislature and contracting with a third party to produce the annotations. A majority of the Commission's 15 members must be members of the Georgia Senate or House of Representatives. The Commission receives funding through appropriations "provided for the legislative branch of state government." OCGA § 28-9-2(c) (2018). And it is staffed by the Office of Legislative Counsel, which is obligated by statute to provide services "for the legislative branch of government." §§ 28-4-3(c)(4), 28-9-4. Under the Georgia Constitution, the Commission's role in compiling the statutory text and accompanying annotations falls "within the sphere of legislative authority." Harrison Co. v. Code Revision Comm'n, 244 Ga. 325, 330, 260 S.E.2d 30, 34 (1979).
Each year, the Commission submits its proposed statutory text and accompanying annotations to the legislature for approval. The legislature then votes to do three things: (1) "enact[ ]" the "statutory portion of the codification of Georgia laws"; (2) "merge[ ]" the statutory portion "with [the] annotations"; and (3) "publish[ ]" the final merged product "by authority of the state" as "the 'Official Code of Georgia Annotated.' " OCGA § 1-1-1 (2019); see Code Revision Comm'n v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 906 F.3d 1229, 1245, 1255 (CA11 2018) ; Tr. of Oral Arg. 8.
The annotations in the current OCGA were prepared in the first instance by Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., a division of the LexisNexis Group, pursuant to a work-for-hire agreement with the Commission. The agreement between Lexis and the Commission states that any copyright in the OCGA vests exclusively in "the State of Georgia, acting through the Commission." App. 567. Lexis and its army of researchers perform the lion's share of the work in drafting the annotations, but the Commission supervises that work and specifies what the annotations must include in exacting detail. See 906 F.3d at 1243-1244 ; App. 269-278, 286-427 (Commission specifications). Under the agreement, Lexis enjoys the exclusive right to publish, distribute, and sell the OCGA. In exchange, Lexis has agreed to limit the price it may charge for the OCGA and to make an unannotated version of the statutory text available to the public online for free. A hard copy of the complete OCGA currently retails for $412.00.
B
Public.Resource.Org (PRO) is a nonprofit organization that aims to facilitate public access to government records and legal materials. Without permission, PRO posted a digital version of the OCGA on various websites, where it could be downloaded by the public without charge. PRO also distributed copies of the OCGA to various organizations and Georgia officials.
In response, the Commission sent PRO several cease-and-desist letters asserting that PRO's actions constituted unlawful copyright infringement. When PRO refused to halt its distribution activities, the Commission sued PRO on behalf of the Georgia Legislature and the State of Georgia for copyright infringement. The Commission limited its assertion of copyright to the annotations described above; it did not claim copyright in the statutory text or numbering. PRO counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the entire OCGA, including the annotations, fell in the public domain.
The District Court sided with the Commission. The Court acknowledged that the annotations in the OCGA presented "an unusual case because most official codes are not annotated and most annotated codes are not official." Code Revision Comm'n v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 244 F.Supp.3d 1350, 1356 (ND Ga. 2017). But, ultimately, the Court concluded that the annotations were eligible for copyright protection because they were "not enacted into law" and lacked "the force of law." Ibid. In light of that conclusion, the Court granted partial summary judgment to the Commission and entered a permanent injunction requiring PRO to cease its distribution activities and to remove the digital copies of the OCGA from the internet.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed. 906 F.3d 1229. The Court began by reviewing the three 19th-century cases in which we articulated the government edicts doctrine. See Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 8 L.Ed. 1055 (1834) ; Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36, 32 L.Ed. 425 (1888) ; Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617, 9 S.Ct. 177, 32 L.Ed. 547 (1888). The Court understood those cases to establish a "rule" based on an interpretation of the statutory term "author" that "works created by courts in the performance of their official duties did not belong to the judges" but instead fell "in the public domain." 906 F.3d at 1239. In the Court's view, that rule "derive[s] from first principles about the nature of law in our democracy." Ibid. In a democracy, the Court reasoned, "the People" are "the constructive authors" of the law, and judges and legislators are merely "draftsmen... exercising delegated authority." Ibid. The Court therefore deemed the "ultimate inquiry" to be whether a work is "attributable to the constructive authorship of the People." Id., at 1242. The Court identified three factors to guide that inquiry: "the identity of the public official who created the work; the nature of the work; and the process by which the work was produced." Id., at 1254. The Court found that each of those factors cut in favor of treating the OCGA annotations as government edicts authored by the People. It therefore rejected the Commission's assertion of copyright, vacated the injunction against PRO, and directed that judgment be entered for PRO.
We granted certiorari. 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2746, 204 L.Ed.2d 1130 (2019).
II
We hold that the annotations in Georgia's Official Code are ineligible for copyright protection, though for reasons distinct from those relied on by the Court of Appeals. A careful examination of our government edicts precedents reveals a straightforward rule based on the identity of the author. Under the government edicts doctrine, judges-and, we now confirm, legislators-may not be considered the "authors" of the works they produce in the course of their official duties as judges and legislators. That rule applies regardless of whether a given material carries the force of law. And it applies to the annotations here because they are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its official duties.
A
We begin with precedent. The government edicts doctrine traces back to a trio of cases decided in the 19th century. In this Court's first copyright case, Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 8 L.Ed. 1055 (1834), the Court's third Reporter of Decisions, Wheaton, sued the fourth, Peters, unsuccessfully asserting a copyright interest in the Justices' opinions. Id., at 617 (argument). In Wheaton's view, the opinions "must have belonged to some one" because "they were new, original," and much more "elaborate" than law or custom required. Id., at 615. Wheaton argued that the Justices were the authors and had assigned their ownership interests to him through a tacit "gift." Id., at 614. The Court unanimously rejected that argument, concluding that "no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this court" and that "the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right." Id., at 668 (opinion).
That conclusion apparently seemed too obvious to adorn with further explanation, but the Court provided one a half century later in Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36, 32 L.Ed. 425 (1888). That case concerned whether Wheaton's state-court counterpart, the official reporter of the Ohio Supreme Court, held a copyright in the judges' opinions and several non-binding explanatory materials prepared by the judges. Id., at 249-251, 9 S.Ct. 36. The Court concluded that he did not, explaining that "the judge who, in his judicial capacity, prepares the opinion or decision, the statement of the case and the syllabus or head note" cannot "be regarded as their author or their proprietor, in the sense of [the Copyright Act]." Id., at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36. Pursuant to "a judicial consensus " dating back to Wheaton, judges could not assert copyright in "whatever work they perform in their capacity as judges." Banks, 128 U.S at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36 (emphasis in original). Rather, "[t]he whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all." Ibid. (citing Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886) ).
In a companion case decided later that Term, Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617, 9 S.Ct. 177, 32 L.Ed. 547 (1888), the Court identified an important limiting principle. As in Wheaton and Banks, the Court rejected the claim that an official reporter held a copyright interest in the judges' opinions. But, resolving an issue not addressed in Wheaton and Banks, the Court upheld the reporter's copyright interest in several explanatory materials that the reporter had created himself: headnotes, syllabi, tables of contents, and the like. Callaghan, 128 U.S. at 645, 647, 9 S.Ct. 177. Although these works mirrored the judge-made materials rejected in Banks, they came from an author who had no authority to speak with the force of law. Because the reporter was not a judge, he was free to "obtain[ ] a copyright" for the materials that were "the result of his [own] intellectual labor." 128 U.S. at 647, 9 S.Ct. 177.
These cases establish a straightforward rule: Because judges are vested with the authority to make and interpret the law, they cannot be the "author" of the works they prepare "in the discharge of their judicial duties." Banks, 128 U.S. at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36. This rule applies both to binding works (such as opinions) and to non-binding works (such as headnotes and syllabi). Ibid. It does not apply, however, to works created by government officials (or private parties) who lack the authority to make or interpret the law, such as court reporters. Compare ibid. with Callaghan, 128 U.S. at 647, 9 S.Ct. 177.
The animating principle behind this rule is that no one can own the law. "Every citizen is presumed to know the law," and "it needs no argument to show... that all should have free access" to its contents. Nash, 142 Mass. at 35, 6 N.E. at 560 (cited by Banks, 128 U.S. at 253-254, 9 S.Ct. 36 ). Our cases give effect to that principle in the copyright context through construction of the statutory term "author." Id., at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36. Rather than attempting to catalog the materials that constitute "the law," the doctrine bars the officials responsible for creating the law from being considered the "author[s]" of "whatever work they perform in their capacity" as lawmakers. Ibid. (emphasis added). Because these officials are generally empowered to make and interpret law, their "whole work" is deemed part of the "authentic exposition and interpretation of the law" and must be "free for publication to all." Ibid.
If judges, acting as judges, cannot be "authors" because of their authority to make and interpret the law, it follows that legislators, acting as legislators, cannot be either. Courts have thus long understood the government edicts doctrine to apply to legislative materials. See, e.g., Nash, 142 Mass. at 35, 6 N.E. at 560 (judicial opinions and statutes stand "on substantially the same footing" for purposes of the government edicts doctrine); Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129, 130-131, 137-138 (CA6 1898) (Harlan, J., Circuit Justice, joined by then-Circuit Judge Taft) (analyzing statutes and supplementary materials under Banks and Callaghan and concluding that the materials were copyrightable because they were prepared by a private compiler).
Moreover, just as the doctrine applies to "whatever work [judges] perform in their capacity as judges," Banks, 128 U.S., at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36, it applies to whatever work legislators perform in their capacity as legislators. That of course includes final legislation, but it also includes explanatory and procedural materials legislators create in the discharge of their legislative duties. In the same way that judges cannot be the authors of their headnotes and syllabi, legislators cannot be the authors of (for example) their floor statements, committee reports, and proposed bills. These materials are part of the "whole work done by [legislators]," so they must be "free for publication to all." Ibid.
Under our precedents, therefore, copyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties.
B
1
Applying that framework, Georgia's annotations are not copyrightable. The first step is to examine whether their purported author qualifies as a legislator.
As we have explained, the annotations were prepared in the first instance by a private company (Lexis) pursuant to a work-for-hire agreement with Georgia's Code Revision Commission. The Copyright Act therefore deems the Commission the sole "author" of the work. 17 U.S.C. § 201(b). Although Lexis expends considerable effort preparing the annotations, for purposes of copyright that labor redounds to the Commission as the statutory author. Georgia agrees that the author is the Commission. Brief for Petitioners 25.
The Commission is not identical to the Georgia Legislature, but functions as an arm of it for the purpose of producing the annotations. The Commission is created by the legislature, for the legislature, and consists largely of legislators. The Commission receives funding and staff designated by law for the legislative branch. Significantly, the annotations the Commission creates are approved by the legislature before being "merged" with the statutory text and published in the official code alongside that text at the legislature's direction. OCGA § 1-1-1 ; see 906 F.3d at 1245, 1255 ; Tr. of Oral Arg. 8.
If there were any doubt about the link between the Commission and the legislature, the Georgia Supreme Court has dispelled it by holding that, under the Georgia Constitution, "the work of the Commission; i.e., selecting a publisher and contracting for and supervising the codification of the laws enacted by the General Assembly, including court interpretations thereof, is within the sphere of legislative authority." Harrison Co., 244 Ga. at 330, 260 S.E.2d at 34 (emphasis added). That holding is not limited to the Commission's role in codifying the statutory text. The Commission's "legislative authority" specifically includes its "codification of... court interpretations" of the State's laws. Ibid. Thus, as a matter of state law, the Commission wields the legislature's authority when it works with Lexis to produce the annotations. All of this shows that the Commission serves as an extension of the Georgia Legislature in preparing and publishing the annotations. And it helps explain why the Commission brought this suit asserting copyright in the annotations "on behalf of and for the benefit of "the Georgia Legislature and the State of Georgia.
App. 20.
2
The second step is to determine whether the Commission creates the annotations in the "discharge" of its legislative "duties." Banks, 128 U.S. at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36. It does. Although the annotations are not enacted into law through bicameralism and presentment, the Commission's preparation of the annotations is under Georgia law an act of "legislative authority," Harrison Co., 244 Ga. at 330, 260 S.E.2d at 34, and the annotations provide commentary and resources that the legislature has deemed relevant to understanding its laws. Georgia and Justice GINSBURG emphasize that the annotations do not purport to provide authoritative explanations of the law and largely summarize other materials, such as judicial decisions and law review articles. See post, at 1523 - 1524 (dissenting opinion). But that does not take them outside the exercise of legislative duty by the Commission and legislature. Just as we have held that the "statement of the case and the syllabus or head note" prepared by judges fall within the "work they perform in their capacity as judges," Banks, 128 U.S. at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36, so too annotations published by legislators alongside the statutory text fall within the work legislators perform in their capacity as legislators.
In light of the Commission's role as an adjunct to the legislature and the fact that the Commission authors the annotations in the course of its legislative responsibilities, the annotations in Georgia's Official Code fall within the government edicts doctrine and are not copyrightable.
III
Georgia resists this conclusion on several grounds. At the outset, Georgia advances two arguments for why, in its view, excluding the OCGA annotations from copyright protection conflicts with the text of the Copyright Act. Both are unavailing.
First, Georgia notes that § 101 of the Act specifically lists "annotations" among the kinds of works eligible for copyright protection. But that provision refers only to "annotations... which... represent an original work of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). The whole point of the government edicts doctrine is that judges and legislators cannot serve as authors when they produce works in their official capacity. While the reference to "annotations" in § 101 may help explain why supplemental, explanatory materials are copyrightable when prepared by a private party, or a non-lawmaking official like the reporter in Callaghan, it does not speak to whether those same materials are copyrightable when prepared by a judge or a legislator. In the same way that judicial materials are ineligible for protection even though they plainly qualify as "[l]iterary works... expressed in words," ibid., legislative materials are ineligible for protection even if they happen to fit the description of otherwise copyrightable "annotations."
Second, Georgia draws a negative inference from the fact that the Act excludes from copyright protection "work[s] prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" and does not establish a similar rule for the States. § 101 ; see also § 105. But the bar on copyright protection for federal works sweeps much more broadly than the government edicts doctrine does. That bar applies to works created by all federal "officer[s] or employee[s]," without regard for the nature of their position or scope of their authority. Whatever policy reasons might justify the Federal Government's decision to forfeit copyright protection for its own proprietary works, that federal rule does not suggest an intent to displace the much narrower government edicts doctrine with respect to the States. That doctrine does not apply to non-lawmaking officials, leaving States free to assert copyright in the vast majority of expressive works they produce, such as those created by their universities, libraries, tourism offices, and so on.
More generally, Georgia suggests that we should resist applying our government edicts precedents to the OCGA annotations because our 19th-century forebears interpreted the statutory term author by reference to "public policy"-an approach that Georgia believes is incongruous with the "modern era" of statutory interpretation. Brief for Petitioners 21 (internal quotation marks omitted). But we are particularly reluctant to disrupt precedents interpreting language that Congress has since reenacted. As we explained last Term in Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 628, 202 L.Ed.2d 551 (2019), when Congress "adopt[s] the language used in [an] earlier act," we presume that Congress "adopted also the construction given by this Court to such language, and made it a part of the enactment." Id., at ----, 139 S.Ct., at 634 (quoting Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 16, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948) ). A century of cases have rooted the government edicts doctrine in the word "author," and Congress has repeatedly reused that term without abrogating the doctrine. The term now carries this settled meaning, and "critics of our ruling can take their objections across the street, [where] Congress can correct any mistake it sees." Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 456, 135 S.Ct. 2401, 192 L.Ed.2d 463 (2015).
Moving on from the text, Georgia invokes what it views as the official position of the Copyright Office, as reflected in the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (Compendium). But, as Georgia concedes, the Compendium is a non-binding administrative manual that at most merits deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). That means we must follow it only to the extent it has the "power to persuade." Id., at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161. Because our precedents answer the question before us, we find any competing guidance in the Compendium unpersuasive.
In any event, the Compendium is largely consistent with our decision. Drawing on Banks, it states that, "[a]s a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials." Compendium § 313.6(C)(2) (rev. 3d ed. 2017) (emphasis added). And, under Banks, what counts as a "similar" material depends on what kind of officer created the material (i.e., a judge) and whether the officer created it in the course of official (i.e., judicial) duties. See Compendium § 313.6(C)(2) (quoting Banks, 128 U.S. at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36, for the proposition that copyright cannot vest "in the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties").
The Compendium goes on to observe that "the Office may register annotations that summarize or comment upon legal materials... unless the annotations themselves have the force of law." Compendium § 313.6(C)(2). But that broad statement-true of annotations created by officials such as court reporters that lack the authority to make or interpret the law-does not engage with the critical issue of annotations created by judges or legislators in their official capacities. Because the Compendium does not address that question and otherwise echoes our government edicts precedents, it is of little relevance here.
Georgia also appeals to the overall purpose of the Copyright Act to promote the creation and dissemination of creative works. Georgia submits that, without copyright protection, Georgia and many other States will be unable to induce private parties like Lexis to assist in preparing affordable annotated codes for widespread distribution. That appeal to copyright policy, however, is addressed to the wrong forum. As Georgia acknowledges, "[I]t is generally for Congress, not the courts, to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause's objectives." Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212, 123 S.Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003). And that principle requires adherence to precedent when, as here, we have construed the statutory text and "tossed [the ball] into Congress's court, for acceptance or not as that branch elects." Kimble, 576 U.S. at 456, 135 S.Ct. 2401.
Turning to our government edicts precedents, Georgia insists that they can and should be read to focus exclusively on whether a particular work has "the force of law." Brief for Petitioners 32 (capitalization deleted). Justice THOMAS appears to endorse the same view. See post, at 1515. But that framing has multiple flaws.
Most obviously, it cannot be squared with the reasoning or results of our cases-especially Banks. Banks, following Wheaton and the "judicial consensus" it inspired, denied copyright protection to judicial opinions without excepting concurrences and dissents that carry no legal force. 128 U.S. at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36 (emphasis deleted). As every judge learns the hard way, "comments in [a] dissenting opinion" about legal principles and precedents "are just that: comments in a dissenting opinion." Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 177, n. 10, 101 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1980). Yet such comments are covered by the government edicts doctrine because they come from an official with authority to make and interpret the law.
Indeed, Banks went even further and withheld copyright protection from headnotes and syllabi produced by judges. 128 U.S. at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36. Surely these supplementary materials do not have the force of law, yet they are covered by the doctrine. The simplest explanation is the one Banks provided: These non-binding works are not copyrightable because of who creates them-judges acting in their judicial capacity. See ibid.
The same goes for non-binding legislative materials produced by legislative bodies acting in a legislative capacity. There is a broad array of such works ranging from floor statements to proposed bills to committee reports. Under the logic of Georgia's "force of law" test, States would own such materials and could charge the public for access to them.
Furthermore, despite Georgia's and Justice THOMAS's purported concern for the text of the Copyright Act, their conception of the government edicts doctrine has less of a textual footing than the traditional formulation. The textual basis for the doctrine is the Act's "authorship" requirement, which unsurprisingly focuses on-the author. Justice THOMAS urges us to dig deeper to "the root" of our government edicts precedents. Post, at 1515. But, in our view, the text is the root. The Court long ago interpreted the word "author" to exclude officials empowered to speak with the force of law, and Congress has carried that meaning forward in multiple iterations of the Copyright Act. This textual foundation explains why the doctrine distinguishes between some authors (who are empowered to speak with the force of law) and others (who are not). Compare Callaghan, 128 U.S. at 647, 9 S.Ct. 177, with Banks, 128 U.S. at 253, 9 S.Ct. 36. But the Act's reference to "authorship" provides no basis for Georgia's rule distinguishing between different categories of content with different effects.
Georgia minimizes the OCGA annotations as non-binding and non-authoritative, but that description undersells their practical significance. Imagine a Georgia citizen interested in learning his legal rights and duties. If he reads the economy-class version of the Georgia Code available online, he will see laws requiring political candidates to pay hefty qualification fees (with no indigency exception), criminalizing broad categories of consensual sexual conduct, and exempting certain key evidence in criminal trials from standard evidentiary limitations-with no hint that important aspects of those laws have been held unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court. See OCGA §§ 21-2-131, 16-6-2, 16-6-18, 16-15-9 (available at www.legis.ga.gov). Meanwhile, first-class readers with access to the annotations will be assured that these laws are, in crucial respects, unenforceable relics that the legislature has not bothered to narrow or repeal. See §§ 21-2-131, 16-6-2, 16-6-18, 16-15-9 (available at https://store.lexisnexis.com/products/official - code - of - georgia - annotated - skuSKU6647 for $412.00).
If everything short of statutes and opinions were copyrightable, then States would be free to offer a whole range of premium legal works for those who can afford the extra benefit. A State could monetize its entire suite of legislative history. With today's digital tools, States might even launch a subscription or pay-per-law service.
There is no need to assume inventive or nefarious behavior for these concerns to become a reality. Unlike other forms of intellectual property, copyright protection is both instant and automatic. It vests as soon as a work is captured in a tangible form, triggering a panoply of exclusive rights that can last over a century. 17 U.S.C. §§ 102, 106, 302. If Georgia were correct, then unless a State took the affirmative step of transferring its copyrights to the public domain, all of its judges' and legislators' non-binding legal works would be copyrighted. And citizens, attorneys, nonprofits, and private research companies would have to cease all copying, distribution, and display of those works or risk severe and potentially criminal penalties. §§ 501-506. Some affected parties might be willing to roll the dice with a potential fair use defense. But that defense, designed to accommodate First Amendment concerns, is notoriously fact sensitive and often cannot be resolved without a trial. Cf. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 552, 560-561, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985). The less bold among us would have to think twice before using official legal works that illuminate the law we are all presumed to know and understand.
Thankfully, there is a clear path forward that avoids these concerns-the one we are already on. Instead of examining whether given material carries "the force of law," we ask only whether the author of the work is a judge or a legislator. If so, then whatever work that judge or legislator produces in the course of his judicial or legislative duties is not copyrightable. That is the framework our precedents long ago established, and we adhere to those precedents today.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice ALITO joins, and with whom Justice BREYER joins as to all but Part II-A and footnote 6, dissenting.
According to the majority, this Court's 19th-century "government edicts" precedents clearly stand for the proposition that "judges and legislators cannot serve as authors [for copyright purposes] when they produce works in their official capacity." Ante, at 1509. And, after straining to conclude that the Georgia Code Revision Commission (Commission) is an arm of the Georgia Legislature, ante, at 1508 - 1509, the majority concludes that Georgia cannot hold a copyright in the annotations that are included as part of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). This ruling will likely come as a shock to the 25 other jurisdictions-22 States, 2 Territories, and the District of Columbia-that rely on arrangements similar to Georgia's to produce annotated codes. See Brief for State of Arkansas et al. as Amici Curiae 15, and App. to id., at 1. Perhaps these jurisdictions all overlooked this Court's purportedly clear guidance. Or perhaps the widespread use of these arrangements indicates that today's decision extends the government edicts doctrine to a new context, rather than simply "confirm[ing]" what the precedents have always held. See ante, at 1505 - 1506. Because I believe we should "leave to Congress the task of deciding whether the Copyright Act needs an upgrade,"
American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431, 463, 134 S.Ct. 2498, 189 L.Ed.2d 476 (2014) (Scalia, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.
I
Like the majority, I begin with the three 19th-century precedents that the parties agree provide the foundation for the government edicts doctrine.
In Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 8 L.Ed. 1055 (1834), the Court first regarded it as self-evident that judicial opinions cannot be copyrighted either by
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted by a jury in a United States District Court on two counts charging that he knowingly filed false claims against the Government in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 287 and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The frauds charged were claims for tax refunds growing out of petitioner’s individual income taxes for 1960 and 1961. Both income tax returns for these two years asserted receipts of income from two different companies which the government agents were unable to locate and which evidence offered tended to show were nonexistent. The amount of income claimed in each tax return was calculated in such a way as to show that these two nonexistent employers had withheld taxes sufficient to justify substantial refunds to petitioner. The Government paid the 1960 tax refund to petitioner of $885.60 as claimed, but the record fails to show whether the 19.61 claimed refund was paid. A part of the evidence on which the conviction rested consisted of documents and oral statements obtained from petitioner by a government agent while petitioner was in prison serving a state sentence. Before eliciting this information, the government agent did not not warn petitioner that any evidence he gave the Government could be used against him, and that he had a right to remain silent if he desired as well as a right to the presence of counsel and that if he was unable to afford counsel one would be appointed for him. At trial petitioner sought several times without success to have the judge hold hearings out of the presence of the jury to prove that his statements to the revenue agent were given without these warnings and should therefore not be used as evidence against him. For this contention he relied exclusively on our case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). The District Court rejected this contention as did the Court of Appeals in affirming. 376 F. 2d 695. We granted certiorari to decide whether the Miranda case calls for reversal. We hold that it does.
There can be no doubt that the documents and oral statements given by petitioner to the government agent and used against him were strongly incriminating. In the Miranda case this Court’s opinion stated at some length the constitutional reasons why one in custody who is interrogated by officers about matters that might tend to incriminate him is entitled to be warned “that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” 384 U. S., at 479. The Government here seeks to escape application of the Miranda warnings on two arguments: (1) that these questions were asked as a part of a routine tax investigation where no criminal proceedings might even be brought, and (2) that the petitioner had not been put in jail by the officers questioning him, but was there for an entirely separate offense. These differences are too minor and shadowy to justify a departure from the well-considered conclusions of Miranda with reference to warnings to be given to a person held in custody.
It is true that a “routine tax investigation” may be initiated for the purpose of a civil action rather than criminal prosecution. To this extent tax investigations differ from investigations of murder, robbery, and other crimes. But tax investigations frequently lead to criminal prosecutions, just as the one here did. In fact, the last visit of the revenue agent to the jail to question petitioner took place only eight days before the full-fledged criminal investigation concededly began. And, as the investigating revenue agent was compelled to admit, there was always the possibility during his investigation that his work would end up in a criminal prosecution. We reject the contention that tax investigations are immune from the Miranda requirements for warnings to be given a person in custody.
The Government also seeks to narrow the scope of the Miranda holding by making it applicable only to questioning one who is “in custody” in connection with the very case under investigation. There is no substance to such a distinction, and in effect it goes against the whole purpose of the Miranda decision which was designed to give meaningful protection to Fifth Amendment rights. We find nothing in the Miranda opinion which calls for a curtailment of the warnings to be given persons under interrogation by officers based on the reason why the person is in custody. In speaking of “custody” the language of the Miranda opinion is clear and unequivocal:
“To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized.” 384 U. S., at 478.
And the opinion goes on to say that the person so held must be given the warnings about his right to be silent and his right to have a lawyer.
Thus, the courts below were wrong in permitting the introduction of petitioner’s self-incriminating evidence given without warning of his right to be silent and right to counsel. The cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
18 U. S. C. § 287 provides: “Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Internal Revenue Agent Lawless testified that on October 30, 1964, he interviewed petitioner in the Florida State Penitentiary to determine if the 1960 return had been prepared by petitioner and to obtain petitioner’s consent in writing to extend the statute of limitations on the 1960 return. At this interview petitioner identified the 1960 tax return and the signature thereon as his; he also signed the extension form. Again on March 2, 1965, Agent Lawless interviewed petitioner at the penitentiary, and this time petitioner identified the 1961 tax return and signature thereon as his and signed an extension form for this return.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
MCorp, a bank holding company, filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions in March 1989. It then initiated an adversary proceeding against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) seeking to enjoin the prosecution of two administrative proceedings, one charging MCorp with a violation of the Board’s “source of strength” regulation and the other alleging a violation of § 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, as added, 48 Stat. 183, and amended. The District Court enjoined both proceedings, and the Board appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enjoin the §23A proceeding, but that, under the doctrine set forth in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184 (1958), the District Court had jurisdiction to review the validity of the “source of strength” regulation. The Court of Appeals then ruled that the Board had exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating that regulation. 900 F. 2d 852 (CA5 1990). We granted certiorari, 499 U. S. 904 (1991), to review the entire action but, because we conclude that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin either regulatory proceeding, we do not reach the merits of MCorp’s challenge to the regulation.
H-t
In 1984, the Board promulgated a regulation requiring every bank holding company to “serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks.” In October 1988, the Board commenced an administrative proceeding against MCorp, alleging that MCorp violated the source of strength regulation and engaged in unsafe and unsound banking practices that jeopardized the financial condition of its subsidiary banks. The Board also issued three temporary cease-and-desist orders. The first forbids MCorp to declare or pay any dividends without the prior approval of the Board. ' App. 65-67. The second forbids MCorp to dissipate any of its nonbank assets without the prior approval of the Board. Id., at 68-70. The third directs MCorp to use “all of its assets to provide capital support to its Subsidiary Banks in need of additional capital.” Id., at 85. By agreement, enforcement of the third order was suspended while MCorp sought financial assistance from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
In March 1989, the FDIC denied MCorp’s request for assistance. Thereafter, creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against MCorp in the Southern District of New York, and the Comptroller of the Currency determined that 20 of MCorp’s subsidiary banks were insolvent and, accordingly, appointed the FDIC as receiver of those banks. MCorp then filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions in the Southern District of Texas and all bankruptcy proceedings were later consolidated in that forum.
At the end of March, the Board commenced a second administrative proceeding against MCorp alleging that it had violated §23A of the Federal Reserve Act by causing two of its subsidiary banks to extend unsecured credit of approximately $63.7 million to an affiliate. For convenience, we shall refer to that proceeding as the “§ 23A proceeding” and to the earlier proceeding as the “source of strength proceeding.”
In May 1989, MCorp initiated this litigation by filing a complaint in the Bankruptcy Court against the Board seeking a declaration that both administrative proceedings had been automatically stayed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code; in the alternative, MCorp prayed for an injunction against the further prosecution of those proceedings without the prior approval of the Bankruptcy Court. On the Board’s motion, the District Court transferred that adversary proceeding to its own docket.
In June 1989, the District Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to enjoin the Board from prosecuting both administrative proceedings against MCorp and entered a preliminary injunction halting those proceedings. The injunction restrained the Board from exercising “its authority over bank holding companies ... to attempt to effect, directly or indirectly, a reorganization of the MCorp group [of companies] except through participation in the bankruptcy proceedings.” In re MCorp, 101 B. R. 483, 491. The Board appealed.
Although the District Court did not differentiate between the two Board proceedings, the Court of Appeals held that the § 23A proceeding could go forward but that the source of strength proceeding should be enjoined. The court reasoned that the plain language of the judicial review provisions of the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966 (FISA), 80 Stat. 1046, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1818 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. II), particularly § 1818(i)(1), deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to enjoin either proceeding, but that our decision in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184 (1958), nevertheless authorized an injunction against an administrative proceeding conducted without statutory authorization. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Board's promulgation and enforcement of its source of strength regulation exceeded its statutory authority. Accordingly, the court vacated the District Court injunction barring the § 23A proceeding, but remanded the case with instructions to enjoin the Board from enforcing its source of strength regulation. Both parties petitioned for certiorari.
The Board's petition challenges the Court of Appeals' interpretation of Leedom v. Kyne, as well as its invalidation of the source of strength regulation. MCorp's petition challenges the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the relationship between the provisions governing judicial review of Board proceedings and those governing bankruptcy proceedings. We first address the latter challenge.
II
A series of federal statutes gives the Board substantial regulatory power over bank holding companies and establishes a comprehensive scheme of judicial review of Board actions. See FISA; the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHCA), 12 U. S. C. § 1841 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. II); and the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983, 12 U. S. C. § 3901 et seq. In this litigation, the most relevant of these is FISA.
FISA authorizes the Board to institute administrative proceedings culminating in cease-and-desist orders, 12 U. S. C. §§ 1818(a) — (b) (1988 ed., Supp. II), and to issue temporary-cease-and-desist orders that are effective upon service on a bank holding company. § 1818(c). In addition, FISA establishes a tripartite regime of judicial review. First, § 1818(c)(2) provides that, within 10 days after service of a temporary order, a bank holding company may seek an injunction in district court restraining enforcement of the order pending completion of the related administrative proceeding. Second, § 1818(h) authorizes court of appeals review of final Board orders on the application of an aggrieved party. Finally, §1818(i)(l) provides that the Board may apply to district court for enforcement of any effective and outstanding notice or order.
None of these provisions controls this litigation: The action before us is not a challenge to a temporary Board order, nor a petition for review of a final Board order, nor an enforcement action initiated by the Board. Instead, FISA’s preclusion provision appears to speak directly to the jurisdictional question at issue in this litigation:
“[E]xcept as otherwise provided in this section no court shall have jurisdiction to affect by injunction or otherwise the issuance or enforcement of any notice or order under this section, or to review, modify, suspend, terminate, or set aside any such notice or order.” Ibid.
Notwithstanding this plain, preclusive language, MCorp argues that the District Court’s injunction against the prosecution of the Board proceedings was authorized either by the automatic stay provision in the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. §362, or by the provision of the Judicial Code authorizing district courts in bankruptcy proceedings to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over certain civil proceedings, 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b). We find no merit in either argument.
The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay of several categories of judicial and administrative proceedings. The Board’s planned actions against MCorp constitute the “continuation . . . [of] administrative . . . proceeding^]” and would appear to be stayed by 11 U. S. C. § 362(a)(1). However, the Board’s actions also fall squarely within § 362(b)(4), which expressly provides that the automatic stay will not reach proceedings to enforce a “governmental unit’s police or regulatory power.”
MCorp contends that in order for § 362(b)(4) to obtain, a court must first determine whether the proposed exercise of police or regulatory power is legitimate and that, therefore, in this litigation the lower courts did have the authority to examine the legitimacy of the Board’s actions and to enjoin those actions. We disagree. MCorp’s broad reading of the stay provisions would require bankruptcy courts to scrutinize the validity of every administrative or enforcement action brought against a bankrupt entity. Such a reading is problematic, both because it conflicts with the broad discretion Congress has expressly granted many administrative entities and because it is inconsistent with the limited authority Congress has vested in bankruptcy courts. We therefore reject MCorp’s reading of § 362(b)(4).
MCorp also argues that it is protected by §§ 362(a)(3) and 362(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Those provisions stay “any act” to obtain possession of, or to exercise control over, property of the estate, or to recover claims against the debtor that arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. MCorp contends that the ultimate objective of the source of strength proceeding is to exercise control of corporate assets and that the § 23A proceeding seeks enforcement of a prepetition claim.
We reject these characterizations of the ongoing administrative proceedings. At this point, the Board has only issued “Notices of Charges and of Hearing” and has expressed its intent to determine whether MCorp has violated specified statutory and regulatory provisions. It is possible, of course, that the Board proceedings, like many other enforcement actions, may conclude with the entry of an order that will affect the Bankruptcy Court’s control over the property of the estate, but that possibility cannot be sufficient to justify the operation of the stay against an enforcement proceeding that is expressly exempted by § 362(b)(4). To adopt such a characterization of enforcement proceedings would be to render subsection (b)(4)’s exception almost meaningless. If and when the Board’s proceedings culminate in a final order, and if and when judicial proceedings are commenced to enforce such an order, then it may well be proper for the Bankruptcy Court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b). We are not persuaded, however, that the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code have any application to ongoing, nonfinal administrative proceedings.
MCorp’s final argument rests on 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b). That section authorizes a district court to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over certain bankruptcy-related civil proceedings that would otherwise be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court. MCorp’s reliance is misplaced. Section 1334(b) concerns the allocation of jurisdiction between bankruptcy courts and other “courts,” and, of course, an administrative agency such as the Board is not a "court." Moreover, contrary to MCorp's contention, the prosecution of the Board proceedings, prior to the entry of a final order and prior to the commencement of any enforcement action, seems unlikely to impair the Bankruptcy Court's exclusive jurisdiction over the property of the estate protected by 28 U. S. C. § 1334(d). In sum, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the specific preclusive language in 12 U. S. C. § 1818(i)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. II) is not qualified or superseded by the general provisions governing bankruptcy proceedings on which MCorp relies.
III
Although the Court of Appeals found that § 1818(i)(1) precluded judicial review of many Board actions, it exercised jurisdiction in this litigation based on its reading of Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184 (1958). Kyne involved an action in District Court challenging a determination by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that a unit including both professional and nonprofessional employees was appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes-a determination in direct conflict with a provision of the National Labor Relations Act. The Act, however, did not expressly authorize any judicial review of such a determination. Relying on Switchmen v. National Mediation Bd., 320 U. S. 297 (1943), the NLRB argued that the statutory provisions establishing review of final Board orders in the courts of appeals indicated a congressional intent to bar review of any NLRB action
in the District Court. The Court rejected that argument, emphasizing the presumption that Congress normally intends the federal courts to enforce and protect the rights that Congress has created. Concluding that the Act did not bar the District Court’s jurisdiction, we stated: “This Court cannot lightly infer that Congress does not intend judicial protection of rights it confers against agency action taken in excess of delegated powers.” 358 U. S., at 190.
In this litigation, the Court of Appeals interpreted our opinion in Kyne as authorizing judicial review of any agency action that is alleged to have exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. Kyne, however, differs from this litigation in two critical ways. First, central to our decision in Kyne was the fact that the Board’s interpretation of the Act would wholly deprive the union of a meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its statutory rights.
“Here, differently from the Switchmen’s case, ‘absence of jurisdiction of the federal courts’ would mean ‘a sacrifice or obliteration of a right which Congress’ has given professional employees, for there is no other means, within their control ... to protect and enforce that right.” Ibid.
The cases before us today are entirely different from Kyne because FISA expressly provides MCorp with a meaningful and adequate opportunity for judicial review of the validity of the source of strength regulation. If and when the Board finds that MCorp has violated that regulation, MCorp will have, in the Court of Appeals, an unquestioned right to review of both the regulation and its application.
The second, and related, factor distinguishing this litigation from Kyne is the clarity of the congressional preclusion of review in FISA. In Kyne, the NLRB contended that a statutory provision that provided for judicial review implied, by its silence, a preclusion of review of the contested determination. By contrast, in FISA Congress has spoken clearly and directly: “[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to affect by injunction or otherwise the issuance or enforcement of any [Board] notice or order under this section.” 12 U. S. C. § 1818(i)(l) (1988 ed., Supp. II) (emphasis added). In this way as well, this litigation differs from Kyne.
Viewed in this way, Kyne stands for the familiar proposition that “only upon a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967). As we have explained, however, in this case the statute provides us with clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended to deny the District Court jurisdiction to review and enjoin the Board’s ongoing administrative proceedings.
IV
The Court- of Appeals therefore erred when it held that it had jurisdiction to consider the merits of MCorp’s challenge to the source of strength regulation. In No. 90-913, the judgment of the Court of Appeals remanding the case with instructions to enjoin the source of strength proceedings is therefore reversed. In No. 90-914, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating the District Court’s injunction against prosecution of the § 23A proceeding is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The “source of strength” regulation provides in relevant part:
“A bank holding company shall serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks and shall not eon[d]uct its operations in an unsafe or unsound maimer.” 12 CFR § 225.4(a)(1) (1991).
Section 23A sets forth restrictions on bank holding companies’ corporate practices, including restrictions on transactions between subsidiary banks and nonbank affiliates. See 12 U. S. C. § 371c.
See n. 1, supra. In 1987, the Board clarified its policy and stated that a “bank holding company’s failure to assist a troubled or failing subsidiary bank . . . would generally be viewed as an unsafe and unsound banking practice or a violation of [12 CFR § 225.4(a)(1)] or both.” 52 Fed. Reg. 15707-15708.
The term “MCorp” refers to the corporation and to two of its wholly owned subsidiaries, MCorp Financial, Inc., and MCorp Management.
MCorp timely challenged these orders in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, pursuant to 12 U. S. C. § 1818(c)(2). The District Court stayed MCorp’s challenge pending resolution of this proceeding. Brief for MCorp et al. 3.
The current status of this order is unclear. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 22-25, 41-42. We address only MCorp’s effort to enjoin the Board’s administrative proceedings and express no opinion on the continuing vitality or validity of any of the temporary cease-and-desist orders.
Although the several "Notices of Charges and of Hearing" issued by the Board against MCorp relied on FISA and the BHCA, e. g., App. 57, 72, the parties have focused only on the former. We note, however, that the BHCA includes a preclusion provision that is similar to § 1818(i)(1) in F ISA. See 12 U. S. C. § 1844(e)(2).
The statute characterizes such review of final Board orders as “exclusive” and provides:
“(2) Any party to any proceeding under paragraph (1) may obtain a review ... by the filing in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the home office of the depository institution is located, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, within thirty days after the date of service of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the agency be modified, terminated, or set aside. . . . Upon the filing of such petition, such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record shall except as provided in the last sentence of said paragraph (1) be exclusive, to affirm, modify, terminate, or set aside, in whole or in part, the order of the agency.” 12 U. S. C. § 1818(h)(2) (1988 ed., Supp. II).
The referenced exception concerns actions taken by the agency with permission of the court.
The automatic stay provision provides in relevant part:
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U. S. C. 78eee(a)(3)), operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—
“(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
“(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate;
“(6) any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title . . . 11 U. S. C. § 362(a).
Title 11 U. S. C. § 362(b)(4) provides:
“(b) The filing of a petition under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or of an application under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U. S. C. 78eee(a)(3)), does not operate as a stay—
“(4) under subsection (a)(1) of this section, of the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit’s police or regulatory power .. . .”
The Board suggests that the automatic stay provisions of § 362 do not themselves confer jurisdiction on the bankruptcy court, and thus that the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay only where the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction has not already been precluded by a statute like § 1818(i)(l). We need not address this question in light of our determination that the automatic stay does not apply to the Board’s ongoing administrative proceedings.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b) provides:
“(b) Notwithstanding any Act of Congress that confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court or courts other than the district courts, the district court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.”
That subsection provides:
"(d) The district court in which a case under title 11 is commenced or is pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all of the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate."
See 29 U. S. C. § 159(b)(l).
In Switchmen v. National Mediation Bd., 320 U. S., at 306, the Court had reasoned:
“When Congress in § 3 and in § 9 provided for judicial review of two types of orders or awards and in § 2 of the same Act omitted any such provision as respects a third type, it drew a plain line of distinction. And the inference is strong from the history of the Act that that distinction was not inadvertent. The language of the Act read in light of that history supports the view that Congress gave administrative action under § 2, Ninth a finality which it denied administrative action under the other sections of the Act.”
The other cases relied upon by the Court of Appeals — Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667 (1986); Breen v. Selective Service Local Bd. No. 16, 396 U. S. 460 (1970); and Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 11, 393 U. S. 233 (1968) — are distinguishable from this litigation for the same reasons. In each of those cases, the Court recognized that an unduly narrow construction of the governing statute would severely prejudice the party seeking review, and construed the statute to allow judicial review not expressly provided.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-B-2.
These consolidated lawsuits involve state tort-law claims based on certain drug manufacturers’ alleged failure to provide adequate warning labels for generic metoelopramide. The question presented is whether federal drug regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers directly conflict with, and thus pre-empt, these state-law claims. We hold that they do.
I
Metoelopramide is a drug designed to speed the movement of food through the digestive system. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved metoelopramide tablets, under the brand name Reglan, in 1980. Five years later, generic manufacturers also began producing meto-clopramide. The drug is commonly used to treat digestive tract problems such as diabetic gastroparesis and gastro-esophageal reflux disorder.
Evidence has accumulated that long-term metoelopramide use can cause tardive dyskinesia, a severe neurological disorder. Studies have shown that up to 29% of patients who take metoelopramide for several years develop this condition. McNeil v. Wyeth, 462 F. 3d 364, 370, n. 5 (CA5 2006); see also Shaffer, Butterfield, Pamer, & Mackey, Tardive Dyskinesia Risks and Metoelopramide Use Before and After U. S. Market Withdrawal of Cisapride, 44 J. Am. Pharmacists Assn. 661, 663 (2004) (noting 87 cases of metoclopramide-related tardive dyskinesia reported to the FDA’s adverse event reporting system by mid-2003).
Accordingly, warning labels for the drug have been strengthened and clarified several times. In 1985, the label was modified to warn that “[tjardive dyskinesia... may develop in patients treated with metoelopramide,” and the drug’s package insert added that “[tjherapy longer than 12 weeks has not been evaluated and cannot be recommended.” Physician’s Desk Reference 1635-1636 (41st ed. 1987); see also Brief for Petitioner PLIVA et al. 21-22 (hereinafter PLIVA Brief). In 2004, the brand-name Reglan manufacturer requested, and the FDA approved, a label change to add that “[t]herapy should not exceed 12 weeks in duration.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8 (hereinafter U. S. Brief). And in 2009, the FDA ordered a black box warning — its strongest — which states: “Treatment with met-oclopramide can cause tardive dyskinesia, a serious movement disorder that is often irreversible.... Treatment with metoclopramide for longer than 12 weeks should be avoided in all but rare cases.” See Physician’s Desk Reference 2902 (65th ed. 2011) (Warning Box).
Gladys Mensing and Julie Demahy, the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases, were prescribed Reglan in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Both received generic metoclopramide from their pharmacists. After taking the drug as prescribed for several years, both women developed tardive dyskinesia.
In separate suits, Mensing and Demahy sued the generic drug manufacturers that produced the metoclopramide they took (Manufacturers). Each alleged, as relevant here, that long-term metoclopramide use caused her tardive dyskinesia and that the Manufacturers were liable under state tort law (specifically, that of Minnesota and Louisiana) for failing to provide adequate warning labels. They claimed that “despite mounting evidence that long term metoclopramide use carries a risk of tardive dyskinesia far greater than that indicated on the label,” none of the Manufacturers had changed their labels to adequately warn of that danger. Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 588 F. 3d 603, 605 (CA8 2009); see also Demahy v. Actavis, Inc., 593 F. 3d 428, 430 (CA5 2010).
In both suits, the Manufacturers urged that federal law pre-empted the state tort claims. According to the Manufacturers, federal statutes and FDA regulations required them to use the same safety and efficacy labeling as their brand-name counterparts. This means, they argued, that it was impossible to simultaneously comply with both federal law and any state tort-law duty that required them to use a different label.
The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eighth Circuits rejected the Manufacturers’ arguments and held that Men-sing and Demahy’s claims were not pre-empted. See 588 F. 3d, at 614; 593 F. 3d, at 449. We granted certiorari, 562 U. S. 1104 (2010), consolidated the cases, and now reverse each.
II
Pre-emption analysis requires us to compare federal and state law. We therefore begin by identifying the state tort duties and federal labeling requirements applicable to the Manufacturers.
A
It is undisputed that Minnesota and Louisiana tort law require a drug manufacturer that is or should be aware of its product's danger to label that product in a way that renders it reasonably safe. Under Minnesota law, which applies to Mensing’s lawsuit, “where the manufacturer... of a product has actual or constructive knowledge of danger to users, the... manufacturer has a duty to give warning of such dangers.” Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 258 N. W. 2d 782, 788 (Minn. 1977). Similarly, under Louisiana law applicable to Demahy's lawsuit, “a manufacturer's duty to warn includes a duty to provide adequate instructions for safe use of a product.” Stahl v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 283 F. 3d 254, 269-270 (CA5 2002); see also La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.57 (West 2009). In both States, a duty to warn falls specifically on the manufacturer. See Marks v. OHMEDA, Inc., 2003-1446, pp. 8-9 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/31/04), 871 So. 2d 1148, 1155; Gray v. Badger Min. Corp., 676 N. W. 2d 268, 274 (Minn. 2004).
Mensing and Demahy have pleaded that the Manufacturers knew or should have known of the high risk of tardive dyskinesia inherent in the long-term use of their product. They have also pleaded that the Manufacturers knew or should have known that their labels did not adequately warn of that risk. App. 437-438, 67-69, 94-96. The parties do not dispute that, if these allegations are true, state law required the Manufacturers to use a different, safer label.
B
Federal law imposes far more complex drug labeling requirements. We begin with what is not in dispute. Under the 1962 Drug Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 76 Stat. 780, 21 U. S. C. § 301 et seq., a manufacturer seeking federal approval to market a new drug must prove that it is safe and effective and that the proposed label is accurate and adequate. See, e. g., 21 U. S. C. §§ 355(b)(1), (d); Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U. S. 555, 567 (2009). Meeting those requirements involves costly and lengthy clinical testing. §§ 355(b)(1)(A), (d); see also D. Beers, Generic and Innovator Drugs: A Guide to FDA Approval Requirements § 2.02[A] (7th ed. 2008).
Originally, the same rules applied to all drugs. In 1984, however, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, 98 Stat. 1585, commonly called the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Under this law, “generic drugs” can gain FDA approval simply by showing equivalence to a reference listed drug that has already been approved by the FDA. 21 U. S. C. § 355(j)(2)(A). This allows manufacturers to develop generic drugs inexpensively, without duplicating the clinical trials already performed on the equivalent brand-name drug. A generic drug application must also “show that the [safety and efficacy] labeling proposed... is the same as the labeling approved for the [brand-name] drug.” §355(j)(2)(A)(v); see also § 355(j)(4)(G); Beers, supra, §§ 3.01, 3.03[A].
As a result, brand-name and generic drug manufacturers have different federal drug labeling duties. A brand-name manufacturer seeking new drug approval is responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of its label. See, e. g., 21 U. S. C. §§ 355(b)(1), (d); Wyeth, supra, at 570-571. A manufacturer seeking generic drug approval, on the other hand, is responsible for ensuring that its warning label is the same as the brand name’s. See, e.g., § 355(j)(2)(A)(v); § 355(j)(4)(G); 21 CFR §§ 314.94(a)(8), 314.127(a)(7).
The parties do not disagree. What is in dispute is whether, and to what extent, generic manufacturers may change their labels after initial FDA approval. Mensing and Demahy contend that federal law provided several avenues through which the Manufacturers could have altered their metoclopramide labels in time to prevent the injuries here. The FDA, however, tells us that it interprets its regulations to require that the warning labels of a brand-name drug and its generic copy must always be the same — thus, generic drug manufacturers have an ongoing federal duty of "sameness.” U. S. Brief 16; see also 57 Fed. Reg. 17961 (1992) (“[T]he [generic drug’s] labeling must be the same as the listed drug product’s labeling because the listed drug product is the basis for [generic drug] approval”). The FDA’s views are “controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent, with the regulation^]” or there is any other reason to doubt that they reflect the FDA’s fair and considered judgment. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461, 462 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
1
First, Mensing and Demahy urge that the FDA’s “changes-being-effected” (CBE) process allowed the Manufacturers to change their labels when necessary. See Brief for Respondents 33-35; see also 593 F. 3d, at 439-444; Gaeta v. Perrigo Pharmaceuticals Co., 630 F. 3d 1225, 1231 (CA9 2011); Foster v. American Home Prods. Corp., 29 F. 3d 165, 170 (CA4 1994). The CBE process permits drug manufacturers to “add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, [or] precaution,” 21 CFR § 314.70(c)(6)(iii)(A) (2006), or to “add or strengthen an instruction about dosage and administration that is intended to increase the safe use of the drug produet,” § 314.70(c)(6)(iii)(C). When making labeling changes using the CBE process, drug manufacturers need not wait for preapproval by the FDA, which ordinarily is necessary to change a label. Wyeth, supra, at 568. They need only simultaneously file a supplemental application with the FDA. 21 CFR § 314.70(c)(6).
The FDA denies that the Manufacturers could have used the CBE process to unilaterally strengthen their warning labels. The agency interprets the CBE regulation to allow changes to generic drug labels only when a generic drug manufacturer changes its label to match an updated brand-name label or to follow the FDA’s instructions. U. S. Brief 15, 16, n. 7 (interpreting 21 CFR § 314.94(a)(8)(iv)); U. S. Brief 16, n. 8. The FDA argues that CBE changes unilaterally made to strengthen a generic drug’s warning label would violate the statutes and regulations requiring a generic drug’s label to match its brand-name counterpart’s. Id., at 15-16; see also 21 U. S. C. § 355(j)(4)(G); 21 CFR §§314.94(a)(8)(iii), 314.150(b)(10) (approval may be withdrawn if the generic drug’s label “is no longer consistent with that for [the brand-name]”).
We defer to the FDA’s interpretation of its CBE and generic labeling regulations. Although Mensing and Demahy offer other ways to interpret the regulations, see Brief for Respondents 33-35, we do not find the agency’s interpretation “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation,” Auer, supra, at 461 (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor do Mensing and Demahy suggest there is any other reason to doubt the agency’s reading. We therefore conclude that the CBE process was not open to the Manufacturers for the sort of change required by state law.
2
Next, Mensing and Demahy contend that the Manufacturers could have used “Dear Doctor” letters to send additional warnings to prescribing physicians and other healthcare professionals. See Brief for Respondents 36; 21 CFR §200.5. Again, the FDA disagrees, and we defer to the agency’s views.
The FDA argues that Dear Doctor letters qualify as “labeling.” U. S. Brief 18; see also 21 U. S. C. § 321(m); 21 CFR §202.1(0(2). Thus, any such letters must be “consistent with and not contrary to [the drug’s] approved... labeling.” 21 CFR § 201.100(d)(1). A Dear Doctor letter that contained substantial new warning information would not be consistent with the drug’s approved labeling. Moreover, if generic drug manufacturers, but not the brand-name manufacturer, sent such letters, that would inaccurately imply a therapeutic difference between the brand and generic drugs and thus could be impermissibly “misleading.” U. S. Brief 19; see 21 CFR § 314.150(b)(3) (FDA may withdraw approval of a generic drug if “the labeling of the drug... is false or misleading in any particular”).
As with the CBE regulation, we defer to the FDA. Men-sing and Demahy offer no argument that the FDA’s interpretation is plainly erroneous. See Auer, supra, at 461. Accordingly, we conclude that federal law did not permit the Manufacturers to issue additional warnings through Dear Doctor letters.
3
Though the FDA denies that the Manufacturers could have used the CBE process or Dear Doctor letters to strengthen their warning labels, the agency asserts that a different avenue existed for changing generic drug labels. According to the FDA, the Manufacturers could have proposed — indeed, were required to propose — stronger warning labels to the agency if they believed such warnings were needed. U. S. Brief 20; 57 Fed. Reg. 17961. If the FDA had agreed that a label change was necessary, it would have worked with the brand-name manufacturer to create a new label for both the brand-name and generic drug. Ibid.
The agency traces this duty to 21 U. S. C. § 352(f)(2), which provides that a drug is “misbranded... [u]nless its labeling bears... adequate warnings against... unsafe dosage or methods or duration of administration or application, in such maimer and form, as are necessary for the protection of users.” See U. S. Brief 12. By regulation, the FDA has interpreted that statute to require that “labeling shall be revised to include a warning as soon as there is reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with a drug.” 21 CFR § 201.57(e).
According to the FDA, these requirements apply to generic drugs. As it explains, a “ 'central premise of federal drug regulation [is] that the manufacturer bears responsibility for the content of its label at all times.’” U. S. Brief 12-13 (quoting Wyeth, 555 U. S., at 570-571). The FDA reconciles this duty to have adequate and accurate labeling with the duty of sameness in the following way: Generic drug manufacturers that become aware of safety problems must ask the agency to work toward strengthening the label that applies to both the generic and brand-name equivalent drug. U. S. Brief 20.
The Manufacturers and the FDA disagree over whether this alleged duty to request a strengthened label actually existed. The FDA argues that it explained this duty in the preamble to its 1992 regulations implementing the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Ibid.; see 57 Fed. Reg. 17961 (“If a [generic drug manufacturer] believes new safety information should be added to a product’s labeling, it should contact FDA, and FDA will determine whether the labeling for the generic and listed drugs should be revised”). The Manufacturers claim that the FDA’s 19-year-old statement did not create a duty, and that there is no evidence of any generic drug manufacturer ever acting pursuant to any such duty. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-24; Reply Brief for Petitioner PLIVA et al. 18-22. Because we ultimately find pre-emption even assuming such a duty existed, we do not resolve the matter.
C
To summarize, the relevant state and federal requirements are these: State tort law places a duty directly on all drug manufacturers to adequately and safely label their products. Taking Mensing and Demahy’s allegations as true, this duty required the Manufacturers to use a different, stronger label than the label they actually used. Federal drug regulations, as interpreted by the FDA, prevented the Manufacturers from independently changing their generic drugs’ safety labels. But, we assume, federal law also required the Manufacturers to ask for FDA assistance in convincing the brand-name manufacturer to adopt a stronger label, so that all corresponding generic drug manufacturers could do so as well. We turn now to the question of pre-emption.
III
The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law shall be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Where state and federal law “directly conflict,” state law must give way. Wyeth, supra, at 583 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); see also Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U. S. 363, 372 (2000) (“[S]tate law is naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute”). We have held that state and federal law conflict where it is “impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements.” Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U. S. 280, 287 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A
We find impossibility here. It was not lawful under federal law for the Manufacturers to do what state law required of them. And even if they had fulfilled their federal duty to ask for FDA assistance, they would not have satisfied the requirements of state law.
If the Manufacturers had independently changed their labels to satisfy their state-law duty, they would have violated federal law. Taking Mensing and Demahy’s allegations as true, state law imposed on the Manufacturers a duty to attach a safer label to their generic metoclopramide. Federal law, however, demanded that, generic drug labels be the same at all times as the corresponding brand-name drug labels. See, e. g., 21 CFR §314.150(b)(10). Thus, it was impossible for the Manufacturers to comply with both their state-law duty to change the label and their federal-law duty to keep the label the same.
Mensing and Demahy contend that, while their state-law claims do not turn on whether the Manufacturers ashed the FDA. for assistance in changing their labels, the Manufacturers’ federal affirmative defense of pre-emption does. Men-sing and Demahy argue that if the Manufacturers had asked the FDA. for help in changing the corresponding brand-name label, they might eventually have been able to accomplish under federal law what state law requires. That is true enough. The Manufacturers “freely concede” that they could have asked the FDA for help. PLIVA Brief 48. If they had done so, and if the FDA decided there was sufficient supporting information, and if the FDA undertook negotiations with the brand-name manufacturer, and if adequate label changes were decided on and implemented, then the Manufacturers would have started a Mouse Trap game that eventually led to a better label on generic metoclopramide.
The federal duty to ask the FDA for help in strengthening the corresponding brand-name label, assuming such a duty exists, does not change this analysis. Although requesting FDA assistance would have satisfied the Manufacturers’ federal duty, it would not have satisfied their state tort-law duty to provide adequate labeling. State law demanded a safer label; it did not instruct the Manufacturers to communicate with the FDA about the possibility of a safer label. Indeed, Mensing and Demahy deny that their state tort claims are based on the Manufacturers’ alleged failure to ask the FDA for assistance in changing the labels. Brief for Respondents 53-54; cf. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U. S. 341 (2001) (holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA).
B
1
This raises the novel question whether conflict preemption should take into account these possible actions by the FDA and the brand-name manufacturer. Here, what federal law permitted the Manufacturers to do could have changed, even absent a change in the law itself, depending on the actions of the FDA and the brand-name manufacturer. Federal law does not dictate the text of each generic drug’s label, but rather ties those labels to their brand-name counterparts. Thus, federal law would permit the Manufacturers to comply with the state labeling requirements if, and only if, the FDA and the brand-name manufacturer changed the brand-name label to do so.
Mensing and Demahy assert that when a private party’s ability to comply with state law depends on approval and assistance from the FDA, proving pre-emption requires that party to demonstrate that the FDA would not have allowed compliance with state law. Here, they argue, the Manufacturers cannot bear their burden of proving impossibility because they did not even try to start the process that might ultimately have allowed them to use a safer label. Brief for Respondents 47. This is a fair argument, but we reject it.
The question for “impossibility” is whether the private party could independently do under federal law what state law requires of it. See Wyeth, 555 U. S., at 573 (finding no pre-emption where the defendant could “unilaterally” do what state law required). Accepting Mensing and Demahy’s argument would render conflict pre-emption largely meaningless because it would make most conflicts between state and federal law illusory. We can often imagine that a third party or the Federal Government might do something that makes it lawful for a private party to accomplish under federal law what state law requires of it. In these cases, it is certainly possible that, had the Manufacturers asked the FDA for help, they might have eventually been able to strengthen their warning label. Of course, it is also possible that the Manufacturers could have convinced the FDA to reinterpret its regulations in a manner that would have opened the CBE process to them. Following Mensing and Demahy’s argument to its logical conclusion, it is also possible that, by asking, the Manufacturers could have persuaded' the FDA to rewrite its generic drug regulations entirely or talked Congress into amending the Hateh-Waxman Amendments.
If these conjectures suffice to prevent federal and state law from conflicting for Supremacy Clause purposes, it is unclear when, outside of express pre-emption, the Supremacy Clause would have any force. We do not read the Supremacy Clause to permit an approach to pre-emption that renders conflict pre-emption all but meaningless. The Supremacy Clause, on its face, makes federal law “the supreme Law of the Land” even absent an express statement by Congress. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.
2
Moreover, the text of the Clause — that federal law shall be supreme, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” — plainly contemplates conflict pre-emption by describing federal law as effectively repealing contrary state law. Ibid.; see Nelson, Preemption, 86 Va. L. Rev. 225, 234 (2000); id., at 252-253 (describing discussion of the Supremacy Clause in state ratification debates as concerning whether federal law could repeal state law, or vice versa). The phrase “any [state law] to the Contrary notwithstanding” is a non obstante provision. Id., at 238-240, nn. 43-45. Eighteenth-century legislatures used non obstante provisions to specify the degree to which a new statute was meant to repeal older, potentially conflicting statutes in the same field. Id., at 238-240 (citing dozens of statutes from the 1770’s and 1780’s with similar provisions). A non obstante provision “in [a] new statute acknowledged that the statute might contradict prior law and instructed courts not to apply the general presumption against implied repeals.” Id., at 241-242; 4 M. Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law ¶ 19, p. 639 (4th ed. 1778) (“Although two Acts of Parliament are seemingly repugnant, yet if there be no Clause of non Obstante in the latter, they shall if possible have such Construction, that the latter may not be a Repeal of the former by Implication”). The non obstante provision in the Supremacy Clause therefore suggests that federal law should be understood to impliedly repeal conflicting state law.
Further, the provision suggests that courts should not strain to find ways to reconcile federal law with seemingly conflicting state law. Traditionally, courts went to great lengths attempting to harmonize conflicting statutes, in order to avoid implied repeals. Warder v. Arell, 2 Va. 282, 296 (1796) (opinion of Roane, J.) (“[W]e ought to seek for such a construction as will reconcile [the statutes] together”); Ludlow’s Heirs v. Johnson, 3 Ohio 553, 564 (1828) (“[I]f by any fair course of reasoning the two [statutes] can be reconciled, both shall stand”); Doolittle v. Bryan, 14 How. 563, 566 (1853) (requiring “the repugnance be quite plain” before finding implied repeal). A non obstante provision thus was a useful way for legislatures to specify that they did not want courts distorting the new law to accommodate the old. Nelson, supra, at 240-242; see also J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 147, p. 199 (1891) (“[W]hen there is inserted in a statute a provision [of non obstante]... [i]t is to be supposed that courts will be less inclined against recognizing repugnancy in applying such statutes”); Weston’s Case, 3 Dyer 347a, 347b, 73 Eng. Rep. 780, 781 (K. B. 1575) (“[W]hen there are two statutes, the one in appearance crossing the other, and no clause of non obstante is contained in the second statute... the exposition ought to be that both should stand in force”); G. Jacob, A New Law Dictionary (J. Morgan ed., 10th ed. 1782) (definition of “statute,” ¶ 6: “[W]hen there is a seeming variance between two statutes, and no clause of non obstante in the latter, such construction shall be made that both may stand”). The non obstante provision of the Supremacy Clause indicates that a court need look no further than “the ordinary meanin[g]” of federal law, and should not distort federal law to accommodate conflicting state law. Wyeth, 555 U. S., at 588 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To consider in our pre-emption analysis the contingencies inherent in these cases — in which the Manufacturers’ ability to comply with state law depended on uncertain federal agency and third-party decisions — would be inconsistent with the non obstante provision of the Supremacy Clause. The Manufacturers would be required continually to prove the counterfactual conduct of the FDA and brand-name manufacturer in order to establish the supremacy of federal law. We do not think the Supremacy Clause contemplates that sort of contingent supremacy. The non obstante provision suggests that pre-emption analysis should not involve speculation about ways in which federal agency and third-party actions could potentially reconcile federal duties with conflicting state duties. When the “ordinary meaning” of federal law blocks a private party from independently accomplishing what state law requires, that party has established pre-emption.
3
To be sure, whether a private party can act sufficiently independently under federal law to do what state law requires may sometimes be difficult to determine. But this is not such a case. Before the Manufacturers could satisfy state law, the FDA — a federal agency — had to -undertake special effort permitting them to do so. To decide these cases, it is enough to hold that when a party cannot satisfy its state duties without the Federal Government’s special permission and assistance, which is dependent on the exercise of judgment by a federal agency, that party cannot independently satisfy those state duties for pre-emption purposes.
Here, state law imposed a duty on the Manufacturers to take a certain action, and federal law barred them from taking that action. The only action the Manufacturers could independently take — asking for the FDA’s help — is not a matter of state-law concern. Mensing and Demahy’s tort claims are pre-empted.
C
Wyeth is not to the contrary. In that ease, as here, the plaintiff contended that a drug manufacturer had breached a state tort-law duty to provide an adequate warning label. Id., at 559-560. The Court held that the lawsuit was not pre-empted because it was possible for Wyeth, a brand-name drug manufacturer, to comply with both state and federal law. Id., at 572-573. Specifically, the CBE regulation, 21 CFR § 314.70(c)(6)(iii), permitted a brand-name drug manufacturer like Wyeth “to unilaterally strengthen its warning” without prior FDA approval. 555 U. S., at 573; cf. supra, at 614-615. Thus, the federal regulations applicable to Wyeth allowed the company, of its own volition, to strengthen its label in compliance with its state tort duty.
We recognize that from the perspective of Mensing and Demahy, finding pre-emption here but not in Wyeth makes little sense. Had Mensing and Demahy taken Reglan, the brand-name drug prescribed by their doctors, Wyeth would control and their lawsuits would not be pre-empted. But because pharmacists, acting in full accord with state law, substituted generic metoclopramide instead, federal law pre-empts these lawsuits. See, e. g., Minn. Stat. § 151.21 (2010) (describing when pharmacists may substitute generic drugs); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §37:1241(A)(17) (West 2007) (same). We acknowledge the unfortunate hand that federal drug regulation has dealt Mensing, Demahy, and others similarly situated.
But “it is not this Court’s task to decide whether the statutory scheme established by Congress is unusual or even bizarre.” Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn., L. L. C, 557 U. S. 519, 556 (2009) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). It is beyond dispute that the federal statutes and regulations that apply to brand-name drug manufacturers are meaningfully different than those that apply to generic drug manufacturers. Indeed, it is the special, and different, regulation of generic drugs that allowed the generic drug market to expand, bringing more drugs more quickly and cheaply to the public. But different federal statutes and regulations may, as here, lead to different pre-emption results. We will not distort the Supremacy Clause in order to create similar pre-emption across a dissimilar statutory scheme. As always, Congress and the PDA retain the authority to change the law and regulations if they so desire.
# * *
The judgments of the Fifth and Eighth Circuits are reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justxce Kennedy joins all but Part III-B-2 of this opinion.
All relevant events in these cases predate the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007,121 Stat. 823. We therefore refer exclusively to the prc-2007 statutes and regulations and cjcpress no view on the impact of the 2007 Act.
As we use it here, “generic drug” refers to a drug designed to be a copy of a reference listed drug (typically a brand name drug), and thus identical in aetive ingredients, safety, and efficacy. See, e.g., United States v. Generix Drug Corp., 460 U. S. 453, 454-455 (1983); 21 CFR, § 314.3(b) (2006) (defining “reference listed drug”).
The brief filed by the United States represents the views of the FDA. Cf. Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., ante, at 53, n. 1. Although we defer to the agency’s interpretation of its regulations, we do not defer to an ageney’o ultimate concluoion about whether otate law should be pre-empted. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U. S. 555, 576 (2009).
Wo do not address whether etate and federal law “directly conflict” in circumstances boyond “impossibility.” See Wyeth, 555 U. S., at 683, 690-591 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (suggesting that they might).
The Hatch-Waxman Amendments contain no provision expressly preempting state tort claims. See post, at 633-634 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Nor do they contain any saving clause to expressly preserve state tort claims. Cf. Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 662 U. S. 323,339 (2011) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (discussing the saving clause in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1960, 49 U. S. C. § 30103(e)). Although an express statement on pre-emption is always preferable, the lack of such a statement does not end our inquiry. Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, the absence of express pre-emption is not a reason to find no conflict pro omption. See post, at 643.
The dissent asserts that we are forgetting “purposes-and-objectives” pre-emption. Post, at 640. But as the dissent acknowledges, purposes- and-objeetives pre-emption is a form of conflict pre-emption. Post, at 634, 640. If conflict
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We set this case for argument with No. 73-1363, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., ante, p. 251, 416 U. S. 968 (1974). The National Labor Relations Board held in this case, as it held in Weingarten, that the denial by respondent employer (hereinafter respondent) of an employee’s request that her union representative be present at an investigatory interview which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action, constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8 (a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a)(1), because it interfered with, restrained, and coerced the individual right of the employee, protected by § 7 of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 157, “to engage in . . . concerted activities for . . . mutual aid or protection . . . ,” 195 N. L. R. B. 197 (1972). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held, as the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Weingarten, that this was an impermissible construction of § 7 and denied enforcement of so much of the Board’s order as directed respondent to cease and desist from requiring an employee requesting such representation to take part in such an interview without that representation if the employee reasonably feared disciplinary action, and also refused enforcement of provisions that directed respondent to offer reinstatement, with backpay, to the employees who were discharged for asserting this right. 481 F. 2d 1018 (1973). We reverse.
Respondent, a manufacturer of women’s clothing, discharged Catherine King on October 16, 1969, after she refused to attend an interview with the company president without union representation. That same day, the company discharged shop chairlady Delila Mulford for her persistence in seeking to represent King at the interview, and assistant chairlady Martha Cochran for filing grievances on behalf of King and Mulford.
The events leading to the discharges began on October 10, 1969, when Mulford, King, and two other employees met with Lawrence Gerlach, Sr., the company president; Mary Kathryn Gerlach, his wife and company production manager; and Lawrence Gerlach, Jr., their son and general manager, to complain that they were unable to make a satisfactory wage under the piecework system then in effect. The meeting ended on an acrimonious note when Gerlach, Jr., ordered the employees to return to work and told them that they were free to “go elsewhere” if they were dissatisfied with the company. Later that day, Mrs. Gerlach noticed that King had shut off her machine and was speakingHo several other workers who had also stopped their machines. When ordered to resume production, King told Mrs. Gerlach to mind her own business. Thereupon Mrs. Gerlach directed King to report to Gerlach, Sr.’s office. King complied, but on her way to the office asked union chairlady Mulford to accompany her. Gerlach, Sr., met King and Mulford in the anteroom to his office. He told Mulford to return to work, and ordered King into his office alone. Neither woman complied, and King stated that she would not submit to an interview in the absence of her union representative. At this, Gerlach, Sr., told both women to return to their work stations. That Sunday, October 12, Mrs. Gerlach phoned Mulford and told her that she was suspended for two days. The Board found that the suspension was motivated by Mulford’s attempt to represent King at the interview with Gerlach, Sr. 195 N. L. R. B., at 199.
On Monday, October 13, when King reported for work her timecard was missing from the rack, indicating under plant practice that she was wanted in the president’s office. Before going to the office, however, King asked assistant chairlady Cochran to accompany her. They were met at the president’s office by Mrs. Gerlach who told Cochran to go directly to work if she wanted to keep her job because the president wanted to take up with King where they left off on Friday. Cochran replied: “Well, Mrs. Gerlach, I’m sorry, but if that’s what you want to talk to her about, that is Union business and she has asked me to represent her.” Gerlach, Sr., told King he would not return her timecard until she met with him alone in his office. King and Cochran then waited outside the president’s office all day, and during this time Cochran’s timecard was also removed from the rack.
Again on the morning of October 14, Gerlach, Sr., told King he would not return her timecard until she agreed to meet with him alone. When Cochran asked about her timecard, Gerlach replied that she was suspended for two days for being away from her machine. The Board termed this reason “pretextual,” and found that in fact Cochran’s attempt to represent King was the reason for the suspension. Neither King nor Cochran worked that day. Much the same transpired the next day, but" tins time Mulford, whose two-day suspension had expired, was also present. After King refused to meet in private with Gerlach, Sr., she and Cochran left the plant, and Mulford returned to work.
Finally, on October 16, all three women went to the president’s office. Mrs. Gerlach gave Cochran her time-card and she returned to work. Gerlach, Sr., told King if she refused again to meet with him alone she would be fired. King walked out. Mulford then asked if she could return to work, and Gerlach, Sr., replied: “No, you’ve abandoned your job. You’re finished.” Later that same day, Cochran attempted to present grievances on behalf of King, Mulford, and herself to Gerlach, Jr. He stated he was about to leave town and had no time for such things. When she put the list of grievances on his desk, he picked them up and threw them into the wastebasket. He then pulled Cochran's timecard and told her: “You worked this morning, but you're not working this afternoon.” When Cochran asked Gerlach, Sr., if she had been fired he replied: “Just go home. You wanted to draw unemployment now go on and draw it.” The Board found that “[t]here can be no doubt that under the facts and circumstances of this case King had reasonable grounds to believe that disciplinary action might result from the Employer's investigation of her conduct.” 195 N. L. R. B., at 199. King, therefore, had a reasonable basis for desiring union representation, and the Board found that respondent discharged her for insisting on that right. The Board found further that Mulford and Cochran were suspended, and Mulford discharged, because they insisted on representing King at the interview. Since Mulford and Cochran were engaging in a protected concerted activity, the suspensions and Mulford’s discharge violated §8 (a)(1). Finally, the Board determined that respondent discharged Cochran because she sought to file grievances on behalf of King, Mulford, and herself, and that this discharge was in violation of §§ 8 (a) (1) and (3).
On these facts, our decision today in No. 73-1363, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., ante, p. 251, clearly requires reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as enforcement of the Board’s order was denied. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals with direction to enter a new judgment enforcing the Board’s order in its entirety.
It is so ordered.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Burger, see ante, p. 268.]
Mr. Justice Powell, with whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins, dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissent in NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., ante, p. 269,1 dissent.
Later that day, Cochran telephoned Gerlach, Sr.’s secretary to learn whether Gerlach wanted her to report to work the next day. The secretary told her: “He said no.” Cochran then asked the secretary to “tell him that he can reach me at my home phone when he needs me.” Cochran was never notified to return to work. The Trial Examiner found, and the Board agreed, that Cochran was discharged, and that she did not abandon her job. 195 N. L. R. B. 197, 199 n. 9.
The Court of Appeals enforced that portion of the Board’s order relating to Cochran’s discharge. The court determined that there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that she was discharged because she sought to engage in the protected union aetivity of filing grievances on behalf of King, Mulford, and herself. The company has not filed a cross-petition, and that aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision is not before us. Brennan v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc., 410 U. S. 512, 516 (1973); NLRB v. International Van Lines, 409 U. S. 48, 52 n. 4 (1972); Alaska Ind. Bd. v. Chugach Assn., 356 U. S. 320, 325 (1958).
We do not address respondent’s objection that it was denied procedural due process because the Board based its order upon a theory of liability under § 8 (a) (1) allegedly not charged or litigated before the Board. The argument is that respondent participated in the proceedings upon the premise that the issue for decision was whether respondent had decided upon discipline prior to the interview, so as to constitute the interview disciplinary and not investigatory in nature, and had no prior notice that, instead of deciding that question, the Board’s decision would turn upon a finding that the employee had “reasonable grounds to fear . . . discipline” at the interview. But respondent failed to file a petition for reconsideration as permitted by Board Rules and Regulations § 102.48 (d)(1), 29 CFR § 102.48 (d)(1), that provides that any material error in the Board’s decision may be asserted through a motion for “reconsideration, rehearing, or reopening of the record.” Respondent therefore cannot assert its objection on appeal “unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.” 29 U. S. C. § 160 (e). Respondent did not suggest any “extraordinary circumstances” in either the Court of Appeals or in this Court. The objection therefore may not be considered. NLRB v. Mine Workers, 355 U. S. 453, 463-464 (1958); Glaziers’ Local No. 568 v. NLRB, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 394, 399-400, 408 F. 2d 197, 202-203 (1969).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, Globe Liquor Company, Inc., brought this action in Federal District Court against respondents, Frank and Dorothea San Roman, doing business under the name of International Industries. The complaint claimed damages for an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of certain liquors. An answer was filed; issues were appropriately joined. After all the evidence had been introduced, each party requested a directed verdict. The petitioner’s motion was granted, verdict was returned in its favor, and judgment was accordingly entered. The respondents then moved for a new trial on the ground among others that there were many contested issues of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. They did not move for judgment under Rule 50 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in part: “Within 10 days after the reception of a verdict, a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict; .... A motion for a new trial may be joined with this motion, or a new trial may be prayed for in the alternative. If a verdict was returned the court may allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed.” On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals not only set aside the judgment in favor of the petitioner but also remanded the case to the District Court with directions to enter judgment for the respondents. 160 F. 2d 800. We granted certiorari to consider the apparent inconsistency between this latter action of the Circuit Court of Appeals and our holding in Cone v. West Virginia Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212.
In the Cone case we held that the Circuit Court of Appeals was without power to order the entry of final judgment for the loser of a jury verdict in the District Court where he had failed to follow his motion for directed verdict with a timely motion for judgment as required by Rule 50 (b). We pointed out in the Cone case that Rule 50 (b) vested district judges with a discretion, under the circumstances outlined in the rule, to choose between two alternatives: (1) reopening the judgment and granting a new trial, and (2) ordering the entry of judgment as if the losing party’s request for directed verdict had been granted by the trial judge.
It is urged that the reasons which supported the Cone decision are not relevant here because, unlike the Cone case, the jury in this case returned its verdict under specific directions of the trial judge. However significant this variance between the two cases might be for some purposes, it is of no importance here. By its terms the rule applies equally to cases where the verdict returned by the jury was not directed, as in the Cone case, or was directed, as in this case.
Furthermore, the very circumstances which arose in this case emphasize the importance of having the District Court first pass upon whether its error should result in a new trial or in a judgment finally ending the controversy. For there is here a dispute between the parties whether all or certain parts of a deposition containing important evidence were properly introduced in the trial court. Both parties took the position in the Circuit Court of Appeals that some, though different portions of the deposition, were properly presented in evidence. The Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case on the assumption that no part of the deposition was ever admitted as evidence. In this Court respondents argue that no part of the deposition was ever read to the jury and therefore no part of it can be considered as introduced in evidence. Whether this deposition or any part of it was properly before the court, and even if it were not before the court, whether the ends of justice required that a new trial be granted in order that the evidence it contained might properly be offered, were questions which the petitioner was entitled under Rule 50 (b) to have passed upon in the first instance by the trial court. What we said in the Cone case is peculiarly appropriate here: “Determination of whether a new trial should be granted or a judgment entered under Rule 50 (b) calls for the judgment in the first instance of the judge who saw and heard the witnesses and has the feel of the case which no appellate printed transcript can impart.” It was error therefore for the Circuit Court of Appeals to direct the District Court to enter judgment for the respondents.
Petitioner also strongly urges that the evidence in the District Court was such that the trial judge was justified in directing a verdict in its favor and that the judgment resting on that verdict should be reinstated. Whether a verdict should have been directed, however, depends upon a number of factors, including an interpretation of the law of Illinois where the contract was made, a proper interpretation of the pleadings, a determination whether the disputed deposition was admitted in evidence in whole or in part, and the effect of that evidence if admitted. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in reversing and remanding the cause to the District Court is affirmed. But since the respondents made no motion for judgment under Rule 50 (b), it was error to direct the District Court to enter a judgment in their favor. The case should go back to the District Court for anew trial.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Four months before this Court’s decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), respondent was stopped in his automobile by a roving border patrol, and three plastic garbage bags containing 270 pounds of marihuana were found in the trunk of his car by Border Patrol agents. On the basis of this evidence an indictment was returned charging him with a violation of 84 Stat. 1260, 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a) (1). When respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied after a hearing, he stipulated in writing that he “did knowingly and intentionally possess, with intent to distribute, the marijuana concealed in the 1962 Chevrolet which he was driving on February 28, 1973.” The District Court found respondent guilty and imposed sentence. On appeal from that judgment, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the judgment on the ground that the “rule announced by the Supreme Court in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States . . . should be applied to similar cases pending on appeal on the date the Supreme Court’s decision was announced.” 500 F. 2d 985, 986 (1974) (footnote omitted) . We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. 419 U. S. 993 (1974).
In Almeida-Sanchez, supra, this Court held that a warrantless automobile search, conducted approximately 25 air miles from the Mexican border by Border Patrol agents, acting without probable cause, was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. In this case the Government conceded in the Court of Appeals that the search of respondent’s automobile approximately 70 air miles from the Mexican border and the seizure of the marihuana were unconstitutional under the standard announced in Almeida-Sanchez, but it contended that that standard should not be applied to searches conducted prior to June 21, 1973, the date of the decision in AlmeidaSanchez. In an inquiry preliminary to balancing the interests for and against retroactive application, see Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297 (1967), the majority of the Court of Appeals first considered whether this Court had “articulated a new doctrine” in Almeida-Sanchez, 500 F. 2d, at 987. See, e. g., Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 106 (1971); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U. S. 371, 381-382, n. 2 (1972) (Stewart, J., dissenting). Concluding that Almeida-Sanchez overruled no prior decision of this Court and instead “reaffirmed well-established Fourth Amendment standards” that did not “disturb a long-accepted and relied-upon practice,” 500 F. 2d, at 988, the Court of Appeals held:
“[Respondent] is entitled to the benefit of the rule announced in Almeida-Sanchez, not because of retro-activity but because of Fourth Amendment principles never deviated from by the Supreme Court.” Id., at 989.
The judgment of conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court to suppress the evidence seized from respondent’s automobile.
Although expressing some doubt about the applicability of the old law-new law test as a precondition to retro-activity analysis, id., at 990, the six dissenters joined issue with the majority over the proper interpretation of Almeida-Sanchez. The dissenters concluded that AlmeidaSanchez had announced a new constitutional rule because the decision overruled a consistent line of Courts of Appeals precedent and disrupted a long accepted and widely relied upon administrative practice. Border Patrol agents had conducted roving searches pursuant to congressional authorization, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. § 1357 (a)(3), and administrative regulation, 8 CFR § 287.1 (a)(2) (1973), which had been continuously upheld until this Court’s decision in Almeida-Sanchez. Since Almeida-Sanchez stated a new rule, the dissenters concluded that the applicability of that decision to pre-June 21, 1973, roving patrol vehicle searches should be determined by reference to the standards summarized in Stovall v. Denno, supra. For the reasons expressed in Part II of Judge Wallace’s opinion in United States v. Bowen, 500 F. 2d 960, 975-981 (CA9), cert. granted, 419 U. S. 824 (1974), the dissenters concluded that Almeida-Sanchez should be accorded prospective application.
Despite the conceded illegality of the search under the Almeida-Sanchez standard, the Government contends that the exclusionary rule should not be mechanically applied in the case now before us because the policies underlying the rule do not justify its retroactive application to pre-Almeida-Sanchez searches. We agree.
I
Since 1965 this Court has repeatedly struggled with the question of whether rulings in criminal cases should be given retroactive effect. In those cases “[w]here the major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials,” Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 653 (1971), the doctrine has quite often been applied retroactively. It is indisputable, however, that in every case in which the Court has addressed the retroactivity problem in the context of the exclusionary rule, whereby coneededly relevant evidence is excluded in order to enforce a constitutional guarantee that does not relate to the integrity of the factfinding process, the Court has concluded that any such new constitutional principle would be accorded only prospective application. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966); Stovall v. Denno, supra; Fuller v. Alaska, 393 U. S. 80 (1968); Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969); Jenkins v. Delaware, 395 U. S. 213 (1969); Williams v. United States, supra; Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797 (1971).
We think that these cases tell us a great deal about the nature of the exclusionary rule, as well as something about the nature of retroactivity analysis. Decisions of this Court applying the exclusionary rule to unconstitutionally seized evidence have referred to “the imperative of judicial integrity,” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 222 (1960), although the Court has relied principally upon the deterrent purpose served by the exclusionary rule. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961); Lee v. Florida, 392 U. S. 378 (1968); see also United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 (1974). And see also Oaks, Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure, 37 U. Chi. L. Rev. 665, 668-672 (1970).
When it came time to consider whether those decisions would be applied retroactively, however, the Court recognized that the introduction of evidence which had been seized by law enforcement officials in good-faith compliance with then-prevailing constitutional norms did not make the courts “accomplices in the willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold.” Elkins v. United States, supra, at 223. Thus, while the “imperative of judicial integrity” played a role in this Court’s decision to overrule Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949), see Mapp v. Ohio, supra, at 659, the Mapp decision was not applied retroactively: “Rather than being abhorrent at the time of seizure in this case, the use in state trials of illegally seized evidence had been specifically authorized by this Court in Wolf.” Linkletter v. Walker, supra, at 638 (footnote omitted). Similarly, in Lee v. Florida, supra, this Court overruled Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U. S. 199 (1952), and held that evidence seized in violation of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1103, 47 IT. S. C. § 605, by state officers could not be introduced into evidence at state criminal trials:
“[T]he decision we reach today is not based upon language and doctrinal symmetry alone. It is buttressed as well by the ‘imperative of judicial integrity.’ Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 222. Under our Constitution no court, state or federal, may serve as an accomplice in the willful transgression of ‘the Laws of the United States,’ laws by which ‘the Judges in every State [are] bound ....’” 392 U. S., at 385-386 (footnotes omitted).
But when it came time to consider the retroactivity of Lee, the Court held that it would not be applied retroactively, saying:
“Retroactive application of Lee would overturn every state conviction obtained in good-faith reliance on Schwarts. Since this result is not required by the principle upon which Lee was decided, or necessary to accomplish its purpose, we hold that the exclusionary rule is to be applied only to trials in which the evidence is sought to be introduced after the date of our decision in Lee.” Fuller v. Alaska, supra, at 81.
The teaching of these retroactivity cases is that if the law enforcement officers reasonably believed in good faith that evidence they had seized was admissible at trial, the “imperative of judicial integrity” is not offended by the introduction into evidence of that material even if decisions subsequent to the search or seizure have broadened the exclusionary rule to encompass evidence seized in that manner. It would seem to follow a fortiori from the Linkletter and Fuller holdings that the “imperative of judicial integrity” is also not offended if law enforcement officials reasonably believed in good faith that their conduct was in accordance with the law even if decisions subsequent to the search or seizure have held that conduct of the type engaged in by the law enforcement officials is not permitted by the Constitution. For, although the police in Linkletter and Fuller could not have been expected to foresee the application of the exclusionary rule to state criminal trials, they could reasonably have entertained no similar doubts as to the illegality of their conduct. See Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S., at 27; § 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934; cf. Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379 (1937).
This approach to the “imperative of judicial integrity” does not differ markedly from the analysis the Court has utilized in determining whether the deterrence rationale undergirding the exclusionary rule would be furthered by retroactive application of new constitutional doctrines. See Linkletter v. Walker, supra, at 636-637; Fuller v. Alaska, supra, at 81; Desist v. United States, supra, at 249-251. In Desist, the Court explicitly recognized the interrelation between retroactivity rulings and the exclusionary rule: “[W]e simply decline to extend the court-made exclusionary rule to cases in which its deterrent purpose would not be served.” 394 U. S., at 254 n. 24.
This focus in the retroactivity cases on the purposes served by the exclusionary rule is also quite in harmony with the approach taken generally to the exclusionary rule. In United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S., at 348, we said that the exclusionary rule “is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.” It follows that “the application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” Ibid. We likewise observed in Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S., at 447:
“The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. By refusing to admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the courts hope to instill in those particular investigating officers, or in their future counterparts, a greater degree of care toward the rights of an accused. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force.”
The “reliability and relevancy,” Linkletter, supra, at 639, of the evidence found in the trunk of respondent’s car is unquestioned. It was sufficiently damning on the issue of respondent’s guilt or innocence that he stipulated in writing that in effect he had committed the offense charged. Whether or not the exclusionary rule should be applied to the roving Border Patrol search conducted in this case, then, depends on whether considerations of either judicial integrity or deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations are sufficiently weighty to require that the evidence obtained by the Border Patrol in this case be excluded.
II
The Border Patrol agents who stopped and searched respondent’s automobile were acting pursuant to § 287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. § 1357 (a)(3) That provision, which carried forward statutory authorization dating back to 1946, 60 Stat. 865, 8 U. S. C. § 110 (1946 ed.), authorizes appropriately designated Immigration and Naturalization officers to search vehicles “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States” without a warrant. Pursuant to this statutory authorization, regulations were promulgated fixing the “reasonable distance,” as specified in § 287 (a) (3), at “100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States,” 22 Fed. Reg. 9808 (1957), as amended, 29 Fed. Reg. 13244 (1964), 8 CFR § 287.1 (a) (2) (1973).
Between 1952 and Almeida-Sanchez, roving Border Patrol searches under § 287 (a) (3) were upheld repeatedly against constitutional attack. Dicta in many other Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit decisions strongly suggested that the statute and the Border Patrol policy were acceptable means for policing the immigration laws. As Mr. Justice Powell observed in his concurring opinion in Almeida-Sanchez:
“Roving automobile searches in border regions for aliens . . . have been consistently approved by the judiciary. While the question is one of first impression in this Court, such searches uniformly have been sustained by the courts of appeals whose jurisdictions include those areas of the border between Mexico and the United States where the problem has been most severe.” 413 U. S., at 278.
It was in reliance upon a validly enacted statute, supported by longstanding administrative regulations and continuous judicial approval, that Border Patrol agents stopped and searched respondent’s automobile. Since the parties acknowledge that Almeida-Sanchez was the first roving Border Patrol case to be decided by this Court, unless we are to hold that parties may not reasonably rely upon any legal pronouncement emanating from sources other than this Court, we cannot regard as blameworthy those parties who conform their conduct to the prevailing statutory or constitutional norm. Cf. Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971); Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U. S. 192 (1973). If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct then evidence obtained from a search should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Admittedly this uniform treatment of roving border patrol searches by the federal judiciary was overturned by this Court’s decision in AlmeidaSanchez. But in light of this history and of what we perceive to be the purpose of the exclusionary rule, we conclude that nothing in the Fourth Amendment, or in the exclusionary rule fashioned to implement it, requires that the evidence here be suppressed, even if we assume that respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search of his car.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stewart dissents from the opinion and judgment of the Court for the reasons set out in Part I of the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, post, at 544-549.
App. 28. The stipulation provided that it “would not [have been] entered into- had the [respondent’s] motion to suppress in the case been granted.” Ibid.
The Fifth Circuit had reached a contrary conclusion in United States v. Miller, 492 F. 2d 37 (1974).
The Court acknowledged the “power of the Federal Government to exclude aliens from the country” and the constitutionality of “routine inspections and searches of individuals or conveyances seeking to cross our borders.” 413 U. S., at 272. While searches of this sort could be conducted “not only at the border itself, but at its functional equivalents as well,” ibid., the Court concluded that the search at issue in the case “was of a wholly different sort.” Id., at 273.
388 U. S., at 297: “The criteria guiding resolution of the question [of retroactivity] implicate (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (e) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.”
By the time Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965), was decided, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), had already been applied to three cases pending on direct review at the time Mapp was decided. Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23 (1963); Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85 (1963); Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483 (1964). Those cases were decided without discussion of retroactivity principles, and they have not been interpreted as establishing any retroactivity limitation of general applicability. See Linkletter, supra, at 622; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 732 (1966); Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 252-253 (1969).
Title 8 U. S. C. § 1357 (a) (3):
“Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
“within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.”
“Any employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service authorized so to do under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization with the approval of the Attorney General, shall have power without warrant ... to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States, railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.”
United States v. Thompson, 475 F. 2d 1359 (CA5 1973); Kelly v. United States, 197 F. 2d 162 (CA5 1952); Roa-Rodriquez v. United States, 410 F. 2d 1206 (CA10 1969); United States v. Miranda, 426 F. 2d 283 (CA9 1970); United States v. Almeida-Sanchez, 452 F. 2d 459 (CA9 1971), rev’d, 413 U. S. 266 (1973). In support of these holdings, the Courts of Appeals have relied upon cases sustaining searches and seizures at fixed checkpoints maintained within 100 air miles of the border. See nn. 9, 10, and 11, infra. Whether fixed-checkpoint searches and seizures are constitutional notwithstanding our decision in Almeida-Sanchez is before us in United States v. Ortiz, No. 73-2050, cert. granted, 419 U. S. 824 (1974); United States v. Bowen, 500 F. 2d 960 (CA9), cert. granted, 419 U. S. 824 (1974).
Haerr v. United States, 240 F. 2d 533 (1957); Ramirez v. United States, 263 F. 2d 385 (1959); United States v. De Leon, 462 F. 2d 170 (1972), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 853 (1973).
Fernandez v. United States, 321 F. 2d 283 (1963); Barba-Reyes v. United States, 387 F. 2d 91 (1967); United States v. Avey, 428 F. 2d 1159, cert. denied, 400 U. S. 903 (1970); Fumagalli v. United States, 429 F. 2d 1011 (1970); Mienke v. United States, 452 F. 2d 1076 (1971); United States v. Foerster, 455 F. 2d 981 (1972), vacated and remanded, 413 U. S. 915 (1973).
United States v. McCormick, 468 F. 2d 68 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U. S. 927 (1973); United States v. Anderson, 468 F. 2d 1280 (1972).
Mr. Justice Brennan’s dissent also suggests that we were wrong to reverse the judgment affirming Almeida-Sanchez’ conviction if we uphold the judgment of conviction against Peltier. But where it has been determined, as in a case such as Linkletter, that an earlier holding such as Mapp is not to be applied retroactively, it has not beeti questioned that Mapp was entitled to the benefit of the rule enunciated in her case. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S., at 300-301. Nor did the Government in Almeida-Sanchez urge upon us any considerations of exclusionary rule policy independent of the merits of the Fourth Amendment question which we decided adversely to the Government.
In its haste to extrapolate today’s decision, that dissent argues that this decision will both “stop dead in its tracks judicial development of Fourth Amendment rights” since “the first duty of a court will be to deny the accused’s motion to suppress if he cannot cite a case invalidating a search or seizure on identical facts” and add “a new layer of factfinding in deciding motions to suppress in the already heavily burdened federal courts.” Post, at 554, 560. Whether today’s decision will reduce the responsibilities of district courts, as the dissent first suggests, or whether that burden will be increased, as the dissent also suggests, it surely will not fulfill both of these contradictory prophecies. A fact not open to doubt is that the district courts are presently required, in hearing motions to suppress evidence, to spend substantial time addressing issues that do not go to a criminal defendant’s guilt or innocence. In this case, for example, the transcript of the suppression hearing takes almost three times as many pages in the Appendix as is taken by the transcript of respondent’s trial. App. 5-36.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent, Dauntless Towing Line, contracted to use two of its tugs in assisting the United States, petitioner here, move its steamship Christopher Gale from Hoboken to a Brooklyn pier. The Gale was to move under its own propelling power under guidance of one of respondent’s tugboat captains or some other licensed pilot. The contract further provided that a tugboat captain or pilot going on board would become the “servant of the owners of the vessel assisted in respect to the giving of orders to any of the tugs furnished to or engaged in the assisting service and in respect to the handling of such vessel, and neither those furnishing the tugs and/or pilot nor the tugs, their owners, agents, or charterers shall be liable for any damage resulting therefrom.” One of the respondent’s tug captains went aboard the government vessel to pilot it in connection with the moving operation. The two tugs of respondent were at the time fastened to the Gale by lines to help guide its movements. One of the tugs was crushed between the Gale and a pier while attempting to carry out a maneuver under orders of the tug captain piloting the Gale.
The respondent brought this suit in admiralty to recover damages from the United States alleging that damages to the tug were caused by negligent pilotage orders of the tug captain while temporarily acting as “servant” of the Gale. After hearings the District Court found that the damages were caused by the pilot’s negligence “in persisting in his attempt to enter the slip after he knew or should have known that he could not overcome the force of the wind and tide and keep the Christopher Gale from sagging down on Pier 1.” On this finding the District Court entered a decree requiring the United States to pay respondent for damages brought about by this negligence. This decree was entered over the Government’s contention that the contract was invalid if construed as exempting respondent from liability for its own servant’s negligence. 112 F. Supp. 730. Agreeing with the District Court’s reasoning and decree, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 209 F. 2d 958. We granted certio-rari to consider the meaning and validity of the pilotage clause, 348 U. S. 811, and at the same time granted cer-tiorari in two other cases, today decided, which involve validity of contracts exempting towers from liability for negligent towage. Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., ante, p. 85; Boston Metals Co. v. The Winding Gulf, ante, p. 122.
Sun Oil Co. v. Dalzell Towing Co., 287 U. S. 291, involved the meaning and validity of a pilotage contract substantially the same as the one here. One of Dalzell’s tug captains negligently piloted Sun Oil’s vessel causing the boat to ground and suffer damages. Sun Oil sued Dalzell. The contract exempting Dalzell from liability for pilotage was pleaded as a defense. This Court held that the tug company could validly contract against being “liable for any damage” caused by the negligence of one of its captains in piloting Sun Oil’s vessel and construed the contract there as having that effect. The question in this case, however, is whether the agreement of the ship being piloted to release the tug company from being “liable for any damage resulting” from negligent pilotage not only relieves the tug company from liability for damage, but allows it affirmatively to collect damages for injury to its own tug due to negligent pilotage by one of its tug captains.
An agreement that one shall not be liable for negligence of a third person cannot easily be read as an agreement that one is entitled to collect damages for negligence of that third person. And there is no reason to stretch contractual language to force payment of damages under circumstances like these. ' A person supplying his own employees for use by another in a common undertaking cannot usually collect damages because of negligent work by the employee supplied. Clear contractual language might justify imposition of such liability. But the contractual language here does not meet such a test and we do not construe it as authorizing respondent to recover damages from petitioner.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Harlan 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.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a narrow but important issue in the administration of the federal general assistance program for needy Indians:
Are general assistance benefits available only to those Indians living on reservations in the United States (or in areas regulated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Alaska and Oklahoma), and are they thus unavailable to Indians (outside Alaska and Oklahoma) living off, although near, a reservation?
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona answered this question favorably to petitioner, the Secretary of the Interior, when, without opinion and on cross-motions for summary judgment, it dismissed the respondents’ complaint. The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, reversed. 462 F. 2d 818 (CA9 1972). We granted certiorari because of the significance of the issue and because of the vigorous assertion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals was inconsistent with long-established policy of the Secretary and of the Bureau. 411 U. S. 947 (1973).
I
The pertinent facts are agreed upon, although, as to some, the petitioner Secretary denies knowledge but does not dispute them. App. 45-48. The respondents, Ramon Ruiz and his wife, Anita, are Papago Indians and United States citizens. In 1940 they left the Papago Reservation in Arizona to seek employment 15 miles away at the Phelps-Dodge copper mines at Ajo. Mr. Ruiz found work there, and they settled in a community at Ajo called the “Indian Village” and populated almost entirely by Papagos. Practically all the land and most of the homes in the Village are owned or rented by Phelps-Dodge. The Ruizes have lived in Ajo continuously since 1940 and have been in their present residence since 1947. A minor daughter lives with them. They speak and understand the Papago language but only limited English. Apart from Mr. Ruiz’ employment with Phelps-Dodge, they have not been assimilated into the dominant culture, and they appear to have maintained a close tie with the nearby reservation.
In July 1967, 27 years after the Ruizes moved to Ajo, the mine where he worked was shut down by a strike. It remained closed until the following March. While the strike was in progress, Mr. Ruiz’ sole income was a $15 per week striker’s benefit paid by the union. He sought welfare assistance from the State of Arizona but this was denied because of the State’s apparent policy that striking workers are not eligible for general assistance or emergency relief.
On December 11, 1967, Mr. Ruiz applied for general assistance benefits from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). He was immediately notified by letter that he was ineligible for general assistance because of the provision (in effect since 1952) in 66 Indian Affairs Manual 3.1.4 (1965) that eligibility is limited to Indians living “on reservations” and in jurisdictions under the BIA in Alaska and Oklahoma. An appeal to the Superintendent of the Papago Indian Agency was unsuccessful. A further appeal to the Phoenix Area Director of the BIA led to a hearing, but this, too, proved unsuccessful. The sole ground for the denial of general assistance benefits was that the Ruizes resided outside the boundaries of the Papago Reservation.
The respondents then instituted the present purported class action against the Secretary, claiming, as a matter of statutory interpretation, entitlement to the general assistance for which they had applied, and also challenging the eligibility provision as a violation of Fifth Amendment due process and of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, of the Constitution.
The Court of Appeals’ reversal of the District Court’s summary judgment for the Secretary was on the ground that the Manual’s residency limitation was inconsistent with the broad language of the Snyder Act, 25 U. S. C. § 13, “that Congress intended general assistance benefits to be available to all Indians, including those in the position” of the Ruizes, 462 F. 2d, at 821, and that subsequent actions of Congress in appropriating funds for the BIA general assistance program did not serve to ratify the imposed limitation. The dissent took the position that the Secretary’s policy was within the broad discretionary authority delegated to the Secretary by Congress with respect to the allocation of limited funds.
II
The Snyder Act, 42 Stat. 208, 25 U. S. C. § 13, approved November 2, 1921, provides the underlying congressional authority for most BIA activities including, in particular and importantly, the general assistance program. Prior to the Act, there was no such general authorization. As a result, appropriation requests made by the House Committee on Indian Affairs were frequently stricken on the House floor by point-of-order objections. See H. R. Rep. No. 275, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. (1921); S. Rep. No. 294, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. (1921); 61 Cong. Rec. 4659-4672 (1921). The Snyder Act was designed to remedy this situation. It is comprehensively worded for the apparent purpose of avoiding these point-of-order motions to strike. Since the passage of the Act, the BIA has presented its budget requests without further interruption of that kind and Congress has enacted appropriation bills annually in response to the requests.
The appropriation legislation at issue here, Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1968, Pub. L. 90-28, 81 Stat. 59, 60 (1967), recited:
“BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS “Education and Welfare Services
“For expenses necessary to provide education and welfare services for Indians, either directly or in cooperation with States and other organizations, including payment (in advance or from date of admission), of care, tuition, assistance, and other expenses of Indians in boarding homes, institutions, or schools; grants and other assistance to needy Indians; maintenance of law and order, and payment of rewards for information or evidence concerning violations of law on Indian reservations or lands; and operation of Indian arts and crafts shops; $126,478,000.”
This wording, except for the amount, is identical to that employed in similar legislation for prior fiscal years and, indeed, for subsequent ones. It is to be noted that neither the language of the Snyder Act nor that of the Appropriations Act imposes any geographical limitation on the availability of general assistance benefits and does not prescribe eligibility requirements or the details of any program. Instead, the Snyder Act states that the BIA (under the supervision of the Secretary) “shall direct, supervise, and expend... for the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the United States” for the stated purposes including, as the two purposes first described, “[g]eneral support” and “relief of distress.” This is broadly phrased material and obviously is intended to include all BIA activities.
The general assistance program is designed by the BIA to provide direct financial aid to needy Indians where other channels of relief, federal, state, and tribal, are not available. Benefits generally are paid on a scale equivalent to the State’s welfare payments. Any Indian, whether living on a reservation or elsewhere, may be eligible for benefits under the various social security programs in which his State participates and no limitation may be placed on social security benefits because of an Indian claimant’s residence on a reservation.
In the formal budget request submitted to Congress by the BIA for fiscal 1968, the program was described as follows:
“General assistance will be provided to needy Indians on reservations who are not eligible for public assistance under the Social Security Act... and for whom such assistance is not available from established welfare agencies or through tribal resources.” Hearings on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1968 before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 777-778 (1967), and Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1968, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 695 (1967).
III
We are confronted, therefore, with the issues whether the geographical limitation placed on general assistance eligibility by the BIA is consistent with congressional intent and the meaning of the applicable statutes, or, to phrase it somewhat differently, whether the congressional appropriations are properly limited by the BIA’s restrictions, and, if so, whether the limitation withstands constitutional analysis.
On the initial question, the Secretary argues, first, that the Snyder Act is merely an enabling act with no definition of the scope of the general assistance program, that the Appropriation Act did not provide for off-reservation Indian welfare (other than in Oklahoma and Alaska), and that Congress did not intend to expand the program beyond that presented to it by the BIA request. Secondly, he points to the “on reservations” limitation in the Manual and suggests that Congress was well acquainted with that limitation, and that, by legislating in the light of the Manual's limiting provision, its appropriation amounted to a ratification of the BIA’s definitive practice. He notes that, in recent years, Congress has twice rejected proposals that clearly would have provided off-reservation general assistance for Indians. Thus, it is said, Congress has appropriated no funds for general assistance for off-reservation Indians and, as a practical matter, the Secretary is unable to provide such a program.
The Court of Appeals placed primary reliance on the Snyder Act’s provision for assistance to “the Indians throughout” the United States. It concluded that the Act envisioned no geographical limitations on Indian programs and that, absent a clear congressional ratification of such a policy, the Secretary was powerless to shrink the coverage down to some lesser group of Indian beneficiaries.
Although we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and its reversal of the judgment of the District Court, we reach its result on a narrower ground. We need not approach the issue in terms of whether Congress intended for all Indians, regardless of residence and of the degree of assimilation, to be covered by the general assistance program. We need only ascertain the intent of Congress with respect to those Indian claimants in the case before us. The question, so limited, is whether Congress intended-to exclude from the general assistance program these respondents and their class, who are full-blooded, unassimilated Indians living in an Indian community near their native reservation, and who maintain close economic and social ties with that reservation. Except for formal residence outside the physical boundaries of the Papago Reservation, the respondents, as has been conceded, meet all other requirements for the general assistance program.
IV
There is, of course, some force in the Secretary’s argument and in the facts that the BIA’s budget requests consistently contained “on reservations” general assistance language and that there was testimony before successive appropriations subcommittees to the effect that assistance of this kind was customarily so restricted. Nonetheless, our examination of this and other material leads us to a conclusion contrary to that urged by the Secretary.
A. In actual practice, general assistance clearly has not been limited to reservation Indians. Indeed, the Manual’s provision, see n. 6, supra, so heavily relied upon by the Secretary, itself provides that general assistance is available to nonreservation Indians in Alaska and Oklahoma. The rationale proffered for this is:
“The situation of Indians in Alaska and Oklahoma has historically been unique. Much of Oklahoma was once set aside as an Indian Territory, and though most of the reservations have been abolished, there remains a large area of concentrated Indian population with tribal organization, living on land held in trust by the United States.... A similar situation of large concentrations of native Americans, with few reservations and substantial separate legislation prevails in Alaska.... The responsibilities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in these jurisdictions are substantially similar to the Bureau’s responsibilities on the reservations.” Brief for Petitioner 21.
While this exception is not necessarily irrational, it definitely demonstrates that the limitation in the budget requests is not rigidly followed by the BIA, inasmuch as most off-reservation Indians in the two named States are regarded as eligible for general assistance funds. If, as the Secretary urges, we are to assume that Congress has been aware of the Manual’s provision, Congress was just as clearly on notice that the words “on reservations” did not possess their literal meaning in that context. Surely, some of the reasons for the Alaska-Oklahoma exception are equally applicable to Indians of the Ruiz class.
B. There was testimony in several of the hearings that the BIA, in fact, was not limiting general assistance to those within reservation boundaries and, on more than one occasion, Congress was notified that exceptions were being made where they were deemed appropriate. Notwithstanding the Manual, at least three categories of off-reservation Indians outside Alaska and Oklahoma have been treated as eligible for general assistance. The first is the Indian who relocates in the city through the BIA relocation program and who then is eligible for general assistance for the period of time required for him, under state law, to establish residence in the new location. The second evidently is the Indian from the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota who lives on trust land near but apart from that reservation. The third appears to be the Indian residing in Rapid City, South' Dakota.
In addition, although not controlling, it is not irrelevant that the “on reservations” limitation in the budget requests has never appeared in the final appropriation bills.
C. Even more important is the fact that, for many years, to and including the appropriation year at issue, the BIA itself made continual representations to the appropriations subcommittees that nonurban Indians living “near” a reservation were eligible for BIA services. Although, to be sure, several passages in the legislative history and the formal budget requests have defined eligibility in terms of Indians living “on reservations,” the BIA, not infrequently, has indicated that living “on or near” a reservation equates with living “on” it.
An early example of this appears at the fiscal 1948 Senate Hearing. The following colloquy between Senator McCarran and Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman is one of the stronger statements made to Congress concerning the BIA’s policy of limiting general assistance to reservation Indians and yet, within this very dialogue, relied on explicitly by the Secretary, is an indication that “on reservations” is not given a rigid interpretation:
“Senator McCarran. I have one question right there.
“Do these items address themselves to reservation Indians or nonreservation Indians, or both?
“Take, for instance, this welfare administration fund, $87,786. Is that given to reservation Indians, nonreservation Indians alike?
“Mr. Zimmerman. No, sir; it is not.
“Senator McCarran. To whom is it given?
“Mr. Zimmerman. This money goes to reservation Indians.
“Senator McCarran. Entirely?
“Mr. Zimmerman. Yes.
“Senator McCarran. Now, in my State, for instance, you have in the outskirts of Reno and again on the outskirts of Battle Mountain small Indian villages. Do they get anything in the way of relief?
“Mr. Zimmerman. Those town colonies are treated as reservations.
“Senator McCarran. You regard them as reservations?
“Mr. Zimmerman. Yes; some of them are.
“Senator McCarran. Is the colony outside of the city of Reno a reservation?
“Mr. Zimmerman. For certain purposes the courts have held that it is a reservation.
“Senator McCarran. Do they own the land?
“Mr. Zimmerman. Yes; the Federal Government owns the land.
“Senator McCarran. The Federal Government owns the land?
“Mr. Zimmerman. Yes, sir.
“Senator McCarran. They build their houses on it or the Federal Government?
“Mr. Zimmerman. They build their own houses.
“Senator McCarran. But those Indians do receive the benefits?
“Mr. Zimmerman. They would be eligible; yes, sir.” Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1948, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 598-599 (1947).
The interchangeability of “on” and “on or near” appears more directly in later years. In the relocation services section of the BIA’s budget justification for fiscal 1959 it is stated:
“It is estimated that within the continental United States there are approximately 400,000 members of Indian tribes and bands. Of this number, approximately 300,000 live on or adjacent to reservations for which the Bureau assumes some responsibility. On most of the Indian reservations there is a surplus of population in proportion to reservation resources. Opportunities for self-support on or near these reservations are wholly inadequate and the increasing surplus population is faced with the alternative of moving away from the reservation or remaining to live in privation or dependent, partially or wholly, upon some form of public assistance.” Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1959, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 288 (1958) (emphasis supplied).
The relocation program is covered by the welfare appropriation. It is designed to provide short-term assistance to the needy Indian who leaves the reservation area and thereby disqualifies himself for the general assistance program. By describing the Indians who “live on or adjacent to reservations” as those entitled to relocation services when they depart, the BIA in effect was telling Congress that “moving away from the reservation” was a possibility even though the Indian lives only “adjacent to”, the reservation, and it would seem to follow that the Indian living “adjacent to” the reservation was also eligible for general assistance.
At the fiscal 1962 hearing, Congressman Fenton inquired of Assistant Commissioner Gifford as to the Indian population in the United States. She replied:
“We have no absolute figure. Our best estimate of Indians on the reservations right now is about 375,000, I think. That is a figure we are using. Of course, there are Indians off of the reservations, and we do not have this count too clearly. However, for those we consider our direct responsibility on the reservations-
“Mr. Fenton. To whom we contribute?
“Miss Gifford. Yes we believe it is about 375,000.” House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1962, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 205-206 (1961).
The foregoing statement by the Assistant Commissioner, of course, is not in itself particularly revealing on the issue that confronts us. As can be seen from subsequent hearings, however, the stated figure includes Indians “on or near the reservations” and is not restricted to Indians who live “on.” Also, this “on or near” group, in contrast to those who live “off” the reservation, are within the group for whom the BIA assumed “direct responsibility.” Obviously, one can never be certain whether this expanded reading of “on” is the result of the BIA’s desire, when seeking appropriations, to represent its jurisdiction and function somewhat more broadly than it actually was, or whether it reflects actual policy.
The “on or near” representations continued to be made to Congress. At the fiscal 1963 House hearing, Congressmen questioned Commissioner Nash, Associate Commissioner Officer, and Assistant Commissioner Gifford as to the Indian population served by the BIA:
“Mr. Denton. How many Indians are there at the present time?
“Miss Gifford. You mean the total population?
“Mr. Denton. Yes.
“Miss Gifford. We estimate that the total population on or near the reservations that we serve is 380,000.
“Mr. Denton. I expect there is no way you could tell how many Indians there are off the reservations.
“Mr. Nash. Well, we can take the total census figure for the Indian population and subtract those that are listed as living on or near the reservations, and this gives us a figure of 172,000 off the reservations; 380,000 on or near the reservations, including Alaska.
“Mr. Kirwan. What did you say was on the reservation?
“Mr. Nash. 380,000.
“Mr. Officer. We are citing our figure of 380,000 to include those Indians who live in the reservation vicinity and are eligible to receive our services, as well as the Indians and other Alaska natives. The total of Alaska natives is 43,000. When we subtract that from 380,000, we have 337,000 Indians who live on or near reservations outside Alaska. Now if we are going to be concerned only with those who live on reservations, then we have that figure of 285,000, which was in our press release.
“Mr. Kirwan. We want to clear that up. The press release emphasizes the 285,000 on the reservation. Now we have the figure on the reservation and those who live near the reservation. That is the point we want to clear.
“Mr. Officer. The 380,000 are those who live on or near reservations plus the natives of Alaska.
“Mr. Denton. That does include Eskimos?
“Mr. Officer. Yes, sir.
“Mr. Denton. What do you do in places like Oklahoma, where the Indians live ‘checkerboard'?
“Mr. Officer. It is for that reason that we cite figures of Indians living on or near reservations; because we have a number of situations similar to those in Oklahoma, where you don't have a well-defined reservation boundary.” House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1963, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 352-354 (1962) (emphasis supplied).
It is interesting to note that the Subcommittee was advised that Alaska and Oklahoma Indians are subsumed in the “on or near” category rather than placed in the pure “on” group, and, admittedly, they are entitled to general assistance. The figures stated also indicate that the number quoted the preceding year by Miss Gifford as the number “on the reservation” actually referred to those “on or near.”
A nearly identical dialogue occurred in 1964 at the Senate Subcommittee:
“Senator Bible. How many Indians do you have under your jurisdiction?
“Mr. Nash. 380,000.
“Senator Bible. How many nonreservation Indians do you have? Are those just reservation Indians?
“Mr. Nash. These are on or near. This would not include, for example, Indians living in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, unless they were brought there as part of our vocational training or relocation programs.
“Senator Bible. What is the total Indian population in the United States?
“Mr. Nash. The 1960 census counted 552,000. Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.
“Chairman Hayden. Are these full-bloods or halfs?
“Mr. Nash. The census does not make an inquiry as to full or half. They merely say, 'Are you an Indian?’ 'Are you known as an Eskimo?’
“Senator Bible. Following the Chairman’s question, where does your jurisdiction rest in that regard? Do you have a measuring stick?
“Mr. Nash. No, sir. Our basis for providing services to an Indian is primarily on real estate. That is, we service those individuals who reside on trust or restricted land, or so close to it that the program of the reservation would be affected by services not performed for that person.” Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1965, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 227-228 (1964) (emphasis supplied).
The now-familiar BIA representations appear again at the House hearing for fiscal 1967:
“Mr. Denton. How many Indians are there on the reservations and how many are under the Indian Bureau’s supervision?
“Mr. Nash. We recognize what we call the Federal Indian Service population at 380,000.
“Mr. Denton. Are they on reservations?
“Mr. Nash. This is on and near. The figure on the reservation is somewhat smaller, but this is the figure which is of those who are on reservations, are living on trust lands, have titles which are alienated, restricted against aliens, or are village communities in Alaska, Oklahoma, or are so near to reservations that they are dependent upon the facilities provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for their major community services.
“Mr. Denton. What is the total Indian population?
“Mr. Nash. The 1960 census counted 552,000. It would be from there up, because there are a good many people who-
“Mr. Denton. And 380,000 are on the reservations, so about 170,000 are not under the Government's care.
“Mr. Nash. That is correct.” House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1967, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 370-371 (1966) (emphasis supplied).
At the hearing for fiscal 1968, the appropriation year directly at issue, Commissioner Bennett made like representations to the Senate Subcommittee. These could have led Congress to believe that there are only two relevant classes of Indians so far as non-land-related BIA services are concerned, those living “off” the reservation and those living “on or near”:
“Senator Bible.... Mr. Commissioner, and I am sorry because you may have covered this in earlier questioning, but what is the total Indian population under your jurisdiction at the present time?
“Mr. Bennett. The total Indian population under our jurisdiction at the present time is 380,000. These are on or near reservations and comprise our service population based on the 1960 census.
“Senator Bible. How many Indians do we have in the United States who are not under your jurisdiction and are not your responsibility?
“Mr. Bennett. Based on the 1960 census again the figure is about 170,000. These are people who moved away from the residential areas and generally have become a part of other communities.” Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1968, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 819 (1967) (emphasis supplied).
Another recurring representation made by the BIA throughout the annual hearings is that whenever it was asked about those Indians who were outside the agency’s service area, that is, “off” the reservations, the answer would refer to Indians who had left the reservations and moved to urban areas or who had attempted to be assimilated by the general population. Certainly, none of the references to those outside the service area seem appropriately applied to Indians of the Ruiz class.
During the fiscal 1950 Senate hearing, when the question arose as to the status of Indians who had left the reservation, Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman stated:
“Frankly, it has not been considered the obligation of the Indian Service in the years past to police Indians after they have established themselves in Phoenix or Flagstaff or Grand Forks, or wherever it may be.” Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1950, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 483 (1949).
At the fiscal 1952 hearing, the following exchange between Senator Young and Commissioner Myer gives some indication of what Congress had in mind with respect to Indian beneficiaries “leaving the reservation”:
“Senator Young.... Is it true that, if an Indian leaves North Dakota to go out to the State of Washington to work, and if he runs out of work and runs out of money out there,... he is eligible for relief only if he is back on the reservation?
“Mr. Myer. No. If he has established residence, he is as eligible as anyone. I do not know what the situation is in the State of Washington, but some States would require a 2-year residence; some do not.
“Senator Young. Why could not an Indian get relief back there as well as on the reservation?
“Mr. Myer. That presents a problem that is a matter of very basic policy. That is a matter of whether or not we are going to extend our services to Indians wherever they are and follow them around the United States as they leave the reservation with the type of service we are providing on the reservation.” Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1952, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 372 (1951).
The following representation by Acting Commissioner Crow to the House Subcommittee in 1961 seems to indicate that general assistance, although tied to residence, is concerned with those Indians who have not been assimilated:
“The Bureau provides services and assists the states in furnishing services to Indians in the United States, including the natives of Alaska, in the fields of human and natural resources. This includes among other things programs of education, welfare, law and order, and the protection, development, and management of trust property. Services are, in general, limited to those arising out of our relationship regarding trust property and to those Indian people who reside on trust or restricted land. Funds are not included in these estimates for furnishing services to Indian people who have established themselves in the general society.” House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1962, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 98 (1961).
In the fiscal 1964 hearings, Commissioner Nash made the following statements indicating that “leaving the reservation” meant something far different from moving 15 miles to a nonurban Indian village while still maintaining close ties with the native reservation:
“The 1960 census showed 552,000 Indians, Eskimos and all others, all people defined as 'Indians’ by the census. This would include those who have left reservations, gone to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, because they simply answered to the census taker, 'Yes, I am an Indian,’ when they asked. We do not pretend to follow those people with services wherever they go.
“... We have a need for services for 380,000 people. This includes those who are living directly on the reservations, and those who are living very dose, so that the way in which they live affects reservations programs.” House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1964, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 889 (1963) (emphasis supplied).
See also Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1967, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 295-300 (1966).
It apparently was not until 1971, four years after the appropriation for fiscal 1968, that anyone in Congress seriously questioned the BIA as to its precise policy concerning the “off-on” dichotomy. The following dialogue between Senator Bible, long a member of the Senate Subcommittee, and Commissioner Bruce is instructive:
“Senator Bible.... What rule do you use to determine who is under your jurisdiction? Who is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
“Mr. Bruce. American Indians living on reservations, one-fourth degree blood or more living in the United States and Alaska.
“Senator Bible. One-fourth degree or more is one of the qualifications. They must also live on a reservation?
“Mr. Bruce. On or near.
“Senator Bible. What does the word 'near’ mean?
“Mr. Bruce. It is very difficult to define. Near reservation would be a nearby community.
“Senator Bible. Well, half a mile, 1 mile, 5 miles, 100 yards? I am just trying to find out what your jurisdiction is. You have some responsibilities. Now what are you responsible for?
“Mr. Bruce. They vary and that is why it is difficult to answer specifically.
“Senator Bible. Well, give me the variables then. From 100 yards up to 10 miles?
“Is that defined in a statute anywhere? If I was to become the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, God forbid, how would I know who I had jurisdiction over? They must make some determination.
“Mr. Bruce. There is a definition for Oklahoma, and Alaska.
“Senator Bible. What do your lawyers tell you?... Can you go into the heart of Manhattan and find some Indian with one-fourth degree of Indian blood? Do you have jurisdiction over him in the heart of Manhattan?
“Mr. Bruce. No, sir; not over Manhattan.
“Senator Bible. Well, if not over Manhattan, how about New York State? How about Troy or Syracuse or Rochester?
“Senator Bible.... I am just trying to get the record straight to see what your responsibility is for Indians beyond the reservation. I think we are clear for the Indians on the reservation.”
At this point a recess was taken and the Commissioner w;as instructed to present the Committee with a more precise breakdown. The dialogue continued:
“Senator Bible. Do you have a breakdown for the Indians on the reservations and the number beyond Indian reservations? Can you give me figures on that?
“Mr. Bruce. Yes.
“Senator Bible. All right. What are they?
“Mr. Bruce. 477,000 on or near.
“Senator Bible. 477,000 on or near, and we still don’t know what near is....
“Now on or near. Beyond the 477,000 Indians on reservations or near a reservation, you have no further jurisdiction over Indians?
“Mr. Bruce. That is right.
“Senator Bible. That is your total responsibility?
“Mr. Bruce. That is our total responsibility.
“Senator Bible. Of the money that is in this budget, the $408 million, how much of that will be expended within the reservations and how much beyond the reservations?
“Mr. Bruce. Our total budget is to be spent for the benefit of reservation Indians.
“Senator Bible. You are still tripping me up on that on or near business. I wish you would define that.”
[At this point there was an exchange as to whether BIA services' extend to Indians living in Chicago and other urban areas.]
“Senator Bible.... Now how many urban Indians do we have?
“Mr. Bruce. We are talking about more than 250,000.
“Senator Bible. 250,000?
“Mr. Bruce. Yes.
“Senator Bible. That is over and above the 477,458?
“Mr. Bruce. That is right.
“Senator Bible. And these are the difficulties that you have encountered in also a rather lengthy resume of some of the services that you perform for them as to your responsibility for the 250,000.
“Where do you find these 250,000 nonreservation Indians?
“Mr. Bruce. Living in urban cities — Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland, Denver, Minneapolis.” Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1972, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 751-756 (1971).
Although most of these passages refer to the BIA’s overall jurisdiction and not to the scope of the general assistance program, there is nothing to indicate that general assistance would not be made available for all within the service area. Unlike programs such as law enforcement and land projects, géneral assistance is not tied inherently or logically to the physical boundaries of the reservation. And programs, such as relocation, that explicitly extend beyond the reservation are not limited to “on or near.” So it is difficult to ascertain precisely what relevance the “on or near” category would have if it did not relate to programs such as general assistance. Nowhere in the hearings had the BIA ever indicated which non-land-oriented programs are available to those “on” as opposed to those “on or near,” and the only conclusion that is to be drawn from the representations to Congress is that those Indians who fit the “on or near” category are eligible for all BIA services not directly tied to the physical boundaries.
Thus, the usual practice of the BIA has been to represent to Congress that “on or near” is the equivalent of “on” for purposes of welfare service eligibility, and that the successive budget requests were for a universe of Indians living “on or near” and not just for those living directly “on.” In addition, the BIA has continually treated persons “off” the reservations as not “on or near.” In the light of this rather consistent legislative history, it is understandable that the Secretary now argues that general assistance has not been available to those “off” the reservation. We do not accept the argument, however, that the history indicates that general assistance was thereby restricted to those within the physical boundaries. To the contrary, that history clearly shows that Congress was led to believe that the programs were being made available to those unassimilated needy Indians living near the reservation as well as to those living “on.” Certainly, a fair reading of the congressional proceedings up to and including the fiscal 1968 hearing can lead only to the conclusion that Indians situated near the reservation, such as the Ruizes, were covered by the authorization.
D. Wholly aside from this appropriation subcommittee legislative history, the Secretary suggests that Congress,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since 1948 § 812 (e)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 has allowed a “marital deduction” from a decedent’s gross taxable estate for the value of interests in property passing from the decedent to his surviving spouse. Subsection (B) adds the qualification, however, that interests defined therein as “terminable” shall not qualify as an interest in property to which the marital deduction applies. The question raised by this case is whether the allowance provided by California law for the support of a widow during the settlement of her husband’s estate is a terminable interest.
Petitioners are the widow-executrix and testamentary trustee under the will of George Richards who died a resident of California on May 27, 1951. Acting under the Probate Code of California, the state court, on June 30, 1952, allowed Mrs. Richards the sum of $3,000 per month from the corpus of the estate for her support and maintenance, beginning as of May 27, 1951, and continuing for a period of 24 months from that date. Under the terms of the order, an allowance of $42,000 had accrued during the 14 months since her husband’s death. This amount, plus an additional $3,000 per month for the remainder of the two-year period, making a total of $72,000, was in fact paid to Mrs. Richards as widow’s allowance.
On the federal estate tax return filed on behalf of the estate, the full $72,000 was claimed as a marital deduction under § 812 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The deduction was disallowed, as was a claim for refund after payment of the deficiency, and the present suit for refund was then brought in the District Court. The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States, holding, on the authority of Cunha’s Estate v. Commissioner, 279 F. 2d 292, that the allowance to the widow was a terminable interest and not deductible under the marital provision of the Internal Revenue Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 317 F. 2d 821, and we brought the case here because of an asserted conflict between the decision below and that of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Augusta, 297 F. 2d 312. 375 U. S. 894. For the reasons given below, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In enacting the Revenue Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 110, with its provision for the marital deduction, Congress left undisturbed § 812 (b) (5) of the 1939 Code, which allowed an estate tax deduction, as an expense of administration, for amounts “reasonably required and actually expended for the support during the settlement of the estate of those dependent upon the decedent.” 26 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 812 (b)(5). As the legislative history shows, support payments under § 812 (b)(5) were not to be treated as part of the marital deduction allowed by § 812 (e)(1). The Revenue Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 906, however, repealed § 812 (b)(5) because, among other reasons, Congress believed the section resulted in discriminations in favor of States having liberal family allowances. Thereafter allowances paid for the support of a widow during the settlement of an estate “heretofore deductible under section 812 (b) will be allowable as a marital deduction subject to the conditions and limitations of section 812 (e).” S. Rep. No. 2375, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 130.
The “conditions and limitations” of the marital deduction under § 812 (e) are several but we need concern ourselves with only one aspect of §812(e)(1)(B), which disallows the deduction of “terminable” interests passing to the surviving spouse. It was conceded in the Court of Appeals that the right to the widow’s allowance here involved is an interest in property passing from the decedent within the meaning of § 812 (e)(3), that it is an interest to which the terminable-interest rule of §812(e)(1)(B)is applicable, and that the conditions set forth in (i) and (ii) of § 812 (e)(1)(B) were satisfied under the decedent’s will and codicils thereto. The issue, therefore, is whether the interest in property passing to Mrs. Richards as widow’s allowance would “terminate or fail” upon the “lapse of time, upon the occurrence of an event or contingency, or upon the failure of an event or contingency to occur.”
We accept the Court of Appeals’ description of the nature and characteristics of the widow’s allowance under California law. In that State, the right to a widow’s allowance is not a vested right and nothing accrues before the order granting it. The right to an allowance is lost when the one for whom it is asked has lost the status upon which the right depends. If a widow dies or remarries prior to securing an order for a widow’s allowance, the right does not survive such death or remarriage. The amount of the widow’s allowance which has accrued and is unpaid at the date of death of the widow is payable to her estate but the right to future payments abates upon her death. The remarriage of a widow subsequent to an order for an allowance likewise abates her right to future payments. 317 F. 2d 821, 825.
In light of these characteristics of the California widow’s allowance, Mrs. Richards did not have an indefeasible interest in property at the moment of her husband’s death since either her death or remarriage would defeat it. If the order for support allowance had been entered on the day of her husband’s death, her death or remarriage at any time within two years thereafter would terminate that portion of the interest allocable to the remainder of the two-year period. As of the date of Mr. Richards’ death, therefore, the allowance was subject to failure or termination “upon the occurrence of an event or contingency.” That the support order was entered in this case 14 months later does not, in our opinion, change the defeasible nature of the interest.
Petitioners ask us to judge the terminability of the widow’s interest in property represented by her allowance as of the date of the Probate Court’s order rather than as of the date of her husband’s death. The court’s order, they argue, unconditionally entitled the widow to $42,000 in accrued allowance of which she could not be deprived by either her death or remarriage. It is true that some courts have followed this path, but it is difficult to accept an approach which would allow a deduction of $42,000 on the facts of this case, a deduction of $72,000 if the order had been entered at the end of two years from Mr. Richards’ death and none at all if the order had been entered immediately upon his death. Moreover, judging deductibility as of the date of the Probate Court’s order ignores the Senate Committee’s admonition that in considering terminability of an interest for purposes of a marital deduction “the situation is viewed as at the date of the decedent’s death.” S. Rep. No. 1013, Part 2, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10. We prefer the course followed by both the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Cunha’s Estate, supra, and by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Quivey, 292 F. 2d 252. Both courts have held the date of death of the testator to be the correct point of time from which to judge the nature of a widow’s allowance for the purpose of deciding terminability and deductibility under § 812 (e)(1). This is in accord with the rule uniformly followed with regard to interests other than the widow’s allowance, that qualification for the marital deduction must be determined as of the time of death.
Our conclusion is confirmed by § 812 (e) (1) (D), which saves from the operation of the terminable-interest rule interests which by their terms may (but do not in fact) terminate only upon failure of the widow to survive her husband for a period not in excess of six months. The premise of this provision is that an interest passing to a widow is normally to be judged as of the time of the testator’s death rather than at a later time when the condition imposed may be satisfied; hence the necessity to provide an exception to the rule in the case of a six months’ survivorship contingency in a will. A gift conditioned upon eight months’ survivorship, rather than six, is a nondeductible terminable interest for reasons which also disqualify the statutory widow’s allowance in California where the widow must survive and remain unmarried at least to the date of an allowance order to become indefeasibly entitled to any widow’s allowance at all.
Petitioners contend, however, that the sole purpose of the terminable-interest provisions of the Code is to assure that interests deducted from the estate of the deceased spouse will not also escape taxation in the estate of the survivor. This argument leads to the conclusion that since it is now clear that unless consumed or given away during Mrs. Richards’ life, the entire $72,000 will be taxed to her estate, it should not be included in her husband’s. But as we have already seen, there is no provision in the Code for deducting all terminable interests which become nonterminable at a later date and therefore taxable in the estate of the surviving spouse if not consumed or transferred. The examples cited in the legislative history-make it clear that the determinative factor is not tax-ability to the surviving spouse but terminability as defined by the statute. Under the view advanced by petitioners all cash allowances actually paid would fall outside § 812 (e)(1)(B); on two different occasions the Senate has refused to give its approval to House-passed amendments to the 1954 Code, which would have made the terminable-interest rule inapplicable to all widow’s allowances actually paid within specified periods of time.
We are mindful that the general goal of the marital deduction provisions was to achieve uniformity of federal estate tax impact between those States with community property laws and those without them. But the device of the marital deduction which Congress chose to achieve uniformity was knowingly hedged with limitations, including the terminable-interest rule. These provisions may be imperfect devices to achieve the desired end, but they are the means which Congress chose. To the extent it was thought desirable to modify the rigors of the terminable-interest rule, exceptions to the rule were written into the Code. Courts should hesitate to provide still another exception by straying so far from the statutory language as to allow a marital deduction for the widow’s allowance provided by the California statute. The achievement of the purposes of the marital deduction is dependent to a great degree upon the careful drafting of wills; we have no fear that our decision today will prevent either the full utilization of the marital deduction or the proper support of widows during the pendency of an estate proceeding.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
The deduction allowed is: “An amount equal to the value of any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse, but only to the extent that such interest is included in determining the value of the gross estate.” 26 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) §812 (e)(1)(A).
Subsection (B) provides in pertinent part: “Where, upon the lapse of time, upon the occurrence of an event or contingency, or upon the failure of an event or contingency to occur, such interest passing to the surviving spouse will terminate or fail, no deduction shall be allowed with respect to such interest—
“(i) if an interest in such property passes or has passed (for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth) from the decedent to any person other than such surviving spouse (or the estate of such spouse); and
“(ii) if by reason of such passing such person (or his heirs or assigns) may possess or enjoy any part of such property after such termination or failure of the interest so passing to the surviving spouse.” 26 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 812 (e) (1) (B).
The marital-deduction and terminable-interest provisions of the 1954 Code are similar to those of its 1939 counterpart. See 26 U. S. C. (1958 ed.) §2056 (a) and (b).
S. Rep. No. 1013, Part 2, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3.
The legislative history states: “In practice [the support allowance deduction] has discriminated in favor of estates located in States which authorize liberal allowances for the support of dependents, and it has probably also tended to delay the settlement of estates.” S. Rep. No. 2375, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 57.
United States v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Augusta, 297 F. 2d 312 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Estate of Gale v. Commissioner, 35 T. C. 215; Estate of Rudnick v. Commissioner, 36 T. C. 1021.
Bookwalter v. Lamar, 323 F. 2d 664 (C. A. 8th Cir.); United States v. Mappes, 318 F. 2d 508 (C. A. 10th Cir.); Commissioner v. Ellis’ Estate, 252 F. 2d 109 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Starrett v. Commissioner. 223 F. 2d 163 (C. A. 1st Cir.); Estate of Sbicca v. Commissioner, 35 T. C. 96.
“For the purposes of subparagraph (B) an interest passing to the surviving spouse shall not be considered as an interest which will terminate or fail upon the death of such spouse if—
“(i) such death will cause a termination or failure of such interest only if it occurs within a period not exceeding six months after the decedent’s death, or only if it occurs as a result of a common disaster resulting in the death of the decedent and the surviving spouse, or only if it occurs in the case of either such event; and
“(ii) such termination or failure does not in fact occur.” 26 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 812 (e) (1) (D).
The Senate Report accompanying the House bill which eventually became law states that “Subparagraph (D) of section 812 (e)(1) provides an exception to the terminable interest rule under subparagraph (B) of such section. This exception is for the purpose of allowing the marital deduction in certain cases where there is a contingency with respect to the interest passing to the surviving spouse under a common-disaster clause or similar clause in the decedent’s will.” S. Rep. No. 1013, Part 2, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 15.
Id., at 10, 11, 15.
See S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 125; H. R. 2573, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.; and H. R. Rep. No. 818, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
United States v. Stapf, 375 U. S. 118.
See Surrey, Federal Taxation of the Family — The Revenue Act of 1948, 61 Harv. L. Rev. 1097, 1156-1157; Anderson, The Marital Deduction and Equalization Under the Federal Estate and Gift Taxes Between Common Law and Community Property States, 54 Mich. L. Rev. 1087, 1109.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, a state trial judge in Louisiana ordered the sequestration of personal property on the application of a creditor.who had made an installment sale of the goods to petitioner' and' whose affidavit asserted delinquency and prayed for sequestration to enforce a vendor’s lien under state law. The issue is whether the sequestration violated the Due Process -Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was ordered ex parte, without prior notice or opportunity for a hearing.
I
On February 2, 1972, respondent W. T. Grant Co. filed suit in the First City Court of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana, against petitioner, Lawrence Mitchell. The petition alleged the sale by Grant to Mitchell of a refrigerator, range, stereo, and washing machine, and an overdue and unpaid balance of the purchase price for said items in the amount of $574.17. Judgment for that sum was demanded. It was further alleged that Grant had a vendor’s lien on the goods and that a writ of sequestration should issue to sequester the merchandise pending the outcome of the suit. The accompanying affidavit of Grant’s credit manager swore to the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. It also asserted that Grant had reason to believe petitioner would “encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of the merchandise described in the foregoing petition during the pendency of these proceedings, and that a writ of sequestration is necessary in the premises.” Based on the foregoing petition and affidavit, and without prior notice to Mitchell or affording him opportunity for hearing, the judge of the First City Court, Arthur J. O’Keefe, then signed an order that “a writ of sequestration issue herein” and that “the Constable of this court sequester and take into his possession the articles of merchandise described in the foregoing petition, upon plaintiff furnishing bond in the amount of $1,125.” Bond in that amount having been' filed by the respondent, the writ of sequestration issúed, along with citation to petitioner Mitchell, citing him to file a pleading or make appearance in the First City Court of the eity of New Orleans within five days. The citation recited the filing of the writ of sequestration and the accompanying affidavit, order, and bond. On March 3 Mitchell filed a motion to dissolve the writ of sequestration issued on February 2. The motion asserted that the personal property at issue had been seized under the writ on February 7, 1972, and claimed, first, that the goods were exempt from seizure under state law and, second, that the seizure violated the Due Process Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions in that it had occurred without prior notice and opportunity to defend petitioner’s right to possession of the property. The motion came on for hearing on March 14. It was then stipulated that -a vendor’s lien existed on the items, arguments of counsel were heard, and on Márch 16 the motion to dissolve was denied. The goods were held not exempt from seizure under state law. The trial court also ruled that “the provisional seizure enforced through sequestration” was not a denial of due process of law. “To the. contrary,” the trial judge said, “plaintiff insured defendant’s right to due process by proceeding in accordance with Louisiana Law as opposed to any type of self-help seizure which would have denied defendant possession of his property without due process.” The appellate courts of Louisiana refused’to disturb the rulings of the trial court, the Supreme Court of Louisiana expressly rejecting petitioner’s due process claims pressed under the Federal Constitution. 263 La. 627, 269 So. 2d. 186 (1972). We.granted certiorari, 411 U. S. 981 (1973), and now.affirm the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
11
Petitioner’s basic proposition is that because he had possession of and a substantial interest in the sequestered' property, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily forbade the seizure without prior notice and- opportunity for a hearing. In the circumstances presented.here; we. cannot'agree. •
Petitioner no doubt “owned” the goods he had purchased under an installment sales contract, but his title was heavily encumbered. The seller, W. T. Grant Co., also had an interest in the property, for state law provided it with a vendor’s lien to secure the unpaid balance of the purchase price. Because of the lien, Mitchell’s right to possession and his title were subject to defeasance in the event of default in paying the installments due from him.' His interest in the property, until the purchase price was paid in full, was no greater than the surplus remaining, if any, after foreclosure and sale of the property in the event of his default and satisfaction of outstanding claims. See La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann., Art. 2373 (1961). The interes^ of Grant, as seller of the property and holder, of a vendor’s lien, was measured by the unpaid balance of the purchase price. The monetary value of that interest in the property diminished as pay-* ments were made, but the value of the property as security also steadily diminished over time as it was put to its-intended use by the purchaser.
Plainly enough, this is not a case where the property sequestered by the court is exclusively the property of the defendant debtor. The question is not whether a debtor’s property may be seized by his creditors, pendente lite, where they hold no present interest in the property sought to be seized. The reality is that both seller and buyer had current, real interests in the property, and the definition of. property rights is a matter of state law. Resolution of the due process question must take account not only of the interests of the buyer of the property.but'those of the seller as well.-
With this duality in mind, we are convinced that the Louisiana sequestration procedure is not invalid, either on its face or as applied. Sequestration under the Louisiana statutes is the modern counterpart of an ancient civil law dévice to resolve conflicting claims to property. Historically, the two principal concerns have been that, pending resolution of the dispute, the property would deteriorate or be wasted in the hands of the possessor and that the latter might sell or otherwise dispose • of the goods. A minor theme was that official intervention would forestall violent self-help and retaliation. See Millar, Judicial Sequestration in Louisiana: Some Account of Its Sources, 30 Tul. L. Rev. 201, 206 (1956).
Louisiana statutes provide for sequestration where “one claims the ownership or right to possession of property, or a mortgage, lien, or privilege thereon... if it is within the power of the defendant to conceal, dispose of, or waste the property or the revenues therefrom, or remove the property from the parish, during the pendency of the action.” Art. 3571. The writ, however, will not issue. on the conclusory allegation of ownership or possessory rights. Article 3501 provides that the writ of sequestration shall issue “only when the nature of the claim and the amount thereof, if any, and the grounds relied upon for the issuance of the writ clearly appear from specific facts” shown by a verified petition or affidavit. In the parish where this case arose, the clear showing required must be made to a judge, and the writ will issue only upon his authorization and only after the creditor seeking the writ has filed a sufficient bond to protect the vendee ¿gainst all damages in the event the sequestration is shown to have been improvident. Arts. 3501 and 3574.
The writ is obtainable on the creditor’s ex parte application, without notice to the debtor or opportunity for a healing, but the statute entitles the debtor immediately to seek dissolution of the writ, which must be ordered unless the creditor “proves the grounds upon which the writ was issued,!’ Art. 3506, the existence of the debt, lien, and delinquency, failing which the court may order return of the property and assess damages in favor of the debtor, including.attorney’s fees.
The debtor, with or without moving to dissolve the sequestration,' may also regain possession by filing his own bond to protect the creditor against interim damage to him should he ultimately win his case and have judgment against the debtor for the unpaid balance of the purchase price which was the object of the suit and of the sequestration. Arts. 3507 and 3508.
In our view, this. statutory procedure effects a constitutional accommodation of the. conflicting interests of the parties. We cannot accept petitioner’s broad assertion that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed to him the. use arid possession of the goods until all issues in thé case were judicially resolved after full adversary proceedings had been completed. It is_ certainly clear under this Court’s precedents. that issues can be limited in actions for possession. Indeed, in Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 236 U. S. 133 (1915) (Holmes, J.), the Court upheld such limitations in possessory actions for real property in Louisiana. See also Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U. S. 170 (1923); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56 (1972). Petitioner’s claim must accordingly be narrowed to one for a hearing on the issues in the possessory action-default, the existence of a lien, and possession of the debtor — before property is taken.
As to this claim, the seller here, with a vendor’s lien to secure payment of the unpaid balance of purchase-price, had the right either to be paid in accordance with its contract or to have possession of the goods for the purpose of foreclosing its lien', and recovering the unpaid balance. By complaint and -affidavit, the seller swore to facts that would entitle it to immediate possession of the goods under its contract, undiminished in value by further deterioration through use of the property by the buyer. Wholly aside from whether the buyer, with possession and power over the property, will destroy or make away with the goods, the buyer in possession of consumer goods will undeniably put the property to its intended use, and the resale value of the merchandise will steadily decline as it is used over a period of time. Any installment seller anticipates as much, but he is normally protected because the buyer’s installment payments keep pace with thq deterioration in value of the’ security. Clearly, if payments cease and possession and use by the buyer, continue, the seller’s interest in the property as security is steadily and irretrievably eroded until thé time at which the full hearing is held.
The State of Louisiana was entitled to recognize this reality and to provide somewhat more protection for the seller. This it did in Orleans Parish by authorizing, the sequestration of property by a judge. At the same time, the buyer being deprived of possession, the seller was required to put up a bond to guarantee the buyer against damage or expense, including attorney’s fees, in the event the sequestration is shown to be mistaken or otherwise improvident. The buyer is permitted to regain possession by putting up his' own bond tó. protect the seller. Absent that bond,, which petitioner did not file in this- case;' the seller would be unprotected against the inevitable deterioration in the value of his security if the buyer remained in possession pending trial on the merits. The debtor, unlike the creditor, does not stand ready to make the opposing party whole,, if his possession, pending a prior hearing, turns out to be wrongful.
Second, there is the real risk that the buyer, with possession and power over the goods, will conceal or transfer the merchandise to the damage of' thé seller. This is one of the considerations weighed-in the balance by the Louisiana law in permitting initial sequestration.of the property. An important factor in.this-connection is that under -Louisiana law, the vendor’s- lien expires if the buyer transfers possession.- It follows that if' the.vendor is to retain his lien, superior to the rights of other creditors of the buyer, it is imperative when default occurs that the property be sequestered in order,.to foreclose the possibility that the buyer will sell or otherwise convey the property to third'parties against whom the -vendor’s lien will not survive. The danger of destruction or alienation cannot be-guarded against if notice and a hearing -before seizure are supplied.' The^ -notice itself may furnish a warning to the debtor acting in bad faith.
Third, there is scant support in our cases for.- the proposition that there must be final judicial determination of the seller’s entitlement before the buyer may be even temporarily-deprived of possession of the purchased* goods. On the contrary, it seems apparent that the seller with his own interest in the disputed merchandise would need to establish in any event only the probability that his case will succeed to warrant the bonded'sequestration of the property., pending outcome of the suit. Cf. Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971); Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, 339 U. S. 594 (1950). The issue at this stage of the proceeding concerns possession pending trial and turns on the existence of the debt, the lien;, and the delinquency. These are. ordinarily uncomplicated matters that lend themselves, to documentary proof; and we think it comports with due process to- permit the, initial seizure on sworn ex parte documents, followed by the. early opportunity to put the creditor to his proof. The nature of the issues at stake minimizes thé risk that the writ will be wrongfully issued by a judge. The potential damages award available, if there is a successful motion to dissolve the writ, as well as the creditor’s own interest in avoiding interrupting the transaction, also contributes to minimizing this risk.
Fourth, we remain unconvinced that the impact on the debtor of deprivation of the household goods here in question overrides his inability to make the creditor whole for wrongful possession, the risk of destruction or alienation if notice and a prior hearing are supplied, and the low risk of- a wrongful determination of possession through the procedures now employed.
Finally, the debtor may immediately have a full hearing on the matter of possession following the execution of the writ, thus cutting to a bare minimum the time of creditor- or court-supervised possession. The debtor in this case, who did not avail himself of this opportunity, can hardly expect that his argument on the severity of deprivation will carry much weight, and even assuming that there is real impact on the debtor from loss of these goods, pending the hearing on possession, his basic, source of income is unimpaired.
The requirements of due process of law “are not technical, nor is any particular form of procedure necessary.” Inland Empire Council v. Millis, 325 U. S. 697, 710 (1945). Due process of law guarantees “no particular form of procedure; it protects substantial rights.” NLRB v. Mackay Co., 304 U. S. 333, 351 (1938). “The very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 895 (1961); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 650 (1972). Considering the Louisiana procedure as a whole, we are convinced that the State has reached a constitutional accommodation of the respective interests of buyer and seller.
III
Petitioner asserts that his right to a hearing before his possession is in any way disturbed is nonetheless mandated by a long line of cases in this Court, culminating in Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969), and Fuentes v. Shewn, 407 U. S. 67 (1972). The pre-Sniadach cases are said by petitioner to hold that “the opportunity to be heard must precede any actual deprivation of private property.” Their import, however, is not so clear as petitioner would have it: they merely stand for the proposition that a hearing must be had before one is finally deprived of his property and do not deal at all with the need for a pretermination hearing where a full and immediate post-termination hearing is provided. The usual rule has been “[w]here only property rights are involved, mere postponement of the judicial enquiry is not a denial of due process, if the opportunity given for ultimate- judicial determination of liability is adequate.” Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 596-597 (1931). See also Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. v. Bowland, 196 U. S. 611, 632 (1905); Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586, 593-594 (1881). This generality sufficed to decide relatively modern cases. For example, in Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, 339 U. S. 594 (1950), the statute at issue permitted-multiple seizures of misbranded articles in commerce “ ‘when the Administrator has probable cause to believe from facts found, without hearing, by him or any officer or employee of thé Agency that the misbranded article... would be in a material respect misleading to the injury or damage. of thé purchaser or consumer.’ ’’ Id., at 595-596. The specific seizure challenged, made administratively without prior notice or hearing, concerned a concentrate of alfalfa, watercress, parsley, and synthetic vitamins, combined in a package with mineral tablets. There was no claim or suggestion of any. possible threat to health. The sole official claim was that the labeling was misleading to the alleged damage of the purchaser. The Court sustained the ex parte seizure saying that “[w]e have repeatedly held that no hearing at the preliminary stage is required by due process so long as the requisite hearing is held before the final administrative order becomes effective.” Id., at 598. “It is sufficient, where only property rights' are concerned, that there is at some stage an opportunity for a hearing and a judicial determination.” Id., at 599.
More precisely in point, the Court had unanimously approved prejudgment attachment liens effected by creditors, without notice, hearing, or judicial order, saying that “nothing is more common than to allow parties alleging themselves to be creditors to establish in advance by attachment a lien dependent for its effect upon the result of the suit.” “The fact that the execution is issued in the first instance by an agent of the State but not from a Court, followed as it is by personal notice and a right to take the case into court, is a familiar method in Georgia and is open to no objection.” Coffin Bros. v. Bennett, 277 U. S. 29, 31 (1928). To the same effect-was the earlier case of Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94 (1921). Furthermore, based on Ownbey and Coffin, the Court later sustained the constitutionality of the Maine attachment statute. McKay v. McInnes, 279 U. S. 820 (1929). In that case, a nonresident of Maine sued in the Maine courts to collect a debt from a resident of the_ State. As permitted-by statute, and as an integral part of instituting the suit, the creditor attached the properties of the defendant, without notice and without judicial process of any kind. In sustaining the procedure, the Maine Supreme Court, 127 Me. 110, 141 A. 699 (1928), described the attachment as designed to create a lien for the creditor at the outset of the litigation. “Its purpose is simply to secure to the creditor the property which the debtor has at the time it is made.so that it may be seized and levied upon in.satisfaction of the debt after judgment and execution may be obtained.” Id., at 115, 141 A., at 702. The attachment was deemed “part of the remedy provided for the collection of the debt,” ibid., and represented a practice that “had become fully established in Massachusetts, part of which Maine was at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution.” Id., at 114, 141 A., at 702. The judgment of the Maine court was affirmed without opinion, citing' Ownbey and Coffin.
In Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., supra, it was said that McKay and like cases dealt with “[a] procedural rule that may satisfy due process- for attachments in general” but one that would not “necessarily satisfy'procedural due process in every case,” nor one that “gives necessary protection to all property in its modern forms.” 395 U. S., at 340. Sniadach involved the prejudgment garnishment of wages — “a specialized type of property presenting distinct problems in our economic system.” Ibid. Because “[t]he leverage of the creditor on the wage earner is enormous” and because “prejudgment, garnishment of the Wisconsin type may as a practical matter drive a wage-earning family to the wall,” it was held- that, the Due Process Clause forbade such garnishment absent notice and prior hearing. Id., at 341-342.' In Sniadach, the Court also. observed that garnishment was subject to abuse' by creditors without valid claims, a risk minimized by the nature of the security interest here at stake and the protections to the.debtor offered by Louisiana procedure. Nor was it apparent in Sniadach with what speed the debtor could challenge the validity of the garnishment, and obviously the ■ creditor’s claim could not rest on the danger of. destruction of wages, the property seized, since their availability to satisfy the debt remained within the power of the debtor-who could simply leave his job. The suing creditor in- Sniadach had no prior interest in the property attached, and the opinion did not purport to govern' the typical case of the installment seller who brings a suit to collect ’an unpaid balance and who does not seek to attach-^ wages pending the outcome of the suit but to repossess the sold property on which he_had retained a lien to secure the purchase price. This very case soon came before the Court in Fuentes v. Shevin, where the constitutionality of the Florida and Pennsylvania replevin statutes was at issue. Those statutes permitted the secured installment seller to repossess the goods sold, without notice or hearing and without judicial order or supervision, but with the help of the sheriff operating under a writ issued by the court clerk at the behest of the seller. Because carried out without notice or opportunity for hearing and without judicial participation, this kind of seizure was held violative of the Due Process Clause. This holding is the mainstay of petitioner’s submission here. But we are convinced that Fuentes was decided against a factual and legal background sufficiently different from that now before us and that it does not require the invalidation of the Louisiana sequestration statute, either on its face or as applied in this case.
The Florida law under examination in Fuentes authorized repossession of the sold goods without judicial order, approval, or participation. A writ of replevin was employed, but it was issued by the court clerk. As the Florida law was perceived by this Court, “[t]here is no requirement that the applicant make a convincing showing before the seizure,” 407 U. S., at 73-74; the law required only “the bare assertion of the party seeking.the writ that he is entitled to one” as a condition to the clerk’s issuance of the writ. Id., at 74. The Court also said that under the statute the defendant-buyer would “eventually” have aft opportunity for a hearing, “as the defendant in the trial of the court action for repossession....” Id., at 75. The Pennsylvania 'law. was considered to be essentially the same as that of Florida except that it did “not require that there ever be opportunity for a hearing on the merits of the conflicting claims to possession of the replevied property.” Id., at 77. The party seeking the writ was not obliged to initiate a court action for repossession, was not required formally to allege that he was entitled to the property and had only to file an affidavit of the-value of the property sought to be replevied. The Court distinguished - the Pennsylvania and Florida procedures from that of the common daw where, the- Court said,, “a state official made at least a summary determination of the relative right's of the disputing parties before.stepping into the dispute and taking goods from one of them.” Id., at 80.
The Louisiana sequestration statute followed, in this, case mandates a considerably different procedure.' A writ of sequestration is available to a mortgage or lien holder to forestall waste or "alienation of the property, but, different from the' Florida and Pennsylvania"' systems, bare, c'onclusory. claims of ownership or lien will not suffice under the Louisiana statute. Article 3501 authorizes the writ “ofily when the nature of the claim and the amount.thereof, if any, and the grounds relied upon for the issuance of the writ clearly appear from spéeific facts” shown by verified petition or affidavit. Moreover, in the parish where this.case arose, the.requisite showing must be made to a judge; and judicial authorization obtained. Mitchell was not at the unsupervised mercy of the creditor and court functionaries; The Louisiana law provides for judicial control of the process from beginning to end. This control is one of the measures adopted by the State to minimize the riék that the ex parte procedure will lead to a wrongful taking. It is buttressed by the provision that should the-writ be dissolved there are “damages for the wrongful issuance of a writ” and for attorney’s fees “whether the writ is dissolved on motion or after trial on the merits.” Art. 3506.
. The risk of wrongful use of the procedure must also be judged in the context of the issues which are to be determined at that proceeding. In Florida and Pennsylvania property was only to be replevied in accord with state' policy if it had been “wrongfully detained.” This broad “fault” standard is inherently subject to factual determination and adversarial input. As- in Bell v. Burson, where a driver’s license was suspended, without a prior hearing, when the suspension was premised on a fault standard, see Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441, 446-447 (1973), in Fuentes this fault standard.for replevin was thought ill-süited for preliminary ex parte determination. ’ In Louisiana, on the other hand, the facts relevant to obtaining a writ of sequestration are narrowly confined. As wé have indicated, documentary proof is particularly suited for questions of the existence of a vendor’s lien and.the issue of default. There is thus.far less danger here that the seizure will •be mistaken and a corresponding decrease in the utility of an adversary hearing which will be immediately available in any event.
Of course, as in Fuentes, consideration of the impact on the debtor remains. Under Louisiana procedure, however, the debtor, Mitchell, was not left in limbo to await a hearing that might- or might not “eventually!’ occur, as the debtors were under the statutory schemes before the Court in. Fuentes. Louisiana law expressly provides for an immediate hearing and dissolution of the writ “unless the plaintiff proves the grounds upon which the writ'-was issued.” Art. 3506.
To summarize, the Louisiana system seeks to minimize the risk of error of a wrongful interim possession by the creditor. The system protects the debtor’s interest in every conceivable way, except allowing him to have the property to start with, and this is done in pursuit of what we deem an acceptable arrangement pendente lite to put the property in the possession of the party who furnishes protection against loss or damage to the other pending trial on the merits.
The Court must be. sensitive to the possible consequences, already foreseen in antiquity, of invalidating.this state statute. Doing.'so might not increase private violence,, but self-help repossession could easily lessen protections for the debtor. See, for example, Adams v. Southern California First National Bank, 492 F. 2d 324 (CA9 1973). Here, the initial hardship to the’debtor is limited, the seller has a strong interest, the process proceeds under judicial supervision and.management, and the prevailing party is protected against all. loss. Our conclusion is that the Louisiana standards regulating the use of the writ of sequestration are constitutional. Mitchell was not deprived of procedural due process in this case. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is affirmed.
So ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT STATUTES
PROVISIONS OF THE LOUISIANA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Art. 281. Certain articles not applicable to Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans
The provisions of Articles 282 through 286 do not apply to the clerk and the deputy clerks of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
Art. 282. Acts which may be done by district court clerk
The clerk of a district court may:
(1) Grant an appeal and fix the return day thereof; fix the amount of the bond for an appeal, or for the issuance of a writ of attachment or of sequestration, or for the release of property seized under any writ, unless fixed by law; appoint an attorney at law to represent a nonresident, absent, incompetent, or unrepresented defendant; or dismiss without prejudice, on application of plaintiff, an action or proceeding in which no exception, answer, or intervention has been filed; and....
Art. 283. Orders and judgments which may be signed by district court clerk
(2) An order for the issuance of executory process, of a writ of attachment or of sequestration, or of garnishment process under a writ of fieri facias, attachment, or of séquestration; the release under.bond of property seized under a writ of attachment or of sequestration; or to permit the filing of an intervention....
Art. 325. • Right of entry for execution; may require assistance of others if resistance offered or threatened
In the execution of a writ, mandate, order, or judgment of a court, the sheriff may enter on the lands, and. into the residence or other building, owned or occupied by "the judgment debtor or defendant..
Art. 2373. Distribution of proceéds of sale
After deducting the costs, the sheriff shall first,pay the amount due the seizing creditor, then the inferior mortgages, liens, and privileges on the property sold, and shall, pay to the debtor whatever -surplus may remain.
Art. 3501. Petition; affidavit; security
A writ of attachment or of sequestration shall issue only when the nature of. the claim and the amount thereof, if any, and the grounds relied upon for the issuance of the writ clearly appear from specific facts shown by the petition verified by, or by the separate affidavit of, the petitioner, his counsel or agent.
. The applicant shall, furnish security as required by law for the payment of the damages the defendant may sustain, when the writ is obtained wrongfully.
Art. 3504. Return of sheriff; inventory
The sheriff, after executing a writ of attachment or of sequestration, shall deliver to the clerk of the court from which the writ issued a written return stating the manner in which he executed the writ. He shall annex to the return an inventory of the property seized.
Art. 3506. Dissolution of writ; damages
The defendant by contradictory motion may obtain the dissolution of a writ of attachment or of sequestration, unless the plaintiff proves the grounds upon which the writ was issued. If the writ of attachment or of sequestration is dissolved, the action shall then proceed as if no writ had been issued.
.The court may allow damages for the wrongful issuance of a writ of attachment or of sequestration on a motion to dissolve, or on a reconventional demand. Attorney’s fees for the services rendered in connection”with the dissolution of the writ may be included as an element of damages whether the writ is dissolved on motion or after trial on the merits.
Art. 3507, Release of property by defendant; security
A defendant may obtain the release of the property seized under a writ of attachment or of sequestration by furnishing security for the satisfaction of any judgment which may be rendered against him.
Art. 3508. Amount of security for release of attached or sequestered property
The security for the release of property seized under a writ of attachment or of sequestration shall exceed by one-fourth the vklue of the property as determined by the court, or shall exceed by one-fourth the amount of the claim, whichever is the lesser.
Art. 3510. Necessity for judgment and execution
Except as provided in Article 3513 [perishables], a final judgment must be obtained in an action where a writ of attachment or of sequestration has issued before the property seized can be sold to satisfy the claim.
Art. 3571. Grounds for sequestration
When one claims the ownership or. right to possession of property, or a mortgage, lien, or privilege thereon, he may have the property seized under a writ of sequestration, if it is within the power of the defendant to conceal, dispose of, or waste the property or the revenues therefrom, or remove the property from the parish, during the pendency of the action.
Art. 3574. Plaintiff’s security
An applicant for a writ of sequestration shall furnish security for an amount determined by the court to be sufficiént to protect the defendant against any damage resulting from a wrongful issuance, unless security is dispensed with by law..
Art. 3576. Release of property under sequestration
If the defendant does not effect the release of property seized under a writ of sequestration, as permitted by Article 3507, within ten days of the seizure, the plaintiff may effect the release thereof by furnishing the security required by Article 3508.
The motion asked for dissolution of the writ with respect to the refrigerator, stove, and washer. For some reason, unexplained by the parties, the motion was not addressed to the stereo.
There is some dispute between the parties as to when the writ was actually executed by the sheriff. The sheriff’s return, furnished by petitioner but apparently not in the record below, indicates that execution was on the 18th of February, rather than on the 7th. The Louisiana Supreme Court assumed that the writ was executed on the 7th. Because we see no legal consequence attaching to a choice of dates, we assume for purposes ■ <ff decision that the writ was executed on the 7th.
Article 2373 and other pertinent provisions of the Code, including those referred to in the text, are set out in the Appendix to this opinion.
Historically, the writ would issue only if the creditor had “good reason to fear” that' the debtor would damage, alienate or waste the goods, and the creditor was required to show the grounds for such fear. Under present law, however, the apprehension of the creditor is no longer the issue, and the writ may be obtained when the goods are within the power of the debtor. Reporter’s Comment (a) to La. Code Civ. Proe. Ann., Art. 3571. The necessity of showing such “power” is not irrelevant, because the vendor’s privilege will not lie against goods not within the “power” of the debtor, Margolin, Civil Law, Vendor’s Privilege, 4 Tul. L. Rev. 239 (1930); H. Daggett, On Louisiana Privileges and Chattel Mortgages §51 (1942).
Articles 282 and 283 of the Code provide, generally, that the court clerk may issue writs of sequestration. But Art, 281 confines the authority to the judge in Orleans Parish. There is no dispute in this case that judicial authority for the writ was required and that it was obtained as
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in these cases are Federal Communications Commission regulations governing the permissibility of common ownership of a radio or television broadcast station and a daily newspaper located in the same community. Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, Second Report and Order, 50 F. C. C. 2d 1046 (1975) (hereinafter cited as Order), as amended upon reconsideration, 53 F. C. C. 2d 589 (1975), codified in 47 CFR §§ 73.35, 73.240, 73.636 (1976). The regulations, adopted after a lengthy rulemaking proceeding, prospectively bar formation or transfer of co-located newspaper-broadcast combinations. Existing combinations are generally permitted to continue in operation. However, in communities in which there is common ownership of the only daily newspaper and the only broadcast station, or (where there is more than one broadcast station) of the only daily newspaper and the only television station, divestiture of either the newspaper or the broadcast station is required within five years, unless grounds for waiver are demonstrated.
The questions for decision are whether these regulations either exceed the Commission’s authority under the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), or violate the First or Fifth Amendment rights of newspaper owners; and whether the lines drawn by the Commission between new and existing newspaper-broadcast combinations, and between existing combinations subject to divestiture and those allowed to continue in operation, are arbitrary or capricious within the meaning of § 10 (e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. i 706 (2) (A) (1976 ed.). For the reasons set forth below, we sustain the regulations in their entirety.
I
A
Under the regulatory scheme established by the Radio Act of 1927, 44 Stat. 1162, and continued in the Communications Act of 1934, no television or radio broadcast station may operate without a license granted by the Federal Communications Commission. 47 U. S. C. § 301. Licensees who wish to continue broadcasting must apply for renewal of their licenses every three years, and the Commission may grant an initial license or a renewal only if it finds that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby. §§ 307 (a), (d), 308 (a), 309 (a), (d).
In setting its licensing policies, the Commission has long acted on the theory that diversification of mass media ownership serves the public interest by promoting diversity of program and service viewpoints, as well as by preventing undue concentration of economic power. See, e. g., Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 45 F. C. C. 1476, 1476-1477 (1964). This perception of the public interest has been implemented over the years by a series of regulations imposing increasingly stringent restrictions on multiple ownership of broadcast stations. In the early 1940’s, the Commission promulgated rules prohibiting ownership or control of more than one station in the same broadcast service (AM radio, FM radio, or television) in the same community. In 1953, limitations were placed on the total number of stations in each service a person or entity may own or control. And in 1970, the Commission adopted regulations prohibiting, on a prospective basis, common ownership of a VHF television station and any radio station serving the same market.
More generally, “[diversification of control of the media of mass communications” has been viewed by the Commission as “a factor of primary significance” in determining who, among competing applicants in a comparative proceeding, should receive the initial license for a particular broadcast facility. Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, 1 F. C. C. 2d 393, 394-395 (1965) (italics omitted). Thus, prior to adoption of the regulations at issue here, the fact that an applicant for an initial license published a newspaper in the community to be served by the broadcast station was taken into account on a case-by-case basis, and resulted in some instances in awards of licenses to competing applicants.
Diversification of ownership has not been the sole consideration thought relevant to the public interest, however. The Commission’s other, and sometimes conflicting, goal has been to ensure “the best practicable service to the public.” Id., at 394. To achieve this goal, the Commission has weighed factors such as the anticipated contribution of the owner to station operations, the proposed program service, and the past broadcast record of the applicant — in addition to diversification of ownership — in making initial comparative licensing decisions. See id., at 395-400. Moreover, the Commission has given considerable weight to a policy of avoiding undue disruption of existing service. As a result, newspaper owners in many instances have been able to acquire broadcast licenses for stations serving the same communities as their newspapers, and the Commission has repeatedly renewed such licenses on findings that continuation of the service offered by the common owner would serve the public interest. See Order, at 1066-1067, 1074-1075.
B
Against this background, the Commission began the instant rulemaking proceeding in 1970 to consider the need for a more restrictive policy toward newspaper ownership of radio and television broadcast stations. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. 18110), 22 F. C. C. 2d 339 (1970). Citing studies showing the dominant role of television stations and daily newspapers as sources of local news and other information, id., at 346; see id., at 344 — 346, the notice of rulemaking proposed adoption of regulations that would eliminate all newspaper-broadcast combinations serving the same market, by prospectively banning formation or transfer of such combinations and requiring dissolution of all existing combinations within five years, id., at 346. The Commission suggested that the proposed regulations would serve “the purpose of promoting competition among the mass media involved, and maximizing diversification of service sources and viewpoints.” Ibid. At the same time, however, the Commission expressed “substantial concern” about the disruption of service that might result from divestiture of existing combinations. Id., at 348. Comments were invited on all aspects of the proposed rules.
The notice of rulemaking generated a considerable response. Nearly 200 parties, including the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, various broadcast and newspaper interests, public interest groups, and academic and research entities, filed comments on the proposed rules. In addition, a number of studies were submitted, dealing with the effects of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership on competition and station performance, the economic consequences of divestiture, and the degree of diversity present in the mass media. In March 1974, the Commission requested further comments directed primarily to the core problem of newspaper-television station cross-ownership, Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket No. 18110), 47 F. C. C. 2d 97 (1974), and close to 50 sets of additional comments were filed. In July 1974, the Commission held three days of oral argument, at which all parties who requested time were allowed to speak.
The regulations at issue here were promulgated and explained in a lengthy report and order released by the Commission on January 31, 1975. The Commission concluded, first, that it had statutory authority to issue the regulations under the Communications Act, Order, at 1048, citing 47 U. S. C. §§ 2 (a), 4 (i), 4 (j), 301, 303, 309 (a), and that the regulations were valid under the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, Order, at 1050-1051. It observed that “[t]he term public interest encompasses many factors including 'the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources/ ” Order, at 1048, quoting Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 20 (1945), and that “ownership carries with it the power to select, to edit, and to choose the methods, manner and emphasis of presentation,” Order, at 1050. The Order further explained that the prospective ban on creation of co-located newspaper-broadcast combinations was grounded primarily in First Amendment concerns, while the divestiture regulations were based on both First Amendment and antitrust policies. Id., at 1049. In addition, the Commission rejected the suggestion that it lacked the power to order divestiture, reasoning that the statutory requirement of license renewal every three years necessarily implied authority to order divestiture over a five-year period. Id., at 1052.
After reviewing the comments and studies submitted by the various parties during the course of the proceeding, the Commission then turned to an explanation of the regulations and the justifications for their adoption. The prospective rules, barring formation of new broadcast-newspaper combinations in the same market, as well as transfers of existing combinations to new owners, were adopted without change from the proposal set forth in the notice of rulemaking. While recognizing the pioneering contributions of newspaper owners to the broadcast industry, the Commission concluded that changed circumstances made it possible, and necessary, for all new licensing of broadcast stations to “be expected to add to local diversity.” Id., at 1075. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission did not find that existing co-located newspaper-broadcast combinations had not served the public interest, or that such combinations necessarily “spea[k] with one voice” or are harmful to competition. Id., at 1085, 1089. In the Commission's view, the conflicting studies submitted by the parties concerning the effects of newspaper ownership on competition and station performance were inconclusive, and no pattern of specific abuses by existing cross-owners was demonstrated. See id., at 1072-1073, 1085, 1089. The prospective rules were justified, instead, by reference to the Commission's policy of promoting diversification of ownership: Increases in diversification of ownership would possibly result in enhanced diversity of viewpoints, and, given the absence of persuasive countervailing considerations, “even a small gain in diversity” was “worth pursuing.” Id., at 1076, 1080 n. 30.
With respect to the proposed across-the-board divestiture requirement, however, the Commission concluded that “a mere hoped-for gain in diversity” was not a sufficient justification. Id., at 1078. Characterizing the divestiture issues as “the most difficult” presented in the proceeding, the Order explained that the proposed rules, while correctly recognizing the central importance of diversity considerations, “may have given too little weight to the consequences which could be expected to attend a focus on the abstract goal alone.” Ibid. Forced dissolution would promote diversity, but it would also cause “disruption for the industry and hardship for individual owners,” “resulting in losses or diminution of service to the public.” Id., at 1078, 1080.
The Commission concluded that in light of these countervailing considerations divestiture was warranted only in “the most egregious cases,” which it identified as those in which a newspaper-broadcast combination has an “effective monopoly” in the local “marketplace of ideas as well as economically.” Id., at 1080-1081. The Commission recognized that any standards for defining which combinations fell within that category would necessarily be arbitrary to some degree, but “[a] choice had to be made.” Id., at 1080. It thus decided to require divestiture only where there was common ownership of the sole daily newspaper published in a community and either (1) the sole broadcast station providing that entire community with a clear signal, or (2) the sole television station encompassing the entire community with a clear signal. Id., at 1080-1084.
The Order identified 8 television-newspaper and 10 radio-newspaper combinations meeting the divestiture criteria. Id., at 1085, 1098. Waivers of the divestiture requirement were granted sua sponte to 1 television and 1 radio combination, leaving a total of 16 stations subject to divestiture. The Commission explained that waiver requests would be entertained in the latter cases, but, absent waiver, either the newspaper or the broadcast station would have to be divested by January 1,1980. Id., at 1084-1086.
On petitions for reconsideration, the Commission reaffirmed the rules in all material respects. Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket No. 18110), 53 F. C. C. 2d 589 (1975).
C
Various parties — including the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting (NCCB), the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA), and several broadcast licensees subject to the divestiture requirement — petitioned for review of the regulations in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, pursuant to 47 U. S. C. § 402 (a) and 28 U. S. C. §§2342 (1), 2343 (1970 ed. and Supp. V). Numerous other parties intervened, and the United States— represented by the Justice Department — was made a respondent pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2344, 2348. NAB, ANPA, and the broadcast licensees subject to divestiture argued that the regulations went too far in restricting cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations; NCCB and the Justice Department contended that the regulations did not go far enough and that the Commission inadequately justified its decision not to order divestiture on a more widespread basis.
Agreeing substantially with NCCB and the Justice Department, the Court of Appeals affirmed the prospective ban on new licensing of co-located newspaper-broadcast combinations, but vacated the limited divestiture rules, and ordered the Commission to adopt regulations requiring dissolution of all existing combinations that did not qualify for a waiver under the procedure outlined in the Order. 181 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 555 F. 2d 938 (1977); see n. 11, supra. The court held, first, that the prospective ban was a reasonable means of furthering “the highly valued goal of diversity” in the mass media, 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 17, 555 F. 2d, at 954, and was therefore not without a rational basis. The court concluded further that, since the Commission “explained why it considers diversity to be a factor of exceptional importance,” and since the Commission’s goal of promoting diversification of mass media ownership was strongly supported by First Amendment and antitrust policies, it was not arbitrary for the prospective rules to be “based on [the diversity] factor to the exclusion of others customarily relied on by the Commission.” Id., at 13 n. 33, 555 F. 2d, at 950 n. 33; see id., at 11-12, 555 F. 2d, at 948-949.
The court also held that the prospective rules did not exceed the Commission’s authority under the Communications Act. The court reasoned that the public interest standard of the Act permitted, and indeed required, the Commission to consider diversification of mass media ownership in making its licensing decisions, and that the Commission’s general rule-making authority under 47 U. S. C. §§ 303 (r) and 154 (i) allowed the Commission to adopt reasonable license qualifications implementing the public-interest standard. 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 14-15, 555 F. 2d, at 951-952. The court concluded, moreover, that since the prospective ban was designed to “increas [e] the number of media voices in the community,” and not to restrict or control the content of free speech, the ban would not violate the First Amendment rights of newspaper owners. Id., at 16-17, 555 F. 2d, at 953-954.
After affirming the prospective rules, the Court of Appeals invalidated the limited divestiture requirement as arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of § 10 (e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 TJ. S. C. § 706 (2) (A) (1976 ed.). The court’s primary holding was that the Commission lacked a rational basis for “grandfathering” most existing combinations while banning all new combinations. The court reasoned that the Commission’s own diversification policy, as reinforced by First Amendment policies and the Commission’s statutory obligation to “encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest,” 47 U. S. C. § 303 (g), required the Commission to adopt a “presumption” that stations owned by co-located newspapers “do not serve the public interest,” 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 25-26, 555 F. 2d, at 962-963. The court observed that, in the absence of countervailing policies, this “presumption” would have dictated adoption of an across-the-board divestiture requirement, subject only to waiver “in those cases where the evidence clearly discloses that cross-ownership is in the public interest.” Id., at 29, 555 F. 2d, at 966. The countervailing policies relied on by the Commission in its decision were, in the court’s view, “lesser policies” which had not been given as much weight in the past as its diversification policy. Id., at 28, 555 F. 2d, at 965. And “the record [did] not disclose the extent fib which divestiture would actually threaten these [other policies].” Ibid. The court concluded, therefore, that it was irrational for the Commission not to give controlling weight to its diversification policy and thus to extend the divestiture requirement to all existing combinations.
The Court of Appeals held further that, even assuming a difference in treatment between new and existing combinations was justifiable, the Commission lacked a rational basis for requiring divestiture in the 16 “egregious” cases while allowing the remainder of the existing combinations to continue in operation. The court suggested that “limiting divestiture to small markets of 'absolute monopoly' squanders the opportunity where divestiture might do the most good,” since “[d]ivestiture... may be more useful in the larger markets.” Id., at 29, 555 F. 2d, at 966. The court further observed that the record “[did] not support the conclusion that divestiture would be more harmful in the grandfathered markets than in the 16 affected markets,” nor did it demonstrate that the need for divestiture was stronger in those 16 markets. Ibid. On the latter point, the court noted that, “[although the affected markets contain fewer voices, the amount of diversity in communities with additional independent voices may in fact be no greater.” Ibid.
The Commission, NAB, ANPA, and several cross-owners who had been intervenors below, and whose licenses had been grandfathered under the Commission’s rules but were subject to divestiture under the Court of Appeals’ decision, petitioned this Court for review. We granted certiorari, 434 U. S. 815 (1977), and we now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it upholds the prospective ban and reverse the judgment insofar as it vacates the limited divestiture requirement.
II
Petitioners NAB and ANPA contend that the regulations promulgated by the Commission exceed its statutory rule-making authority and violate the constitutional rights of newspaper owners. We turn first to the statutory, and then to the constitutional, issues.
A
(1)
Section 303 (r) of the Communications Act, 47 U. S. C. § 303 (r), provides that “the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall... [m]ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of [the Act]See also 47 U. S. C. §154 (i). As the Court of Appeals recognized, 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 14, 555 F. 2d, at 951, it is now well established that this general rulemaking authority supplies a statutory basis for the Commission to issue regulations codifying its view of the public-interest licensing standard, so long as that view is based on consideration of permissible factors and is otherwise reasonable. If a license applicant does not qualify under standards set forth in such regulations, and does not proffer sufficient grounds for waiver or change of those standards, the Commission may deny the application without further inquiry. See United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192 (1956); National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190 (1943).
This Court has specifically upheld this rulemaking authority in the context of regulations based on the Commission's policy of promoting diversification of ownership. In United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., supra, we sustained the portion of the Commission’s multiple-ownership rules placing limitations on the total number of stations in each broadcast service a person may own or control. See n. 2, supra. And in National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, supra, we affirmed regulations that, inter alia, prohibited broadcast networks from owning more than one AM radio station in the same community, and from owning “ 'any standard broadcast station in any locality where the existing standard broadcast stations are so few or of such unequal desirability... that competition would be substantially restrained by such licensing.’ ” See 319 U. S., at 206-208; n. 1, supra.
Petitioner NAB attempts to distinguish these cases on the ground that they involved efforts to increase diversification within the boundaries of the broadcasting industry itself, whereas the instant regulations are concerned with diversification of ownership in the mass communications media as a whole. NAB contends that, since the Act confers jurisdiction on the Commission only to regulate “communication by wire or radio,” 47 U. S. C. § 152 (a), it is impermissible for the Commission to use its licensing authority with respect to broadcasting to promote diversity in an overall communications market which includes, but is not limited to, the broadcasting industry.
This argument undersells the Commission’s power to regulate broadcasting in the “public interest.” In making initial licensing decisions between competing applicants, the Commission has long given “primary significance” to “diversification of control of the media of mass communications,” and has denied licenses to newspaper owners on the basis of this policy in appropriate cases. See supra, at 781, and n. 4. As we have discussed on several occasions, see, e. g., National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, supra, at 210-218; Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 375-377, 387-388 (1969), the physical scarcity of broadcast frequencies, as well as problems of interference between broadcast signals, led Congress to delegate broad authority to the Commission to allocate broadcast licenses in the “public interest.” And “[t]he avowed aim of the Communications Act of 1934 was to secure the maximum benefits of radio to all the people of the United States.” National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, supra, at 217. It was not inconsistent with the statutory scheme, therefore, for the Commission to conclude that the maximum benefit to the “public interest” would follow from allocation of broadcast licenses so as to promote diversification of the mass media as a whole.
Our past decisions have recognized, moreover, that the First Amendment and antitrust values underlying the Commission’s diversification policy may properly be considered by the Commission in determining where the public interest lies. “[T]he 'public interest’ standard necessarily invites reference to First Amendment principles,” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 122 (1973), and, in particular, to the First Amendment goal of achieving “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,” Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S., at 20. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, supra, at 385, 390. See also United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U. S. 649, 667-669, and n. 27 (1972) (plurality opinion). And, while the Commission does not have power to enforce the antitrust laws as such, it is permitted to take antitrust policies into account in making licensing decisions pursuant to the public-interest standard. See, e. g., United States v. Radio Corp. of America, 358 U. S. 334, 351 (1959); National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, supra, at 222-224. Indeed we have noted, albeit in dictum:
"[I]n a given case the Commission might find that antitrust considerations alone would keep the statutory standard from being met, as when the publisher of the sole newspaper in an area applies for a license for the only available radio and television facilities, which, if granted, would give him a monopoly of that area’s major media of mass communication.” United States v. Radio Corp. of America, supra, at 351-352.
(2)
It is thus clear that the regulations at issue are based on permissible public-interest goals and, so long as the regulations are not an unreasonable means for seeking to achieve these goals, they fall within the general rulemaking authority recognized in the Storer Broadcasting and National Broadcasting cases. Petitioner ANPA contends that the prospective rules are unreasonable in two respects: first, the rulemaking record did not conclusively establish that prohibiting common ownership of co-located newspapers and broadcast stations would in fact lead to increases in the diversity of viewpoints among local communications media; and second, the regulations were based on the diversification factor to the exclusion of other service factors considered in the past by the Commission in making initial licensing decisions regarding newspaper owners, see supra, at 782. With respect to the first point, we agree with the Court of Appeals that, notwithstanding the inconclusiveness of the rulemaking record, the Commission acted rationally in finding that diversification of ownership would enhance the possibility of achieving greater diversity of viewpoints. As the Court of Appeals observed, “ [d] iversity and its effects are... elusive concepts, not easily defined let alone measured without making qualitative judgments objectionable on both policy and First Amendment grounds.” 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 24, 555 F. 2d, at 961. Moreover, evidence of specific abuses by common owners is difficult to compile; “the possible benefits of competition do not lend themselves to detailed forecast.” FCC v. RCA Communications, Inc., 346 U. S. 86, 96 (1953). In these circumstances, the Commission was entitled to rely on its judgment, based on experience, that “it is unrealistic to expect true diversity from a commonly owned station-newspaper combination. The divergency of their viewpoints cannot be expected to be the same as if they were antagonistically run.” Order, at 1079-1080; see 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 25, 555 F. 2d, at 962.
As to the Commission’s decision to give controlling weight to its diversification goal in shaping the prospective rules, the Order makes clear that this change in policy was a reasonable administrative response to changed circumstances in the broadcasting industry. Order, at 1074M075; see FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 137-138 (1940). The Order explained that, although newspaper owners had previously been allowed, and even encouraged, to acquire licenses for co-located broadcast stations because of the shortage of qualified license applicants, a sufficient number of qualified and experienced applicants other than newspaper owners was now available. In addition, the number of channels open for new licensing had diminished substantially. It had thus become both feasible and more urgent for the Commission to take steps to increase diversification of ownership, and a change in the Commission’s policy toward new licensing offered the possibility of increasing diversity without causing any disruption of existing service. In light of these considerations, the Commission clearly did not take an irrational view of the public interest when it decided to impose a prospective ban on new licensing of co-located newspaper-broadcast combinations.
B
Petitioners NAB and ANPA also argue that the regulations, though designed to further the First Amendment goal of achieving “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,” Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S., at 20, nevertheless violate the First Amendment rights of newspaper owners. We cannot agree, for this argument ignores the fundamental proposition that there is no “unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S., at 388.
The physical limitations of the broadcast spectrum are well known. Because of problems of interference between broadcast signals, a finite number of frequencies can be used productively; this number is far exceeded by the number of persons wishing to broadcast to the public. In light of this physical scarcity, Government allocation and regulation of broadcast frequencies are essential, as we have often recognized. Id., at 375-377, 387-388; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S., at 210-218; Federal Radio Comm’n v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U. S. 266, 282 (1933); see supra, at 795. No one here questions the need for such allocation and regulation, and, given that need, we see nothing in the First Amendment to prevent the Commission from allocating licenses so as to promote the “public interest” in diversification of the mass communications media.
NAB and ANPA contend, however, that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment to promote diversification by barring a newspaper owner from owning certain broadcasting stations. In support, they point to our statement in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), to the effect that “government may [not] restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others,” id., at 48-49. As Buckley also recognized, however, “ 'the broadcast media pose unique and special problems not present in the traditional free speech case.’ ” Id., at 50 n. 55, quoting Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S., at 101. Thus efforts to “ 'enhanc[e] the volume and quality of coverage’ of public issues” through regulation of broadcasting may be permissible where similar efforts to regulate the print media would not be. 424 U. S., at 50-51, and n. 55, quoting Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, supra, at 393; cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974). Requiring those who wish to obtain a broadcast license to demonstrate that such would serve the “public interest” does not restrict the speech of those who are denied licenses; rather, it preserves the interests of the “people as a whole... in free speech.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co., supra, at 390. As we stated in Red Lion, “to deny a station license because 'the public interest’ requires it 'is not a denial of free speech.’ ” 395 U. S., at 389, quoting National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, supra, at 227. See also Federal Radio Comm’n v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., supra.
Relying on cases such as Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958), and Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 (1976), NAB and ANPA also argue that the regulations unconstitutionally condition receipt of a broadcast license upon forfeiture of the right to publish a newspaper. Under the regulations, however, a newspaper owner need not forfeit anything in order to acquire a license for a station located in another community. More importantly, in the cases relied on by those petitioners, unlike the instant case, denial of a benefit had the effect of abridging freedom of expression, since the denial was based solely on the content of constitutionally protected speech; in Speiser veterans were deprived of a special property-tax exemption if they declined to subscribe to a loyalty oath, while in Elrod certain public employees were discharged or threatened with discharge because of their political affiliation. As we wrote in National Broadcasting, supra, “the issue before us would be wholly different” if “the Commission '[were] to choose among applicants upon the basis of their political, economic or social views.” 319 U. S., at 226. Here the regulations are not content related; moreover, their purpose and effect is to promote free speech, not to restrict it.
Finally, NAB and ANPA argue that the Commission has unfairly “singled out” newspaper owners for more stringent treatment than other license applicants. But the regulations treat newspaper owners in essentially the same fashion as other owners of the major media of mass communications were already treated under the Commission’s multiple-ownership rules, see supra, at 780-781, and nn. 1-3; owners of radio stations, television stations, and newspapers alike are now restricted in their ability to acquire licenses for co-located broadcast stations. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936), in which this Court struck down a state tax imposed only on newspapers, is thus distinguishable in the degree to which newspapers were singled out for special treatment. In addition, the effect of the tax in Grosjean was “to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled,” id., at 250, an effect inconsistent with the protection conferred on the press by the First Amendment.
In the instant case, far from seeking to limit the flow of information, the Commission has acted, in the Court of Appeals’ words, “to enhance the diversity of information heard by the public without on-going government surveillance of the content of speech.” 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 17, 555 F. 2d, at 954. The regulations are a reasonable means of promoting the public interest in diversified mass communications; thus they do not violate the First Amendment rights of those who will be denied broadcast licenses pursuant to them. Being forced to “choose among applicants for the same facilities,” the Commission has chosen on a “sensible basis,” one designed to further, rather than contravene, “the system of freedom of expression.” T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 663 (1970).
Ill
After upholding the prospective aspect of the Commission's regulations, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Commission's decision to limit divestiture to 16 “egregious cases” of “effective monopoly” was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of § 10 (e) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 706 (2) (A) (1976 ed.). We agree with the Court of Appeals that regulations promulgated after informal rulemaking, while not subject to review under the “substantial evidence” test of the APA, 5 U. S. C. §706 (2)(E) (1976 ed.) quoted in n. 21, supra, may be invalidated by a reviewing court under the “arbitrary or capricious” standard if they are not rational and based on consideration of the relevant factors. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 413-416 (1971). Although this review “is to be searching and careful,” “[t]
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On June 15, 1951, Otis Thompson died from injuries suffered while loading a ship for his employer. Two women sought a death benefit under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, each claiming to be his “widow.” The Deputy Commissioner denied both claims, that of one woman on the ground that she was not the lawful wife of the decedent, and that of the other because at the time of Otis’ death she was living apart from him not “by reason of his desertion,” 33 U. S. C. § 902 (16). On a review of the latter dismissal, the District Court sustained the Deputy Commissioner’s order, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 205 F. 2d 527. In doing so, that court rejected contrary decisions of the Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits, Associated Operating Co. v. Lowe, 138 F. 2d 916, Moore Dry Dock Co. v. Pillsbury, 169 F. 2d 988. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 346 U. S. 921.
The Deputy Commissioner made these findings. Otis and Julia Thompson were married in 1921, and lived together as husband and wife until November 1925, when Otis deserted her. They never lived together again, and he never contributed anything to the support of Julia or their two children, nor did she ever endeavor to secure such support. Meanwhile Otis had taken up with one Sallie Williams, and they went through a marriage ceremony in 1929. Julia, in turn, found another mate, one Jimmy Fuller, whom she “married” in 1940. Thereafter she was known as Julia Fuller. She was formally divorced from Fuller in 1949. Shortly before Otis’ death, he asked Julia to “take him back,” but she refused, having no intention of ever again living with him and resuming the relationship of husband and wife.
The single, unentangled question before us is whether, on these unchallenged facts, Julia was at the time of Otis’ death in 1951, his statutory “widow,” as that term is described by Congress in the Longshoremen’s Act: “The term ‘widow’ includes only the decedent’s wife living with or dependent for support upon him at the time of his death; or living apart for justifiable cause, or by reason of his desertion at such time,” 33 U. S. C. § 902 (16). We agree with the court below that since she was not at the time of her husband’s death living apart from him “by reason of his desertion,” she was not a “widow” within the scope of this provision. Whatever may have been the situation prior to her “marriage” to Jimmy Euller in 1940, it is clear that after that date she lived as the wife of Jimmy Fuller, held herself out as his wife, and had severed all meaningful relationship with the decedent.
We do not reach this conclusion by assessing the marital conduct of the parties. That is an inquiry which may be relevant to legal issues arising under State domestic relations law. Our concern is with the proper interpretation of the Federal Longshoremen’s Act. Congress might have provided in that Act that a woman is entitled to compensation so long as she is still deemed to be the lawful wife of the decedent under State law, as, for example, where a foreign divorce obtained by her is without constitutional validity in the forum State. But Congress did not do so. It defined the requirements which every claimant for compensation must meet. Considering the purpose of this federal legislation and the manner in which Congress has expressed that purpose, the essential requirement is a conjugal nexus between the claimant and the decedent subsisting at the time of the latter’s death, which, for present purposes, means that she must continue to live as the deserted wife of the latter. That nexus is wholly absent here. Julia herself, by her purported remarriage, severed the bond which was the basis of her right to claim a death benefit as Otis’ statutory dependent. The very practical considerations of this Compensation Act should not be subordinated to the empty abstraction that once a wife has been deserted, she always remains a deserted wife, no matter what— the no matter what in this case being the wife’s conscious choice to terminate her prior conjugal relationship by embarking upon another permanent relationship.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
It was not contended before us that in the circumstances of this case the phrase “for justifiable cause” has a different reach than the phrase “by reason of his desertion.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioners, who are World War II veterans and former employees of the Pennsylvania Railroad, brought this action claiming that their former employer denied them certain seniority rights guaranteed by § 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. Section 8(b)(B) of that Act provides that upon application by any former employee who has satisfactorily completed his military service, a private employer “shall restore” such honorably discharged serviceman to his former “position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay unless the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so.” Section 8 (c) re-emphasizes § 8 (b) (B) by providing that any person so restored “shall be so restored without loss of seniority.”
The facts in this case are undisputed. In 1941 and 1942 the six petitioners began working as firemen on tugboats owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad and operated in the Port of New York. Petitioners left their jobs in 1942 and 1943 to enter the armed services and after serving three years or more each received an honorable discharge. Shortly after discharge each was restored by the railroad to his former position as fireman with the same amount of seniority he had before leaving plus credit for the time spent in the armed forces, as required by the 1940 Act. All six continued to work for the railroad until 1960. In 1959 a labor dispute broke out when the Pennsylvania and nine other railroad carriers operating tugboats claimed that firemen were not necessary on the new diesel tugs, and the owners of the tugs sought to abolish the craft and class of fireman. The unions affected called a strike. This strike was settled in 1960 when petitioners’ union and the railroads entered an agreement which abolished the position of fireman on all diesel tugs. As their part of the bargain the railroads agreed to retain in their employ firemen with 20 years or more seniority who desired to remain, but all firemen with less than 20 years seniority were discharged. To make this settlement more acceptable to the employees, those who were discharged or who did not desire to stay with the railroads were paid a severance or separation allowance based on a formula set out in the agreement. Each of the petitioners involved in this case left his job with the Pennsylvania Railroad and received a separation allowance, but each received less than he thought was due. This lawsuit was begun as an attempt to recover what each believed was owed him by the railroad.
The amount of the separation allowances was determined, according to the language of the agreement, by the length of “compensated service” with the railroad. A month of “compensated service” was defined as any month in which the employee worked one or more days and “a year of compensated service is 12 such months or major portion thereof.” In computing petitioners’ separation allowances the railroad did not include the years spent in the armed forces as years of “compensated service.” Petitioners claim this was error and contrary to § 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. Each petitioner received $1,242.60 less than he would have if given credit for the three or more years he spent in military service and the parties have stipulated that if petitioners are entitled to have the time in the service included in determining severance pay, judgment for this amount should be rendered for each of them. The District Court rendered judgment for petitioners. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, contrary to the District Court, that the petitioners were not entitled to credit for their time in the service in computing the allowances because the allowances did not come within the concepts of “seniority, status, and pay.” 341 F. 2d 72.
The language of the 1940 Act clearly manifests a purpose and desire on the part of Congress to provide as nearly as possible that persons called to serve their country in the armed forces should, upon returning to work in civilian life, resume their old employment without any loss because of their service to their country. Section 8 (b)(B) of the statute requires that private employers reinstate their former employees who are honorably discharged veterans “to [their former] position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay,” and § 8 (c) provides that such a person “shall be so restored without loss of seniority.” This means that for the purpose of determining seniority the returning veteran is to be treated as though he has been continuously employed during the period spent in the armed forces. Fishgold v. Sullivan Corp., 328 U. S. 275, 284-285. The continuing purpose of Congress in this matter was again shown in the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 604, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 451 et seq. (1964 ed.). Section 9 (c)(2) of that Act provides:
“It is hereby declared to be the sense of the Congress that any person who is restored to a position in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b) [of this section] should be so restored in such manner as to give him such status in his employment as he would have enjoyed if he had continued in such employment continuously from the time of his entering the armed forces until the time of his restoration to such employment.”
Respondent railroad does not quarrel with this interpretation of the statute but insists that the severance pay involved here was not based on seniority and that §§ 8 (b)(B) and (c) are wholly inapplicable to this case.
The term “seniority” is nowhere defined in the Act, but it derives its content from private employment practices and agreements. This does not mean, however, that employers and unions are empowered by the use of transparent labels and definitions to deprive a veteran of substantial rights guaranteed by the Act. As we said in Fishgold v. Sullivan Corp., supra, “[N]o practice of employers or agreements between employers and unions can cut down the service adjustment benefits which Congress has secured the veteran under the Act.” At 285. The term “seniority” is not to be limited by a narrow, technical definition but must be given a meaning that is consonant with the intention of Congress as expressed in the 1940 Act. That intention was to preserve for the returning veterans the rights and benefits which would have automatically accrued to them had they remained in private employment rather than responding to the call of their country. In this case there can be no doubt that the amounts of the severance payments were based primarily on the employees’ length of service with the railroad. The railroad contends, however, that the allowances were not based on seniority, but on the actual total service rendered by the employee. This is hardly consistent with the bizarre results possible under the definition of “compensated service.” As the Government points out, it is possible under the agreement for an employee to receive credit for a whole year of “compensated service” by working a mere seven days. There would be no distinction whatever between the man who worked one day a month for seven months and the man who worked 365 days in a year. The use of the label “compensated service” cannot obscure the fact that the real nature of these payments was compensation for loss of jobs. And the cost to an employee of losing his job is not measured by how much work he did in the past— no matter how calculated — but by the rights and benefits he forfeits by giving up his job. Among employees who worked at the same jobs in the same craft and class the number and value of the rights and benefits increase in proportion to the amount of seniority, and it is only natural that those with the most seniority should receive the highest allowances since they were giving up more rights and benefits than those with less seniority. The requirements of the 1940 Act are not satisfied by giving returning veterans seniority in some general abstract sense and then denying them the perquisites and benefits that flow from it. We think it clear that the amount of these allowances is just as much a perquisite of seniority as the more traditional benefits such as work preference and order of lay-off and recall. We hold that the failure to credit petitioners’ “compensated service” time with the period spent in the armed services does not accord petitioners the right to be reinstated “without loss of seniority” guaranteed by §§ 8 (b)(B) and (c).
What we have said makes it unnecessary to discuss in detail the Court of Appeals’ holding that these allowances did not come within the concepts of “seniority, status, and pay” and thus were governed not by § 8 (b) (B) and the part of § 8 (c) relating to seniority but rather by the clause in § 8 (c) stating that returning veterans “shall be entitled to participate in insurance or other benefits offered by the employer pursuant to established rules and practices relating to employees on furlough or leave of absence in effect with the employer at the time such person was inducted into such forces . . . .” The Government contends that the “other benefits” clause of § 8 (c) was added to the bill “for the express purpose of entitling employees to receive, while in service, such benefits as their employers accorded employees on leave of absence.” The legislative history referred to in the Government’s brief persuasively supports such a purpose.
This argument of the Government — that the “insurance or other benefits” clause was put in to provide these company benefits for the serviceman at the time he was in the armed forces — also finds some support in the fact that § 8 (c) provides that the serviceman would be entitled to these benefits only if they were “in effect with the employer at the time such person was inducted into such forces . . . .” Without attempting in this case to determine the exact scope of this provision of § 8 (c) it is enough to say that we consider that it was intended to add certain protections to the veteran and not to take away those which are granted him by § 8 (b) (B) and the other clauses of § 8 (c).
Since the Court of Appeals held that the provisions of § 8 (b)(B) did not apply to separation allowances it found it unnecessary to decide an alternative ground which the railroad contended should cause reversal. That contention was that since the agreement between the railroad and the union was entered into more than one year after petitioners were restored to their employment, the Act has no application to any rights created by the agreement. This argument rested on that part of § 8 (c) which provides that a veteran who is restored to employment “shall not be discharged from such position without cause within one year after such restoration.” The District Court rejected the contention as having no merit. We agree with the District Court and believe this contention to be so wholly without merit that the case need not be remanded to the Court of Appeals for its decision on the point. In Oakley v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 338 U. S. 278, 284, we said:
“[T]he expiration of the year did not terminate the veteran’s right to the seniority to which he was entitled by virtue of the Act’s treatment of him as though he had remained continuously in his civilian employment; nor did it open the door to discrimination against him, as a veteran. . . . His seniority status . . . continues beyond the first year of his reemployment . . .
What we said there governs this case. The District Court was correct in rejecting this contention of the railroad.
In the Court of Appeals the railroad also contended that the District Court had improperly computed the interest owing on the judgment awarded the plaintiffs. Because of its holding that petitioners were entitled to no recovery at all the Court of Appeals declined to decide the question of interest. The record before us does not present that question with sufficient clarity for us to pass upon it.
We affirm the judgment of the District Court holding that petitioners are entitled to recover from the railroad the stipulated damages due them because they are entitled to credit for the full amount of time served in the armed forces in calculating their severance pay. But the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of the interest contention.
Reversed and remanded.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.
54 Stat. 890, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. §308 (1946 ed.). Section 8 of the 1940 Act is now § 9 of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 614, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. §459 (1964 ed.).
The Department of Justice is representing petitioners in this case pursuant to § 8 (e) of the 1940 Act.
Senator Sheppard in explaining an amendment which included the “other benefits” provision said:
“That amendment would make certain that all trainees would receive the same insurance and other benefits as those who are on furlough or leave of absence in private life. It seems to me to be a good suggestion.” 86 Cong. Ree. 10914.
And Congressman May, the Chairman of the House Committee on Military Affairs, had this colloquy with another Congressman on the same question:
“Mr. MILLER. In reference to insurance, will that apply to group insurance? Many industrial plants, of course, carry group insurance. Under those contracts they continue their participation while a man is on vacation or on furlough. Would they continue those policies in force?
“Mr. MAY. This would continue them in force and that is the very purpose of the legislation.” 86 Cong. Rec. 11702.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, alleging diversity of citizenship, brought suit in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that in September and October 1948 two individual defendants, Parnell and Rocco, and two corporate defendants, the First National Bank in Indiana and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, had converted 73 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation bonds which belonged to petitioner. Only Parnell and the First National Bank are respondents here, since the Federal Reserve Bank was dismissed, on its motion, after petitioner had presented its case in the District Court, and since Rocco did not appeal from the District Court’s judgment.
At the trial it appeared that these bonds were bearer bonds with payment guaranteed by the United States. They carried interest coupons calling for semi-annual payment. They were due to mature May 1, 1952, but pursuant to their terms, had been called on or about May 1, 1944. On May 2, 1944, the bonds disappeared while petitioner was getting them ready for presentation to the Federal Reserve Bank for payment. In 1948 they were presented to the First National Bank for payment by Parnell on behalf of Rocco. The First National Bank forwarded them to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. It cashed them and paid the First National Bank, which issued cashier’s checks to Parnell. Parnell then turned the proceeds over to Rocco less a fee — there was conflicting testimony as to whether the fee was nominal or substantial.
The principal issue at the trial was whether the respondents took the bonds in good faith, without knowledge or notice of the defect in title. On this issue the trial judge charged:
“As I have indicated, however, in the case — and if you find in this case that the plaintiff owned these bonds, that they were stolen from it — then the burden of proof so far as this plaintiff is concerned is to show that fact, that these bonds were owned by it, that they were lost by it in the manner as shown by its evidence. Then the two defendants, Parnell and the bank, not claiming to be owners for value, but as conduits for redemption, must come forward and they then have the burden of showing that they acted innocently, honestly, and in good faith. ...”
The jury brought in verdicts for petitioner against both respondents. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the seven circuit judges sitting en banc, reversed, with three judges dissenting. It held that the District Court had erred in treating the case as an ordinary diversity case and in regarding state law as governing the rights of the parties and the burden of proof. 226 F. 2d 297. It considered our decision in Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, controlling and held that federal law placed the burden of proof on petitioner to show notice and lack of good faith on the part of respondents. The court further found that there was no evidence of bad faith by the First National Bank since the bonds were not “overdue” as a matter of federal law when presented to it and therefore directed entry of judgment for it. The court found that there was evidence of bad faith on the part of Parnell but ordered a new trial because of the erroneous instructions.
The dissenters agreed in applying the doctrine of the Clearfield Trust case to determine the nature of the contract and the rights and duties of the United States as a party but not the rights of private transferees among themselves. They, like the majority, looked to federal law to determine whether the bonds were “overdue paper” when presented to the First National Bank. They concluded that since the respondent bank knew of the call, as to it, the bonds became demand paper and that the bank took the paper an unreasonable length of time after maturity, as advanced by the call.
In the view of the dissenters, state law was controlling with respect to proof of good faith and the burden thereon. They found that state law placed the burden of proof on respondents to demonstrate their good faith, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s yerdict that the burden of proving good faith had not been sustained even if, with respect to the respondent bank, the bonds were not to be regarded as demand paper taken an unreasonable time after maturity, as advanced by the call.
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to review the judgments of the Court of Appeals. Because the determination of the applicable law raised an important issue of federal-state relations, we granted certiorari. 350 U. S. 963.
The District Court in this suit, based on diversity jurisdiction, for the conversion in Pennsylvania of pieces of paper of defined value, deemed itself a court of Pennsylvania in which, in view of the nature of the claim, Pennsylvania law would govern. See Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, 108. But respondents claim, and the Court of Appeals sustained them, that the decision in Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, compels the application of federal law to the entire case. The Court of Appeals misconceived the nature of this litigation in holding that the Clearfield Trust case controlled. In that case we held that a suit by the United States to recover on an express guaranty of prior endorsements on a Government check with a forged endorsement was governed by federal law. The basis for this decision was stated with unclouded explicitness.:
“The issuance of commercial paper by the United States is on a vast scale and transactions in that paper from issuance to payment will commonly occur in several states. The application of state law, even without the conflict of laws rules of the forum, would subject the rights and duties of the United States to exceptional uncertainty.” 318 U. S., at 367.
Securities issued by the Government generate immediate interests of the Government. These were dealt with in Clearfield Trust and in National Metropolitan Bank v. United States, 323 U. S. 454. But they also radiate interests in transactions between private parties. The present litigation is purely between private parties and does not touch the rights and duties of the United States. The only possible interest of the United States in a situation like the one here, exclusively involving the transfer of Government paper between private persons, is that the floating of securities of the United States might somehow or other be adversely affected by the local rule of a particular State regarding the liability of a converter. This is far too speculative, far too remote a possibility to justify the application of federal law to transactions essentially of local concern.
We do not mean to imply that litigation with respect to Government paper necessarily precludes the presence of a federal interest, to be governed by federal law, in all situations merely because it is a suit between private parties, or that it is beyond the range of federal legislation to deal comprehensively with Government paper. We do not of course foreclose such judicial or legislative action in appropriate situations by concluding that this controversy over burden of proof and good faith represents too essentially a private transaction not to be dealt with by the local law of Pennsylvania where the transactions took place. Federal law of course governs the interpretation of the nature of the rights and obligations created by the Government bonds themselves. A decision with respect to the “overdueness” of the bonds is therefore a matter of federal law, which, in view of our holding, we need not elucidate.
This conclusion requires reversal of the judgments of the Court of Appeals but not reinstatement of the judgments of the District Court. The Court of Appeals did not originally consider all the points raised by respondents. Moreover, since the Court of Appeals misconceived the applicable law, it is for that court to review the judgments of the District Court in the light of the controlling state law. The Court of Appeals has not decided what the governing state law on burden of proof is, and it is the court which should so decide. Likewise, if state law casts the burden on respondents to demonstrate their good faith, it is for the Court of Appeals to assess the evidence in light of that standard.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit are therefore reversed and the cases are remanded to that court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Key Tronic Corporation, one of several parties responsible for contaminating a landfill, brought this action to recover a share of its cleanup costs from other responsible parties. The question presented is whether attorney’s fees are “necessary costs of response” within the meaning of § 107(a)(4)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 100 Stat. 1613, and therefore recoverable in such an action.
I
During the 1970’s Key Tronic and other parties, including the United States Air Force, disposed of liquid chemicals at the Colbert Landfill in eastern Washington State. In 1980 the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) determined that the water supply in the surrounding area had been contaminated by these chemicals. Various lawsuits ensued, including formal proceedings against Key Tronic, the Air Force, and other parties.
Two of those proceedings were settled. In one settlement with WDOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Key Tronic agreed to contribute $4.2 million to an EPA cleanup fund. In the other, the Air Force agreed to pay the EPA $1.45 million. The EPA subsequently released the Air Force from further liability pursuant to CERCLA § 122(g)(5), 42 U. S. C. § 9622(g)(5), which provides that a party that has resolved its liability to the United States shall not be liable for contribution claims regarding matters addressed in the settlement.
Key Tronic thereafter brought this action against the United States and other parties seeking to recover part of its $4.2 million commitment to the EPA in a contribution claim under CERCLA § 113(f), 42 U. S. C. § 9613(f), and seeking an additional $1.2 million for response costs that it incurred before the settlements in a cost recovery claim under CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B), 42 U. S. C. § 9607(a)(4)(B). The $1.2 million included attorney’s fees for three types of legal services: (1) the identification of other potentially responsible parties (PRP’s), including the Air Force, that were liable for the cleanup; (2) preparation and negotiation of its agreement with the EPA; and (3) the prosecution of this litigation.
The District Court dismissed Key Tronic’s $4.2 million contribution claim against the Air Force when Key Tronic conceded that § 122(g)(5) precluded it from recovering any part of the consent decree obligation. Key Tronic’s claim for $1.2 million of additional response costs could be pursued under CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B), 42 U. S. C. §9607, the court held, because it related to matters not covered by the Air Force’s settlement with the EPA. 766 F. Supp. 865, 868 (ED Wash. 1991). Section 107(a) provides that responsible parties are liable for “any . . . necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan.” 42 U. S. C. §,9607(a)(4)(B). CERCLA’s definitional § 101(25), as amended by SARA, provides that “response” or “respond” “means remove, removal, remedy, and remedial action” and that “all such terms (including the terms ‘removal’ and ‘remedial action’) include enforcement activities related thereto.” 42 U. S. C. § 9601(25). Construing §§ 107 and 101(25) “liberally to achieve the overall objectives of the statute,” 766 F. Supp., at 872, the District Court concluded that a private party may incur enforcement costs and that such costs include attorney’s fees for bringing a cost recovery action under § 107. Id., at 871. The court went on to decide that attorney’s fees encompassed within Key Tronic’s PRP search costs also were recoverable as an enforcement activity under CERCLA, id., at 872, and that the costs Key Tronic’s attorneys incurred in negotiating the agreement with the EPA were recoverable as necessary response costs under § 107.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 984 F. 2d 1025,1028 (CA9 1993). Relying on its decision in Stanton Road Associates v. Lohrey Enterprises, 984 F. 2d 1015 (CA9 1993), which prohibited a litigant in a private response cost recovery action from obtaining attorney’s fees from a party responsible for the pollution, the court held that the District Court lacked authority to award attorney’s fees in this case. 984 F. 2d, at 1027. The court concluded that Stanton Road likewise precluded an award of attorney’s fees for Key Tronic’s search for other responsible parties and for negotiating the consent decree. “Because Congress has not explicitly authorized private litigants to recover their legal expenses incurred in a private cost recovery action,” the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees could not stand. 984 F. 2d, at 1028. Judge Canby dissented, reasoning that Congress’ 1986 amendment of the definition of “response” meant to authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees even in private litigants’ cost recovery actions. Ibid.
Other courts addressing this question have differed over the extent to which attorney’s fees are a necessary cost of response under CERCLA. See General Electric Co. v. Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc., 920 F. 2d 1415 (CA8 1990) (fees recoverable); Donahey v. Bogle, 987 F. 2d 4250, 1256 (CA6 1993) (same); Juniper Development Group v. Kahn, 993 F. 2d 915, 933 (CA1 1993) (litigation fees not recoverable); FMC Corp. v. Aero Industries, Inc., 998 F. 2d 842 (CA10 1993) (only nonlitigation fees may be recoverable). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 510 U. S. 1023 (1993).
II
As its name implies, CERCLA is a comprehensive statute that grants the President broad power to command government agencies and private parties to clean up hazardous waste sites. Sections 104 and 106 provide the framework for federal abatement and enforcement actions that the President, the EPA as his delegated agent, or the Attorney General initiates. 42 U. S. C. §§ 9604, 9606. These actions typically require private parties to incur substantial costs in removing hazardous wastes and responding to hazardous conditions. Section 107 sets forth the scope of the liabilities that may be imposed on private parties and the defenses that they may assert. 42 U. S. C. § 9607.
Our cases establish that attorney’s fees generally are not a recoverable cost of litigation “absent explicit congressional authorization.” Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 185 (1976) (citing Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247 (1975)). Recognition of the availability of attorney’s fees therefore requires a determination that “Congress intended to set aside this longstanding American rule of law.” Runyon, 427 U. S., at 185-186. Neither CERCLA §107, the liabilities and defenses provision, nor § 113, which authorizes contribution claims, expressly mentions the recovery of attorney’s fees. The absence of specific reference to attorney’s fees is not dispositive if the statute otherwise evinces an intent to provide for such fees. The Eighth Circuit, for example, found “a sufficient degree of explicitness” in CERCLA’s references to “necessary costs of response” and “enforcement activities” to warrant the award of attorney’s fees and expenses. Mere “generalized commands,” however, will not suffice to authorize such fees. Id., at 186.
The three components of Key Tronic’s claim for attorney’s fees raise somewhat different issues. We first consider whether the fees for prosecuting this action against the Air Force are recoverable under CERCLA. That depends, again, upon whether the “enforcement activities” included in § 101(25)’s definition of “response” encompass a private party’s action to recover cleanup costs from other PRP’s such that the attorney’s fees associated with that action are then “necessary costs of response” within § 107(a)(4)(B).
Ill
The 1986 amendments to CERCLA are the genesis of the term “enforcement activities”; we begin, therefore, by considering the statutory basis for the claim in the original CERCLA enactment and the SARA provisions’ effect on it. In its original form CERCLA contained no express provision authorizing a private party that had incurred cleanup costs to seek contribution from other PRP’s. In numerous cases, however, District Courts interpreted the statute — particularly the §107 provisions outlining the liabilities and defenses of persons against whom the Government may assert claims — to impliedly authorize such a cause of action.
The 1986 amendments included a provision — CERCLA § 113(f) — that expressly created a cause of action for contribution. See 42 U. S. C. § 9613(f). Other SARA provisions, moreover, appeared to endorse the judicial decisions recognizing a cause of action under §107 by presupposing that such an action existed. An amendment to §107 itself, for example, refers to “amounts recoverable in an action under this section.” 42 U. S. C. § 9607(a)(4)(D). The new contribution section also contains a reference to a “civil action .. . under section 9607(a).” 42 U. S. C. § 9613(f)(1). Thus the statute now expressly authorizes a cause of action for contribution in § 113 and impliedly authorizes a similar and somewhat overlapping remedy in § 107.
As we have said, neither § 107 nor § 113 expressly calls for the recovery of attorney’s fees by the prevailing party. In contrast, two SARA provisions contain explicit authority for the award of attorney’s fees. A new provision authorizing private citizens to bring suit to enforce the statute, see 100 Stat. 1704-1705, expressly authorizes the award of “reasonable attorney and expert witness fees” to the prevailing party. 42 U. S. C. § 9659(f). And an amendment to the section authorizing the Attorney General to bring abatement actions provides that a person erroneously ordered to pay response costs may in some circumstances recover counsel fees from the Government. See § 9606(b)(2)(E). Since its enactment CERCLA also has expressly authorized the recovery of fees in actions brought by employees claiming discriminatory treatment based on their disclosure of statutory violations. See § 9610(c) (“aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including the attorney’s fees)” is recoverable).
Judicial decisions, rather than explicit statutory text, also resolved an issue that arose frequently under the original version of CERCLA — that is, whether the award in a government enforcement action seeking to recover cleanup costs could encompass its litigation expenses, including attorney’s fees. Here, too, District Courts generally agreed that such fees were recoverable. Congress arguably endorsed these holdings, as well, in the SARA provision redefining the term “response” to include related “enforcement activities,” 100 Stat. 1615. Key Tronic contends that a private action under § 107 is one of the enforcement activities covered by that definition and that fees should therefore be available in private litigation as well as in government actions:
For three reasons, we are unpersuaded. First, although § 107 unquestionably provides a cause of action for private parties to seek recovery of cleanup costs, that cause of action is not explicitly set out in the text of the statute. To conclude that a provision that only impliedly authorizes suit nonetheless provides for attorney’s fees with the clarity required by Alyeska would be unusual if not unprecedented. Indeed, none of our cases has authorized fee awards to prevailing parties in such circumstances.
Second, Congress included two express provisions for fee awards in SARA without including a similar provision in either § 113, which expressly authorizes contribution claims, or in §107, which impliedly authorizes private parties to recover cleanup costs from other PRP’s. These omissions strongly suggest a deliberate decision not to authorize such awards.
Third, we believe it would stretch the plain terms of the phrase “enforcement activities” too far to construe it as encompassing the kind of private cost recovery action at issue in this ease. Though we offer no comment on the extent to which that phrase forms the basis for the Government’s recovery of attorney’s fees through § 107, the term “enforcement activity” is not sufficiently explicit to embody a private action under § 107 to recover cleanup costs. Given our adherence to a general practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority, Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S., at 262, we conclude that CERCLA § 107 does not provide for the award of private litigants’ attorney’s fees associated with bringing a cost recovery action.
IV
The conclusion we reach with respect to litigation-related fees does not signify that all payments that happen to be made to a lawyer are unrecoverable expenses under CERCLA. On the contrary, some lawyers’ work that is closely tied to the actual cleanup may constitute a necessary cost of response in and of itself under the terms of § 107(a)(4)(B). The component of Key Tronic’s claim that covers the work performed in identifying other PRP’s falls in this category. Unlike the litigation services at issue in Alyeska, these efforts might well be performed by engineers, chemists, private investigators, or other professionals who are not lawyers. As the Tenth Circuit observed, the American rule set out in Alyeska does not govern such fees “because they are not incurred in pursuing litigation.” FMC Corp. v. Aero Industries, Inc., 998 F. 2d 842, 847 (1993).
The District Court in this case recognized the role Key Tronic’s search for other responsible parties played in uncovering the Air Force’s disposal of wastes at the site and in prompting the EPA to initiate its enforcement action against the Air Force. 766 F. Supp., at 872, n. 4. Tracking down other responsible solvent polluters increases the probability that a cleanup will be effective and get paid for. Key Tronic is therefore quite right to claim that such efforts significantly benefited the entire cleanup effort and served a statutory purpose apart from the reallocation of costs. These kinds of activities are recoverable costs of response clearly distinguishable from litigation expenses.
This reasoning does not extend, however, to the legal services performed in connection with the negotiations between Key Tronic and the EPA that culminated in the consent decree. Studies that Key Tronic’s counsel prepared or supervised during those negotiations may indeed have aided the EPA and may also have affected the ultimate scope and form of the cleanup. We nevertheless view such work as primarily protecting Key Tronic’s interests as a defendant in the proceedings that established the extent of its liability. As such, these services do not constitute “necessary costs of response” and are not recoverable under CERCLA.
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.
It is so ordered.
See Administrative Order on Consent and Interagency Agreement ¶ 8, p. 12 (Record, Doc. No. 23, Exh. 1). Paragraph 7(a) of that agreement defines the term “Covered Matters” to include “any and all civil liability for reimbursement of response costs or for injunctive relief pursuant to sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U. S. C. 9606 or 9607(a), or section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 6973, with regard to the Site.”
Key Tronic also sought prejudgment interest against the United States. The District Court awarded such interest, and the Air Force did not appeal that award. Other payments the Air Force made to Key Tronic are not in dispute.
The statutory bar protected only the Air Force from liability. Key Tronic’s claim against another defendant, Alumax Fabricated Products, Inc., and Alumax Mill Products, Inc. (collectively Alumax), was deemed moot when the two parties settled. 766 F. Supp. 865, 867-868 (ED Wash. 1991).
The EPA promulgated the national contingency plan as a regulation pursuant to CERCLA §105, 42 U. S. C. §9605. It is codified at 40 CFR pt. 300 (1993).
The court indicated that these expenses were necessary response costs within the meaning of § 107(a)(4)(B) regardless of whether they constituted costs of “ ‘enforcement activities’ ” under § 101(25). 766 F. Supp., at 872.
See General Electric Co. v. Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc., 920 F. 2d 1415,1421-1422 (1990). After setting out the relevant language of §§ 107(a)(4)(B) and 101(25), the court concluded that a private party cost-recovery action is an enforcement activity within the meaning of the statute, that attorney’s fees “necessarily are incurred in this kind of enforcement activity,” and that “it would strain the statutory language to the breaking point to read them out of the ‘necessary costs’ that section 9607(a)(4)(B) allows private parties to recover.” Ibid. The court’s subsequent conclusion that CERCLA authorizes private parties to recover attorney’s fees was “based on the statutory language” and was “consistent with two of the main purposes of CERCLA — prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites and imposition of all cleanup costs on the responsible party.” Id., at 1422.
In Walls v. Waste Resource Corp., 761 P. 2d 311 (CA6 1985), Judge Merritt noted that District Courts “have been virtually unanimous” in holding that § 107(a)(4)(B) creates a private right of action for the recovery of necessary response costs. Id., at 318 (citing Bulk Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 589 F. Supp. 1437, 1442-1444 (SD Fla. 1984); Jones v. Inmont Corp., 584 F. Supp. 1425, 1428 (SD Ohio 1984); Philadelphia v. Stepan Chemical Co., 544 F. Supp. 1135 (ED Pa. 1982); Pinole Point Properties, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 596 F. Supp. 283,293 (ND Cal. 1984)).
Under this section, the reimbursement that a court awards “may include appropriate costs, fees, and other expenses” in accordance with 28 U. S. C. §§ 2412(a) and (d), which outline the procedures by which costs and fees are awarded. Section 2412(d)(2)(A), in particular, defines “fees and other expenses” to include reasonable attorney’s fees.
See, e. g., United States v. South Carolina Recycling & Disposal, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 984, 1009 (S. C. 1984), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 858 F. 2d 160 (CA4 1988), cert. denied, 490 U. S. 1106 (1989); United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 579 F. Supp. 823, 851 (WD Mo. 1984) (same), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 810 F. 2d 726 (CA8 1986), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 848 (1987).
According to the House Committee Report on this amendment, § 101(25)’s modification of the definition of “response action” to include related enforcement activities “will confirm the EPA’s authority to recover costs for enforcement actions taken against responsible parties.” H. R. Rep. No. 99-253, pp. 66-67 (1985).
Justice Scalia correctly notes that “to say that A shall be liable to B is the express creation of a right of action.” Post, at 822. Section 107, however, merely says that “A shall be liable” without revealing to whom A is liable. Sections 104 and 106 plainly indicate that the parties described in § 107 are liable to the Government. The statute thus expressly identifies the Government as a potential plaintiff and only impliedly identifies private parties as the hypothetical B in § 107 litigation. That § 107 imposes liability on A for costs incurred “by any other person” implies— but does not expressly command — that A may have a claim for contribution against those treated as joint tortfeasors. Cf. Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U. S. 630, 639-640 (1981) (finding no implied right to contribution from other participants in conspiracy violative of antitrust laws); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U. S. 77, 91-95 (1981) (finding no implied right to contribution under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
That characterization undeniably applies to citizen suits brought by private parties under §310 seeking affirmative relief. Significantly, Congress expressly authorized fee awards in such cases. See 42 U. S. C. § 9659(f).
In concluding that a private party may not recover attorney’s fees arising from the litigation of a private recovery action, the Tenth Circuit observed: “We simply cannot agree with those courts that find an explicit authorization for the award of litigation fees from the fact that response costs include related enforcement activities. We recognize that CERCLA is designed to encourage private parties to assume the financial responsibility of cleanup by allowing them to seek recovery from others. It may be true that awarding the litigation fees incurred in that recovery would further this goal. Nonetheless, the efficacy of an exception to the American rule is a policy decision that must be made by Congress, not the courts. The desirability of a fee-shifting provision cannot substitute for the express authorization mandated by the Supreme Court.” FMC Corp v. Aero Industries, Inc., 998 F. 2d 842, 847 (1993) (citing Alyeska, 421 U. S., at 263-264).
As is customary in assessments of this sort, of course, trial courts will determine the exact amount of these costs that is recoverable.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 one facet of the recurrent problem of defining the permissible scope of state jurisdiction in ; the field of labor relations. The particular question before us involves consideration and application, in this suit by a union member against a local union, of the principles declared in International Assn. of Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U. S. 617, and San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236.
H-i
The respondent, H. N: Borden, who was then a member of the Shreveport, Louisiana, local of the plumbers union, arrived in Dallas, Texas, in September 1953, looking for a job with the Farwell Construction Company on a particular bank construction project. Farwell’s hiring on this project was done through union referral, although there was no written agreement to this effect. Borden was unable to obtain such a referral from the business agent of the Dallas local of the plumbers union, even after the agent had accepted Borden’s clearance card from the Shreveport local and after the Farwell foreman on the construction project had called the business agent and asked to have Borden sent over. According to Borden’s testimony, the business agent told him:
“You are not going, to work down there on the bank job or for Farwell, you have come in here wrong, you have come in here with a job in your pocket.”
And according to the Farwell foreman, the business agent answered his request by saying: .
“I am not about to send that old-down there, he shoved his card down our throat and I am not about to send him to the bank.”
Borden never did get the job with Farwell, although he was referred to and accepted several other jobs during the period before the bank construction project was completed.
Subsequently, he brought the present suit against the Dallas local, petitioner here, and the parent International, seeking damages under state law for the refusal to refér him to Farwell. He alleged that the actions of the defendants constituted a willful, malicious, and discriminatory interference with his right to. contract and to pursue a lawful occupation; that the defendants had breached a promise, implicit in the membership arrangement, not to discriminate unfairly or to deny any member the right to work; and that the defendants had violated certain state statutory provisions.
Petitioner challenged the state court’s jurisdiction, asserting that the subject matter of the suit was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The trial court upheld the challenge and dismissed the suit, but on appeal the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, relying on this Court’s decision in International Assn. of Machinists v. Gonzales, supra, reversed and remanded for trial. 316 S. W. 2d 458. The Texas Supreme Court granted a writ of error on another point, in the case and affirmed the remand. 160 Tex. 203, 328 S. W. 2d 739.
At trial, the case was submitted to the jury on special issues and the jury’s answers included findings that Borden had been promised a job by a Farwell representative; that the Farwell foreman asked the union business agent to refer Borden; that the business agent “wilfully” refused to let Borden work on the bank project, knowing that Borden was entitled to work on that project under union rules; and that the conduct of the business agent was approved by the officers and members of petitioner. Actual loss of earnings resulting from the refusal to refer Borden to the Farwell job was found to be $1,916; compensation for mental suffering, $1,500; and punitive damages, $5,000. The trial court disallowed recovery for mental anguish and ordered a remittitur of the punitive damages in excess of the amount of actual dámages, thus awarding total damages of $3,832. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, 355 S. W. 2d 729, again rejecting petitioner’s preemption argument. Following denial of a writ of error by the Supreme Court of Texas, we granted certiorari, 371 U. S. 939, to consider the question whether federal labor law precludes the exercise of state jurisdiction over this dispute.
II.
This Court held in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, that in the absence of an overriding state interest such as that involved in the maintenance of domestic peace, state courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board in cases in which the activity that is the subject matter of the litigation is arguably subject to the protections of § 7 or the prohibitions of § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. This relinquishment of state jurisdiction, the Court stated, is essential “if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted,” 359 U. S., at 245, and is as necessary in a suit for damages as in a suit seeking equitable relief. Thus the first inquiry, in any case in which a claim of federal preemption is raised, must be whether the conduct called into question may reasonably be asserted to be subject to Labor Board cognizance.
In the present case, respondent contends that no such assertion can be made, but we disagree. The facts as alleged in the complaint, and as found-by the jury, are that the Dallas union business agent, with the ultimate approval of the local union itself, refused to refer the respondent to a particular job for which he had been sought, and that this refusal resulted in an inability to obtain the employment. Notwithstanding the state court’s contrary view, if it is assumed that the refusal and the resulting inability to obtain employment were in some way based on respondent’s actual or believed failure to comply with internal union rules, it is certainly “arguable” that the union’s conduct violated § 8 (b) (1) (A), by restraining or coercing Borden in the exercise of his protected right to refrain from observing those rules, and § 8 (b)(2), by causing an employer to discriminate against Borden in violation of §8 (a)(3). See, e. g., Radio Officers v. Labor Board, 347 U. S. 17; Local 568, Hotel Employees, 141 N. L. R. B. No. 29; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 524. A-B, 141 N. L. R. B. No. 57. As established in the Radio Officers case, the “membership” referred to in §8 (a) (3) and thus incorporated in § 8 (b) (2) is broad enough to embrace participation in union activities and maintenance of good standing as well as mere adhesion to a labor organization. 347 U. S., at 39-42. And there is a substantial possibility in this case that Borden’s failure to live up to the internal rule prohibiting the solicitation of work from any contractor was precisely the reason why clearance was denied. Indeed this may well have been the meaning of the business agent’s remark, testified to by Bordep himself, that “you have come in here wrong, you have come in here with a job in your pocket.”
It may also be reasonably contended that after inquiry into the facts, the Board might have found that the union conduct in question was not an unfair labor practice but rather was protected concerted activity within the meaning of § 7. This Court has held that hiring-hall practices do not necessarily, violate the provisions of federal law, Teamsters Local v. Labor Board, 365 U. S. 667, and the Board’s appraisal of the conflicting testimony might have led it to conclude that the refusal to refer was due only to the respondent’s efforts to circumvent a lawful hiring-hall arrangement rather than to his engaging in protected activities. The problems inherent in the operation of union hiring halls are difficult and complex, see Rothman, The Development and Current Status of the Law Pertaining to Hiring Hall Arrangements, 48 Va. L. Rev. 871, and point up the importance of limiting initial competence to adjudicate such matters tó a single expert federal agency.
We need not and should not now consider whether the petitioner’s activity in this case was federally protected or prohibited, on any of the theories suggested above or .on some different basis. It is sufficient for present purposes to find, as we do, that it is reasonably “arguable” that the matter comes within the Board’s jurisdiction.
I — I HH
Respondent urges that even if the union’s interference with his employment is a matter that the Board could have dealt with, the state courts are still not deprived of jurisdiction in this case under the principles declared in International Assn. of Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U. S. 617. Gonzales was a suit against a labor union by an individual who claimed that he had been expelled in violation of his contractual rights and who was seeking restoration of membership. He also sought consequential damages flowing from the expulsion, including loss of wages resulting from loss of employment and compensation for physical and mental suffering. It was recognized in that case that restoration of union membership was a remedy that the Board could not afford and indeed that the internal affairs of unions were not in themselves a matter within the Board’s competence. The Court then went on to hold that, in the presence of admitted state jurisdiction to order restoration of membership, the State was not without power “to fill out this remedy” by an award of consequential damages, even though these damages might be for conduct that constituted an unfair labor practice under federal law. The Taft-Hartley Act, the Court stated, did not require mutilation of “the comprehensive relief of equity.” 356 U. S., at 621.
The Gonzales decision, it is evident, turned on the Court’s conclusion that the lawsuit was focused on purely internal union matters, i. e., on relations between the individual plaintiff and the union not having to do directly with matters of employment, and that the principal relief sought was restoration of union membership rights. In this posture, collateral relief in the form of consequential damages for loss of employment was not to be denied.
We need not now determine the extent to which the holding in Garmon, supra, qualified the principles declared in Gonzales with respect to jurisdiction to award consequential damages, for it is clear in any event that the present case does not come within the Gonzales rationale. The suit involved here was focused principally, if not entirely, on the union’s actions with respect to Borden’s efforts to obtain employment. No specific equitable relief was sought directed to Borden’s status in the union, and thus there was no state remedy to “fill out” by permitting the awaid of consequential damages. The “crux” of the action (Gonzales, 356 U. S., at 618) concerned Borden’s employment relations and involved conduct arguably subject to the Board’s jurisdiction.
Nor do we regard it as significant that Borden’s complaint against the union sounded in contract as weir as in tort. It is not the label affixed to the cause of action under state law that controls the determination of the relationship between state and federal jurisdiction. Rather, as stated in Garmon, supra, at 246,
“[o]ur concern is with delimiting areas of conduct which must be free from state regulation if national policy is to be left unhampered.” (Emphasis added.)
In the present case the conduct on which the suit is centered, whether described in terms of tort or contract, is conduct whose lawfulness could initially be judged only by the federal agency vested with exclusive primary jurisdiction to apply federal standards.
Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment of the court below must be Reversed.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the parent International, and the parent organization is therefore no longer in the case.
Tex. Civ. Stat. Ann., 1962, Art. 5207a — “Right to bargain freely . . .” — vas cited by Borden in his complaint. This statute, however, was not relied upon by the courts below as supporting recovery, and its effect need not be considered here.
49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 157, 158. We do not deal here with suits brought in state courts under § 301 or § 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat. 156, 158, 29 U. S. C. §§ 185, 187, which are governed by federal law and to which different principles are applicable. See, e. g., Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195.
Respondent does not challenge the existence of the requisite effect on commerce to bring the matter within the scope of the Board’s jurisdiction.
Section 8 (a) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer “(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization
Section 8 (b) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents “(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 ... ,” or “ (2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a) (3) ... .”
Section 30 of Article I of the bylaws of petitioner provides in pertinent part that “Members shall not solicit work from any contractor or their representative. All employment must be procured through Business Office of Local Union No. 100.”
As one possible additional basis on which the conduct in question might have been held to be prohibited, for example, petitioner refers us to the Board’s recent decision in Miranda Fuel Co., 140 N. L. R. B. No. 7, in which the majority held that a statutory bargaining representative violates § 8 (b) (2) “when, for arbitrary or irrelevant reasons or upon the basis of an unfair classification, the union attempts to cause or does cause an employer to derogate the employment status of an employee.” Again, we need not and do not pass upon the-correctness of that decision or its applicability in the circumstances of this case.
Section 8 (b)(1)(A), it should be noted, contains a proviso to the effect that “this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
When this case was last here we held that the Government’s proofs were sufficient to show that Parke Davis violated the Sherman Act. However, in reversing the District Court’s judgment we remanded the case with direction to afford Parke Davis a further opportunity to submit evidence in defense in order to refute the Government’s right to injunctive relief. United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U. S. 29, 49. On remand, Parke Davis introduced evidence not to rebut the Government’s proof as to violation but only to show that it had abandoned its illegal sales policy, and that therefore an injunction, being unnecessary, should not issue. On that record the District. Court entered an order denying not only the injunctive relief sought by the Government, but also an adjudication that Parke Davis had violated the law. The present appeal is not from the provision which denies injunctive relief, but from the omission of a provision adjudging that Parke Davis violated the Act. We have examined the record as supplemented on the remand and hold that under our prior order the Government is entitled to a judgment on the merits, as prayed in paragraph 1 of the section of the Complaint captioned “Prayer.” We also hold that the District Court should retain the case on the docket for future action in the event the Government applies for further relief from an alleged resumption by Parke Davis of illegal activity. The order of the District Court filed July 18, 1960, is therefore vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with direction to enter judgment accordingly.
It is so ordered.
MR. Justice Harlan, with whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter agrees, would place this case on the summary calendar for argument, postponing to the merits consideration of the question of jurisdiction raised by the-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: | 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.
Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 453, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 160, authorizes the National Labor Relations Board to initiate unfair labor practice proceedings whenever some person charges that another person has committed such practices. The Board cannot start a proceeding without such a charge being filed with it. See, e. g., National Labor Relations Board v. National Licorice Co., 104 F. 2d 655 (C. A. 2d Cir.), modified on other grounds, 309 U. S. 350; Local 138, Operating Engineers (Skura), 148 N. L. R. B. 679, 681. The crucial question presented here is whether a State can refuse to pay its unemployment insurance to persons solely because they have preferred unfair labor practice charges against their former employer.
The facts are stipulated and need not be stated at length. The petitioner, Mrs. Nash, who previously had been out on strike against her employer, the Stanley Works and Stanley Building Specialties, was, pursuant to union-management agreement, reinstated to her former job on April 14, 1965. Approximately five weeks later, on May 16, 1965, she was laid off by the company because of alleged “slow production,” meaning that the company had insufficient work to warrant her retention. Mrs. Nash was unemployed from this time until October 5, 1965, when the company voluntarily called her back to work. She has been allowed unemployment compensation, under Florida Statutes, chapter 443, from the time of her discharge on May 16, up to June 17, but denied any compensation from June 17 to October 5. The reason given for this denial was that on June 17 she filed an unfair labor practice charge against her employer seeking reinstatement and back pay on the ground that the employer had actually laid her off because of her union activities in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and that this charge was still pending on October 5 when she resumed work. In making this ruling the Florida Industrial Commission relied on § 443.06 of the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law which provides:
“An individual shall be disqualified for [unemployment] benefits .... (4) For any week with respect to which the commission finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute in active progress which exists at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed . . .
The Commission held that the filing of the unfair labor practice charge brought petitioner within the wording of the Act in that her “unemployment” then became “due to a labor dispute.” Thus the sole reason that petitioner was disqualified from compensation was that she filed an unfair labor practice charge. According to the Commission, the act of filing was the determinative factor under Florida law which rendered petitioner ineligible for unemployment compensation. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied per curiam petitioner’s application for writ of certiorari to review the determinations of the Florida Industrial Commission Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Since such denial by the Florida District Court of Appeal apparently precludes further state review, we granted certiorari because of the important constitutional question involved, specifically whether the Commission’s ruling violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 2) because it allegedly “frustrates” enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.
The National Labor Relations Act is a comprehensive code passed by Congress to regulate labor relations in activities affecting interstate and foreign commerce. As such it is of course the law of the land which no state law can modify or repeal. Implementation of the Act is dependent upon the initiative of individual persons who must, as petitioner has done here, invoke its sanctions through filing an unfair labor practice charge. Congress has made it clear that it wishes all persons with information about such practices to be completely free from coercion against reporting them to the Board. This is shown by its adoption of § 8 (a) (4) which makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges. See John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 261, 263-264, 191 F. 2d 483, 485-486; National Labor Relations Board v. Lamar Creamery Co., 246 F. 2d 8, 9-10 (C. A. 5th Cir.); National Labor Relations Board v. Syracuse Stamping Co., 208 F. 2d 77, 80 (C. A. 2d Cir.). And it has been held that it is unlawful for an employer to seek to restrain an employee in the exercise of his right to file charges. National Labor Relations Board v. Clearfield Cheese Co., 213 F. 2d 70 (C. A. 3d Cir.); National Labor Relations Board v. Gibbs Corp., 308 F. 2d 247 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Roberts v. National Labor Relations Board, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 297, 350 F. 2d 427.
We have no doubt that coercive actions which the Act forbids employers and unions to take against persons making charges are likewise prohibited from being taken by the States. The action of Florida here, like the coercive actions which employers and unions are forbidden to engage in, has a direct tendency to frustrate the purpose of Congress to leave people free to make charges of unfair labor practices to the Board. Florida has applied its Unemployment Compensation Law so that an employee who believes he has been wrongly discharged has two choices: (1) he may keep quiet and receive unemployment compensation until he finds a new job or (2) he may file an unfair labor practice charge, thus under Florida procedure surrendering his right to unemployment compensation, and risk financial ruin if the litigation is protracted. Even the hope of a future award of back pay may mean little to a man of modest means and heavy responsibilities faced with the immediate severance of sustaining funds. It appears obvious to us that this financial burden which Florida imposes will impede resort to the Act and thwart congressional reliance on individual action. A national system for the implementation of this country’s labor policies is not so dependent on state law. Florida should not be permitted to defeat or handicap a valid national objective by threatening to withdraw state benefits from persons simply because they cooperate with the Government’s constitutional plan.
In holding that this Florida law as applied in this case conflicts with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution we but follow the unbroken rule that has come down through the years.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 436, decided in 1819, this Court declared the States devoid of power “to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.” In Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275, decided in 1896, this Court declared that a state law cannot stand that “either frustrates the purpose of the national legislation or impairs the efficiency of those agencies of the Federal government to discharge the duties, for the performance of which they were created.” Id., at 283. And again in Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538, 542-543, decided in 1945, this Court struck down a labor regulation saying it stood “ 'as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. . . .’ ” Id., at 542.
All of the cases just cited and many more support our invalidation under the Supremacy Clause of the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law as here applied.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Florida Supreme Court seems to have decided that it lacks jurisdiction by appeal to consider per curiam denials of certiorari by the Florida District Court of Appeal. Callendar v. State, 181 So. 2d 529. While it is true that a district court of appeal may certify a question “of great public interest” to the Florida Supreme Court, this is done upon the district court of appeal's own motion, and although litigants may file a suggestion that a particular question be certified, such suggestion has been declared to have “no legal effect.” See Whitaker v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, 131 So. 2d 22 (1st D. C. App. Fla. 1961). Thus, it is impossible for us to say that under Florida law petitioner here had any right to call upon the State Supreme Court for review. In these circumstances, we therefore are unable to say that the District Court of Appeal was not the highest court in Florida wherein a decision could be had as required by 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3).
Because of our disposition of the case on Supremacy Clause grounds, we need not consider petitioner’s alternative argument that such ruling violates her privileges and immunities of United States citizenship in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Although § 10 (a) of the Act empowers the Board to prevent unfair labor practices, and thus to protect the employees’ § 7 rights, § 10 (b) conditions the exercise of that power on the filing of charges; the Board cannot initiate its own processes.
Respondents suggest that petitioner might enjoy a windfall if she was paid compensation and was subsequently awarded back pay by the Labor Board. This argument is unresponsive to the issue in dispute, however, since a State is free to recoup compensation payments made during any period covered by a back-pay award. See National Labor Relations Board v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U. S. 361, 365, n. 1.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision in this case is whether the provision of § 22 of the 1950 Organic Act of Guam that the District Court of Guam “shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the [Guam] legislature may determine” authorizes the Legislature of Guam to divest the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court under the Act to hear appeals from local Guam courts, and to transfer that jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Guam, newly created by the Guam Legislature.
I
Section 22 (a) of the Organic Act, 64 Stat. 389, before an amendment not relevant here, provided:
“There is hereby created a court of record to be designated the 'District Court of Guam/ and the judicial authority of Guam shall be vested in the District Court of Guam and in such court or courts as may have been or may hereafter be established by the laws of Guam. The District Court of Guam shall have, in all causes arising under the laws of the United States, the jurisdiction of a district court of the United States as such court is defined in section 451 of title 28, United States Code, and shall have original jurisdiction in all other causes in Guam, jurisdiction over which has not been transferred by the legislature to other court or courts established by it, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the legislature may determine. The jurisdiction of and the procedure in the courts of Guam other than the District Court of Guam shall be prescribed by the laws of Guam.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In 1951, under the authority of the Organic Act, the Guam Legislature created three local courts for local matters and defined cases appealable from those courts to the District Court. That structure continued without substantial change for 23 years until 1974 when the Guam Legislature adopted the Court Reorganization Act of 1974. Guam Pub. L. 12-85. The former Island, Police, and Commissioners’ Courts, were replaced by a Guam Superior Court with "original jurisdiction in all cases arising under the laws of Guam, civil or criminal, in law or equity, regardless of the amount in controversy, except for causes arising under the Constitution, treaties, laws of the United States and any matter involving the Guam Territorial Income Tax.” The Act also repealed the provisions of the Guam Code of Civil Procedure governing appeals to the District Court, and created the Supreme Court of Guam. The Act transferred to the Supreme Court essentially the same appellate jurisdiction as had previously been exercised by the District Court, providing that the Supreme Court “shall have jurisdiction of appeals from the judgments, orders and decrees of the Superior Court in criminal cases . . . and in civil causes.” Pub. L. 12-85, § 3. Other provisions of the Reorganization Act amended various territorial laws to change the references to the Supreme Court of Guam from the Appellate Division of the District Court as the appellate court.
Respondent was convicted of criminal charges in the Superior Court, and appealed to the District Court of Guam. The District Court dismissed the appeal on the authority of a divided panel decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that the 1974 Court Reorganization Act validly divested the District Court of its appellate jurisdiction and transferred that jurisdiction to the newly created Supreme Court. Agana Bay Dev. Co. (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Supreme Court of Guam, 529 F. 2d 952 (1976). In this case, however, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, overruled en banc the panel decision in Agana Bay, and reversed the dismissal of respondent's appeal. 540 F. 2d 1011 (1976). The Court of Appeals held that “the appellate jurisdiction of the district court may not be transferred without congressional authorization and pursuant to such provisions and safeguards as Congress may provide.” Id., at 1012. Certain judgments of the appellate division of the District Court were made appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to this Court, by § 23 of the Organic Act of Guam of 1950, as amended, 65 Stat. 726, but Congress has not similarly provided for appeals from judgments of the Supreme Court of Guam. In that circumstance, the Court of Appeals held that § 22 (a) did not authorize the transfer of the District Court's appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Guam because, under existing statutes “litigation in the territorial court [that] may involve substantial federal questions . . . cannot be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court or by any other Article III court ...” 540 F. 2d, at 1012. We granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 959 (1976). We affirm.
II
We emphasize at the outset that the 1974 Court Reorganization Act in no respect affects the exclusive original federal-question jurisdiction of the District Court granted by the first clause of the second sentence of §22 (a), which now provides that the “District Court of Guam shall have the jurisdiction of a district court of the United States in all causes arising under the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States . . . 48 U. S. C. § 1424 (a). Decisions in such cases brought in the District Court are appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or to this Court. The question presented for decision here rather concerns appeals to the District Court from decisions of local courts in cases arising under local law. The language we must construe immediately follows in the same sentence, providing that the District Court “shall have original jurisdiction in all other causes in Guam, jurisdiction over which has not been transferred by the legislature to other court or courts established by it, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the legislature may determine.” (Emphasis supplied.)
We first observe that Congress used different language in its grant of power to the Guam Legislature over the District Court’s original jurisdiction from its grant of power over that court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Act expressly provides that original jurisdiction might be “transferred” to “other court or courts” created by the legislature. As to appellate jurisdiction, however, the wording is that the District Court “shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the legislature may determine.” The question immediately arises why, if Congress contemplated authority to eliminate the District Court’s appellate jurisdiction by transferring it to a local court, Congress did not, as in the case of “original jurisdiction,” explicitly provide that appellate jurisdiction too might be “transferred.” Moreover, if Congress contemplated such a broad grant of •authority, it might be expected that it would have referred, as in the case of original jurisdiction, to “other court or courts” that would be established to assume the appellate jurisdiction transferred from the District Court. Clearly, the word “determine” is not used as a synonym for “transfer,” and it is not obvious that the power to “determine” the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court includes the power to abolish it by “transfer” to another court. We fully agree with Judge Kennedy dissenting in Agana Bay, 529 F. 2d, at 959, that Congress used “determine” because Congress “more likely intended to permit the local legislature to decide what cases were serious enough to be appealable,” and we note that the Guam Legislature found no broader authority in the term for the 23 years from 1951 to 1974. We therefore conclude that Congress expressly authorized a “transfer” of the District Court’s original jurisdiction but withheld a like power respecting the court’s appellate jurisdiction, empowering Guam to “determine” the District Court’s appellate jurisdiction only in the sense of the selection of what should constitute appealable causes.
Other considerations besides our reading of the bare text support the conclusion that the power to “determine” should not be construed to include the power to “transfer” without more persuasive indicia of a congressional purpose to clothe the Guam Legislature with this authority.
First, we should be reluctant without a clear signal from Congress to conclude that it intended to allow the Guam Legislature to foreclose appellate review by Art. Ill courts, including this Court, of decisions of territorial courts in cases that may turn on questions of federal law. Important federal issues can be presented in cases which do not fall within the District Court’s federal-question jurisdiction, because they do not “arise under” federal law, but instead fall within the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Superior and Supreme Courts by the Reorganization Act. For example, criminal convictions returned in the Superior Court and appealable under the Court Reorganization Act only to the Supreme Court, may be challenged as violating federal constitutional guarantees. It is no answer that rejection of a federal constitutional defense by the Guam courts, though not presently directly reviewable by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or by this Court, may nevertheless be reviewable in federal habeas corpus. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. Habeas corpus review has different historical roots from direct review and different jurisprudential functions and hmitations. See, e. g., Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 (1963). As respects civil cases, though the “arising under” jurisdiction vested in the District Court by § 22 (a) tracks the general federal-question statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a), clearly — whatever may be the ambiguities of the phrase “arising under” — it does not embrace all civil cases that may present questions of federal law. See, e. g., Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U. S. 109 (1936); Cohen, The Broken Compass: The Requirement that a Case Arise “Directly” under Federal Law, 115 U. Pa. L. Rev. 890 (1967). We are therefore reluctant to conclude that, merely because power to “determine” may as a matter of dictionary definition include power to “transfer,” Congress intended to confer on the Guam Legislature the power to eliminate review in Art. Ill courts of all federal issues presented in cases brought in the local courts.
Second, nothing in the legislative history of the Organic Act of 1950 even remotely suggests that Congress intended by its use of the word “determine” to give the Guam Legislature the option of creating a local Supreme Court having the power of ultimate review of cases involving local matters. Rather, the legislative history points the other way. Three bills introduced in the 81st Congress provided for a judicial system for Guam. Hearings on S. 185, S. 1892, and H. R. 7273 before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 1-25 (1950) (hereafter Hearings). All three provided for appellate review by Art. Ill courts of territorial court decisions. The bill that became the Organic Act, H. R. 7273, originally established a Supreme Court of Guam whose decisions were to be reviewable by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and by this Court. Hearings 22-23. The proposal for a congressionally created Supreme Court was rejected in favor of a Federal District Court. This was done in part to provide “litigants in the Western Pacific with direct access to the federal court system.” Agana Bay Dev. Co., Ltd. v. Supreme Court of Guam, supra, at 961 (Kennedy, J., dissenting); S. Rep. No. 2109, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1950). But another concern accounts for the provision giving the District Court jurisdiction in local matters. Our independent review of the pertinent legislative materials confirms, and we therefore adopt, Judge Kennedy’s conclusion expressed in dissent in Agana Bay, supra, at 961:
“Because of concern that there would not be sufficient federal question litigation to justify a separate district court in Guam, the court was given original jurisdiction in local matters. It was also envisioned that the district court would serve as an appellate body once local courts were established. The apparent reason for eliminating the provision for a local supreme court was to avoid duplicative judicial machinery, rather than to allow local authorities to put certain controversies beyond review by the federal court system.”
Third, if the word “determine” is to be read as giving Guam the power to transfer the District Court’s appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and, by the same stroke, to authorize Guam to deny review of the court’s decisions by any Art. Ill tribunal, Congress has given Guam a power not granted any other Territory. Congress has consistently provided for appellate review by Art. Ill courts of decisions of local courts of the other Territories. What history there is points to a purpose to create a similar system for Guam. Hearings, supra; S. Rep. No. 2109, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). We are unwilling to say that Congress made an extraordinary exception in the case of Guam, at least without some clearer indication of that purpose than the word “determine" provides. Moreover, we should hesitate to attribute such a purpose to Congress since a construction that denied Guam litigants access to Art. Ill courts for appellate review of local-court decisions might present constitutional questions. See generally Hart, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1362 (1953).
Affirmed.
The “District Court of Guam” rather than “United States District Court of Guam” was chosen as the court's title, since it was created under Art. IV, § 3, of the Federal Constitution rather than under Art. Ill, and since § 22 vested the court with original jurisdiction to decide both local and federal-question matters. S. Rep. No. 2109, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 12 (1950).
The local courts were the Commissioners’ Courts, the Police Court, and the Island Court. Guam Code Civ. Proe. §81-278 (1953).
The District Court was vested with a wide-ranging appellate jurisdiction respecting criminal and civil decisions of the Island Court. §§ 62, 63, 82. A single judge constituted the District Court as a trial court. However, § 65 constituted the appellate division as a court of three judges. Congress approved this measure in a 1958 amendment to § 22 of the Act, 72 Stat. 178. See Corn v. Guam Coral Co., 318 F. 2d 622, 627 (CA9 1963); letter of Judge Albert B. Maris, judicial advisor to Guam, to Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Mar. 14, 1957, reproduced in S. Rep. No. 1582, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 7-9 (1958); id., at 4r-5.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Superior Court’s original jurisdiction is exclusive and not concurrent with the District Court. Agana Bay Dev. Co. (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Supreme Court of Guam, 529 F. 2d 952, 955 n. 4 (1976). This holding is not contested here.
The Code of Civil Procedure provisions repealed by the Court Reorganization Act had provided that the District Court “shall have jurisdiction of appeals from the judgments, orders and decrees of the Island Court in criminal causes as provided in the Penal Code, Part II, Title VIII, and in civil causes . . . .” Guam Code Civ. Proc. § 63 (1953).
The Court of Appeals convened en banc after respondent unsuccessfully sought certiorari before judgment in this Court. 425 U. S. 960 (1976).
Section 23 (a), as enacted in 1950, authorized appeals from final judgments of the District Court of Guam to the Court of Appeals in federal question, habeas corpus, and “all other civil cases where the value in controversy exceed [ed] $5,000 . . . .” Congress repealed this provision in 1951, 65 Stat. 729, but transferred its coverage to 28 U. S. C. § 1291 and thus expanded appealability to criminal cases raising only issues of local law, and to civil cases raising only issues of local law with value in controversy of less than $5,000. 65 Stat. 726. Review of certain interlocutory orders was also authorized by including the District Court of Guam within the coverage of 28 U. S. C. § 1292. 65 Stat. 726. See S. Rep. No. 1020, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 16 (1951).
Under § 23 (b) as enacted in 1950 direct appeals from the District Court to this Court were available in cases to which the United States was a party and in which the District Court held an Act of Congress unconstitutional. This provision was continued without significant change in 1951 by including the District Court of Guam within the coverage of 28 U. S. C. § 1252. 65 Stat. 726.
The Organic Act of 1950 does not on its face require that the original jurisdiction of the District Court over questions arising under federal law be exclusive, but the implementing legislation passed by Guam in 1951 left federal-question jurisdiction exclusively in the District Court by granting jurisdiction to the Guam courts only over cases arising under local law. Guam Code Civ. Proc. §§82, 102, 112 (1953). This interpretation in Agana Bay Dev. Co. (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Supreme Court of Guam, supra, at 954, is also not contested here. See n. 3, supra.
See n. 6, supra.
This case does not present, and we intimate no view upon, the question of what categories of cases the Guam Legislature is authorized to determine are nonappealable under § 22 of the Act.
See, e. g., 31 Stat. 141 (§ 86), 36 Stat. 1087, 43 Stat. 936 (Hawaii); 31 Stat. 321 (§§504, 507) (Alaska); 31 Stat. 77 (§35), 38 Stat. 803, 39 Stat. 951 (§§ 42, 43) (Puerto Rico); 76A Stat. 51 (Canal Zone); 39 Stat. 1132 (§2), 43 Stat. 936, 49 Stat. 1807 (§§25, 30), 48 U. S. C. §1612, 90 Stat. 2899 (Virgin Islands); 90 Stat. 263 (§§ 402, 403) (Northern Mariana Islands).
'We note that Pub. L. 94-584, enacted in 1976 about a month before our grant of certiorari in this case, authorizes Guam to adopt a constitution for its own self-government but expressly provides that a provision of the territorial constitution establishing a system of local courts “shall become effective no sooner than upon the enactment of legislation regulating the relationship between the local courts of Guam -with the Federal judicial system.” §2 (b)(7), 90 Stat. 2899. This suggests that Congress contemplates that Guam’s judiciary should be treated like the judiciaries of other Territories whose judgments are subject to review by Art. Ill courts. The Guam Legislature has already enacted legislation to provide for a constitutional convention. Act of Dec. 10, 1976, Guam Pub. L. 13-202. Although this may eventually produce a judicial system complying with § 2 (b) (7) of Pub. L. 94^584 and subject to appellate review in Art. Ill courts, we perceive nothing in this prospect that should cause us to abstain from decision of the issues presented in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Petitioner, a section laborer employed by respondent railroad, brought this suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., in a Utah State Court to recover damages for personal injury sustained as a result of respondent’s alleged negligence. The jury, finding respondent negligent and petitioner contributorily negligent, assessed “general damages” at $20,000 and deducted $10,000 “by reason of contributory negligence,” leaving a verdict of $10,000 for petitioner. The Supreme Court of Utah vacated the jury verdict and ordered the entry of judgment for respondent. 13 Utah 2d 249, 372 P. 2d 3. We granted certiorari, 371 U. S. 946, to consider whether the Supreme Court of Utah erred in its action.
From the evidence adduced at trial the jury could have concluded that: Petitioner was required to work from about 5 p. m. to about 5 a. m. in temperatures ranging from 10° Fahrenheit to minus 5° Fahrenheit, in 10 inches of snow, with “the wind a-blowing pretty hard,” to repair a damaged section of railroad track; petitioner was dressed less warmly than the other members of the crew, and the foreman knew this; the only source of heat (outside of the cab of the truck which had transported the crew to the worksite) was a fire built from a single railroad tie, which did not give “very much” heat; at about midnight, petitioner, while handling a cold wrench, noticed that “two [of his] fingers were clamped shut and [he] had to pull them apart . . . before [he] could get [his] glove off”; he also noticed a “kind of burning, tingling sensation” in these fingers; although he communicated some or all of this to the foreman, petitioner was permitted to continue working on the track for about three and one-half hours; he spent only about one-half hour in the heated cab of the truck; as a result of this exposure, petitioner suffered frostbite and lost two fingers.
There can be little dispute that these facts, if believed, establish negligence by respondent railroad, since they show that the foreman, who had full control over petitioner’s activities while on this job, did not take all necessary and reasonable precautions to prevent injury to petitioner when put on notice of his condition. Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645; Boston & M. R. Co. v. Meech, 156 F. 2d 109, cert. denied, 329 U. S. 763.
It is true that there was evidence in conflict with petitioner’s version of what occurred. For example, other members of the work crew testified that immediately after his complaint petitioner was transferred to the heated cab where he stayed until the end of the job, whereas petitioner testified that after his complaint he spent only one-half hour in the heated cab and three and one-half hours working outside. There was also evidence from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that petitioner’s own negligence was the sole cause of his injury. But in FELA cases this Court has repeatedly held that where “there is an evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict, the jury is free to discard or disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with its conclusion.” Lavender v. Kurn, supra, at 653. “Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached [by the jury] does a reversible error appear.” Ibid. Once it is shown that “employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury,” Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 506, a jury verdict for the employee may not be upset on the basis of his own negligence, no matter how substantial it may have been, although the jury may, of course, take petitioner’s contributory negligence into account, as it did here, in arriving at the final verdict.
In this case, petitioner’s evidence, though vigorously disputed, was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that respondent’s negligence contributed to the injury. Hence, “the appellate court’s function [was] exhausted,” Lavender v. Kurn, supra, at 653, and it could not properly substitute its judgment for that of the jury and decide, as the Supreme Court of Utah did here, that “it seems quite inescapable that it was [petitioner’s] own conduct . . . that resulted in this regrettable injury.” 13 Utah 2d, at 255; 372 P. 2d, at 7.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice joins and Justice Alito joins in part.
In 1934, private citizens placed a Latin cross on a rock outcropping in a remote section of the Mojave Desert. Their purpose and intent was to honor American soldiers who fell in World War I The original cross deteriorated over time, but a reconstructed one now stands at the same place. It is on federal land.
The Court is asked to consider a challenge, not to the first placement of the cross or its continued presence on federal land, but to a statute that would transfer the cross and the land on which it stands to a private party. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. 108-87, § 8121(a), 117 Stat. 1100. The District Court permanently enjoined the Government from implementing the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We conclude that its judgment was in error.
I
A
The Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) spans approximately 1.6 million acres in southeastern California. The Preserve is nestled within the Mojave Desert, whose picturesque but rugged territory comprises 25,000 square miles, exceeding in size the combined area of the Nation’s five smallest States. See Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary 755, 1228-1280 (3d ed. 1997). Just over 90 percent of the land in the Preserve is federally owned, with the rest owned either by the State of California or by private parties. The National Park Service, a division of the Department of the Interior, administers the Preserve as part of the National Park System. 16 U. S. C. §§410aaa-41 and 410aaa-46.
Sunrise Rock is a granite outcropping located within the Preserve. Sunrise Rock and the area in its immediate vicinity are federal land, but two private ranches are located less than two miles away. The record does not indicate whether fencing is used to mark the boundary of these ranches. In 1934, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) mounted a Latin cross on the rock as a memorial to soldiers who died in World War I. A Latin cross consists of two bars — a vertical one and a shorter, horizontal one. The cross has been replaced or repaired at various times over the years, most recently in 1998 by Henry Sandoz. Sandoz is a private citizen who owns land elsewhere in the Preserve, a portion of which he is prepared to transfer to the Government in return for its conveyance to the VFW of the land on which the cross stands, all pursuant to the statute now under review.
The cross, as built by Sandoz, consists of 4-inch diameter metal pipes painted white. The vertical bar is less than eight feet tall. It cannot be seen from the nearest highway, which lies more than 10 miles away. It is visible, however, from Cima Road, a narrow stretch of blacktop that comes within 100 feet of Sunrise Rock.
The cross has been a gathering place for Easter services since it was first put in place; and Sunrise Rock and its immediate area continue to be used as a campsite. At one time the cross was accompanied by wooden signs stating “‘The Cross, Erected in Memory of the Dead of All Wars,’ and ‘Erected 1934 by Members of Veterans of Foregin [sic] Wars, Death Valley post 2884/ ” Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F. 3d 758, 769 (CA9 2008). The signs have since disappeared, and the cross now stands unmarked.
B
Frank Buono, respondent here, is a retired Park Service employee who makes regular visits to the Preserve. Buono claims to be offended by the presence of a religious symbol on federal land. He filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He alleged a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and sought an injunction requiring the Government to remove the cross.
The litigation proceeded in what can be described as four stages. In the first, the District Court ruled in Buono’s favor on opposing motions for summary judgment. Buono v. Norton, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (2002) (Buono I). As an initial matter, the court found that Buono had standing to maintain his Establishment Clause challenge. Id., at 1210-1214. On the merits, the parties agreed that the dispute should be governed by the so-called Lemon test, which the District Court formulated as follows:
“A government religious practice or symbol will survive an Establishment Clause challenge when it (1) has a secular purpose, (2) has a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) does not foster excessive state entanglement with religion.” Buono I, supra, at 1214-1215 (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 612-613 (1971)).
The court expressly declined to consider whether the Government’s actions regarding the cross had a secular purpose, 212 F. Supp. 2d, at 1214-1215, or whether they caused excessive entanglement with religion, id., at 1217, n. 9. Instead, the court evaluated the primary effect of the cross by asking how it would be viewed by a “reasonable observer.” Id., at 1216. Concluding that presence of the cross on federal land conveyed an impression of governmental endorsement of religion, the court granted Buono’s request for injunctive relief. The court’s order in Buono I (2002 injunction) permanently forbade the Government “from permitting the display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 146a.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the 2002 injunction to the extent that it required the cross to be removed or dismantled but did not forbid alternative methods of complying with the order. The Government covered the cross, first with a tarpaulin and later with a plywood box.
On appeal, the judgment of the District Court was affirmed, both as to standing and on the merits of Buono’s Establishment Clause challenge. Buono v. Norton, 371 F. 3d 543 (CA9 2004) (Buono II). Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals did not decide whether the Government’s action, or nonaction, with respect to the cross had been motivated by a secular purpose. Id., at 550. Its ruling was based instead on the conclusion that a reasonable observer would perceive a cross on federal land as governmental endorsement of religion. Id., at 549-550. The Government did not seek review by this Court, so that the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Buono II became final.
C
During the relevant proceedings, Congress enacted certain statutes related to the cross:
(1) Before Buono I was filed, Congress passed an appropriations bill that included a provision forbidding the use of governmental funds to remove the cross. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Pub. L. 106-554, §133, 114 Stat. 2763A-230.
(2) While Buono I was pending before the District Court, Congress designated the cross and its adjoining land “as a national memorial commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring the American veterans of that war.” Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002, Pub. L. 107-117, § 8137(a), 115 Stat. 2278. The Secretary of the Interior was directed to expend up to $10,000 to acquire a replica of the original cross and its memorial plaque and to install the plaque at a suitable nearby location. § 8137(c).
(3) Three months after Buono I was decided, Congress again prohibited the spending of governmental funds to remove the cross. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003, Pub. L. 107-248, § 8065(b), 116 Stat. 1551.
(4) While the Government’s appeal in Buono II was pending, Congress passed a statute (land-transfer statute) directing the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the VFW the Government’s interest in the land that had been designated a national memorial. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004, § 8121(a), 117 Stat. 1100. In exchange, the Government was to receive land elsewhere in the preserve from Henry Sandoz and his wife. Ibid. Any difference in value between the two parcels would be equalized through a cash payment. §§ 8121(c), (d). The land-transfer statute provided that the property would revert to the Government if not maintained “as a memorial commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring the American veterans of that war.” § 8121(e). The statute presents a central issue in this case.
The Court of Appeals in Buono II did not address the effect on the suit of a potential land transfer under the statute. The court noted that the transfer might “take as long as two years to complete,” 371 F. 3d, at 545, and that its effect was not yet known, id., at 545-546. The court thus “expressed] no view as to whether a transfer completed under [the statute] would pass constitutional muster.” Id., at 546.
D
After the Court of Appeals affirmed in Buono II, Buono returned to the District Court seeking to prevent the land transfer. He sought injunctive relief against the transfer, either through enforcement or modification of the 2002 injunction. In evaluating his request the trial court described the relevant question as whether the land transfer was a bona fide attempt to comply with the injunction (as the Government claimed), or a sham aimed at keeping the cross in place (as Buono claimed). Buono v. Norton, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1178 (CD Cal. 2005) (Buono III). In Buono III, the court did not consider whether the transfer itself was an “independent violation of the Establishment Clause.” Id., at 1182, n. 8. The court nevertheless concluded that the transfer was an attempt by the Government to keep the cross atop Sunrise Rock and so was invalid. The court granted Buono’s motion to enforce the 2002 injunction; denied as moot his motion to amend it; and permanently enjoined the Government from implementing the land-transfer statute. Id., at 1182.
The Court of Appeals again affirmed, largely following the reasoning of the District Court. Buono v. Kempthome, 502 F. 3d 1069 (CA9 2007). The Government’s motion for rehearing en banc was denied over a dissent by Judge O’Scannlain, 527 F. 3d 758, and this Court granted certiorari, 555 U. S. 1169 (2009).
II
Before considering the District Court’s order on the merits, the first inquiry must be with respect to Buono’s standing to maintain this action. To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.” Horne v. Flores, 557 U. S. 433, 445 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Government argues that Buono’s asserted injury is not personal to him and so does not confer Article III standing. As noted above, Buono does not find the cross itself objectionable but instead takes offense at the presence of a religious symbol on federal land. Buono does not claim that, as a personal matter, he has been made to feel excluded or coerced, and so, the Government contends, he cannot object to the presence of the cross. Brief for Petitioners 12-17.
Whatever the validity of the objection to Buono’s standing, that argument is not available to the Government at this stage of the litigation. When Buono moved the District Court in Buono I for an injunction requiring the removal of the cross, the Government raised the same standing objections it proffers now. Rejecting the Government’s position, the District Court entered a judgment in Buono’s favor, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in Buono II. The Government did not seek review in this Court. The judgment became final and unreviewable upon the expiration of the 90-day deadline under 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c) for filing a petition for certiorari. Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U. S. 399, 418 (1923); see Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U. S. 33, 45 (1990) (90-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”). The Government cannot now contest Buono’s standing to obtain the final judgment in Buono I.
Of course, even though the Court may not reconsider whether Buono had standing to seek the 2002 injunction, it is still necessary to evaluate his standing in Buono III to seek application of the injunction against the land-transfer statute. That measure of relief is embodied in the judgment upon which we granted review.
This was a measure of relief that Buono had standing to seek. A party that obtains a judgment in its favor acquires a “judicially cognizable” interest in ensuring compliance with that judgment. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 763 (1984) (plaintiffs’ right to enforce a desegregation decree to which they were parties is “a personal interest, created by law, in having the State refrain from taking specific actions”). Having obtained a final judgment granting relief on his claims, Buono had standing to seek its vindication.
The Government does not deny this proposition as a general matter. Instead, it argues that Buono was not seeking to vindicate — but rather to extend — the 2002 injunction. The first injunction prohibited the Government from maintaining the cross on Sunrise Rock; yet in Buono III he sought to preclude the land transfer, a different governmental action. The Government contends that Buono lacked standing to seek this additional relief. Reply Brief for Petitioners 5.
The Government’s argument, however, is properly addressed to the relief granted by the judgment below, not to Buono’s standing to seek that relief. The Government has challenged whether appropriate relief was granted in Buono III in light of the relevant considerations and legal principles, and we shall consider these questions. The standing inquiry, by contrast, turns on the alleged injury that prompted the plaintiff to invoke the court’s jurisdiction in the first place. Buono’s entitlement to an injunction having been established in Buono I and II, he sought in Buono III to prevent the Government from frustrating or evading that injunction. Based on the rights he obtained under the earlier decree — against the same party, regarding the same cross and the same land — his interests in doing so were sufficiently personal and concrete to support his standing. Although Buono also argued that the land transfer should be prohibited as an “independent” Establishment Clause violation, the District Court did not address or order relief on that claim, which is not before us. Buono III, 364 F. Supp. 2d, at 1182, n. 8. This is not a case in which a party seeks to import a previous standing determination into a wholly different dispute.
In arguing that Buono sought to extend, rather than to enforce, the 2002 injunction, the Government in essence contends that the injunction did not provide a basis for the District Court to invalidate the land transfer. This is not an argument about standing but about the merits of the District Court’s order. Those points now must be addressed.
Ill
The procedural history of this litigation must be considered to identify the issues now subject to review. The District Court granted the 2002 injunction after concluding that a cross on federal land violated the Establishment Clause. The Government unsuccessfully challenged that conclusion on appeal, and the judgment became final upon completion of direct review. At that point, the judgment “became res judicata to the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 557 U. S. 137, 152 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Government therefore does not — and could not — ask this Court to reconsider the propriety of the 2002 injunction or the District Court’s reasons for granting it.
The question now before the Court is whether the District Court properly enjoined the Government from implementing the land-transfer statute. The District Court did not consider whether the statute, in isolation, would have violated the Establishment Clause, and it did not forbid the land transfer as an independent constitutional violation. Buono III, supra, at 1182, n. 8. Rather, the court enjoined compliance with the statute on the premise that the relief was necessary to protect the rights Buono had secured through the 2002 injunction.
An injunction is an exercise of a court’s equitable authority, to be ordered only after taking into account all of the circumstances that bear on the need for prospective relief. See United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106, 114 (1932). See also Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 312 (1982); Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329 (1944); 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2942, pp. 39-42 (2d ed. 1995) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). Equitable relief is not granted as a matter of course, see Weinberger, 456 U. S., at 311-312, and a court should be particularly cautious when contemplating relief that implicates public interests, see id., at 312 (“In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction”); Harrisonville v. W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 289 U. S. 334, 338 (1933) (“Where an important public interest would be prejudiced, the reasons for denying the injunction may be compelling”). Because injunctive relief “is drafted in light of what the court believes will be the future course of events,... a court must never ignore significant changes in the law or circumstances underlying an injunction lest the decree be turned into an ‘instrument of wrong.’” Wright & Miller §2961, at 393-394 (quoting Swift & Co., supra, at 115).
Here, the District Court did not engage in the appropriate inquiry. The land-transfer statute was a substantial change in circumstances bearing on the propriety of the requested relief. The court, however, did not acknowledge the statute’s significance. It examined the events that led to the statute’s enactment and found an intent to prevent removal of the cross. Deeming this intent illegitimate, the court concluded that nothing of moment had changed. This was error. Even assuming that the land-transfer statute was an attempt to prevent removal of the cross, it does not follow that an injunction against its implementation was appropriate.
By dismissing Congress’ motives as illicit, the District Court took insufficient account of the context in which the statute was enacted and the reasons for its passage. Private citizens put the cross on Sunrise Rock to commemorate American servicemen who had died in World War I. Although certainly a Christian symbol, the cross was not em-placed on Sunrise Rock to promote a Christian message. Cf. County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 661 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (“[T]he [Establishment] Clause forbids a city to permit the permanent erection of a large Latin cross on the roof of city hall. .. because such an obtrusive year-round religious display would place the government’s weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion”). Placement of the cross on Government-owned land was not an attempt to set the imprimatur of the state on a particular creed. Rather, those who erected the cross intended simply to honor our Nation’s fallen soldiers. See Brief for VFW et al. as Amici Curiae 15 (noting that the plaque accompanying the cross “was decorated with VFW decals”).
Time also has played its role. The cross had stood on Sunrise Rock for nearly seven decades before the statute was enacted. By then, the cross and the cause it commemorated had become entwined in the public consciousness. See ibid. Members of the public gathered regularly at Sunrise Rock to pay their respects. Rather than let the cross deteriorate, community members repeatedly took it upon themselves to replace it. Congress ultimately designated the cross as a national memorial, ranking it among those monuments honoring the noble sacrifices that constitute our national heritage. See note following 16 U. S. C. § 481 (listing officially designated national memorials, including the National D-Day Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial). Research discloses no other national memorial honoring American soldiers — more than 300,000 of them — who were killed or wounded in World War I. See generally A. Leland & M. Oboroceanu, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics 2 (2009). It is reasonable to interpret the congressional designation as giving recognition to the historical meaning that the cross had attained. Cf. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 702-703 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment) (“40 years” without legal challenge to a Ten Commandments display “suggest that the public visiting the [surrounding] grounds has considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage”).
The 2002 injunction thus presented the Government with a dilemma. It could not maintain the cross without violating the injunction, but it could not remove the cross without conveying disrespect for those the cross was seen as honoring. Cf. id., at 704 (to invalidate a longstanding Ten Commandments display might “create the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid”). Deeming neither alternative to be satisfactory, Congress enacted the statute here at issue. Congress, of course, may not use its legislative powers to reopen final judgments. See Plant v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211, 225-226 (1995). That principle, however, was not a bar to this statute. The Government’s right to transfer the land was not adjudicated in Buono I or compromised by the 2002 injunction.
In belittling the Government’s efforts as an attempt to “evade” the injunction, Buono III, 364 F. Supp. 2d, at 1182, the District Court had things backwards. Congress’ prerogative to balance opposing interests and its institutional competence to do so provide one of the principal reasons for deference to its policy determinations. See Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 513 (1982). Here, Congress adopted a policy with respect to land it now owns in order to resolve a specific controversy. Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary all have a duty to support and defend the Constitution. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 703 (1974) (“In the performance of assigned constitutional duties each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others”). The land-transfer statute embodies Congress’ legislative judgment that this dispute is best resolved through a framework and policy of accommodation for a symbol that, while challenged under the Establishment Clause, has complex meaning beyond the expression of religious views. That judgment should not have been dismissed as an evasion, for the statute brought about a change of law and a congressional statement of policy applicable to the case.
Buono maintains that any governmental interest in keeping the cross up must cede to the constitutional concerns on which the 2002 injunction was based. He argues that the land transfer would be “an incomplete remedy” to the constitutional violation underlying the injunction and that the transfer would make achieving a proper remedy more difficult. Brief for Respondent 54.
A court must find prospective relief that fits the remedy to the wrong or injury that has been established. See Swift & Co., 286 U. S., at 114 (“A continuing decree of injunction directed to events to come is subject always to adaptation as events may shape the need”). See also United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U. S. 244, 249 (1968). Where legislative action has undermined the basis upon which relief has previously been granted, a court must consider whether the original finding of wrongdoing continues to justify the court’s intervention. See Railway Employees v. Wright, 364 U. S. 642, 648-649 (1961); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 430-432 (1856). The relevant question is whether an ongoing exercise of the court’s equitable authority is supported by the prior showing of illegality, judged against the claim that changed circumstances have rendered prospective relief inappropriate.
The District Court granted the 2002 injunction based solely on its conclusion that presence of the cross on federal land conveyed an impression of governmental endorsement of religion. The court expressly disavowed any inquiry into whether the Government’s actions had a secular purpose or caused excessive entanglement. Buono I, 212 F. Supp. 2d, at 1215, 1217, n. 9. The Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction on the same grounds, similarly eschewing any scrutiny of governmental purpose. Buono II, 371 F. 3d, at 550.
Although, for purposes of the opinion, the propriety of the 2002 injunction may be assumed, the following discussion should not be read to suggest this Court’s agreement with that judgment, some aspects of which may be questionable. The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society. See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 598 (1992) (“A relentless and all-pervasive attempt to exclude religion from every aspect of public life could itself become inconsistent with the Constitution”). See also Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 334 (1987) (“This Court has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework.
Even assuming the propriety of the original relief, however, the question before the District Court in Buono III was whether to invalidate the land transfer. Given the sole reliance on perception as a basis for the 2002 injunction, one would expeet that any relief grounded on that decree would have rested on the same basis. But the District Court enjoined the land transfer on an entirely different basis: its suspicion of an illicit governmental purpose. See Buono III, 364 F. Supp. 2d, at 1182. The court made no inquiry into the effect that knowledge of the transfer of the land to private ownership would have had on any perceived governmental endorsement of religion, the harm to which the 2002 injunction was addressed. The District Court thus used an injunction granted for one reason as the basis for enjoining conduct that was alleged to be objectionable for a different reason. Ordering relief under such circumstances was improper — absent a finding that the relief was necessary to address an independent wrong. See ibid., n. 8 (noting that the court “need not consider [Buono’s] other contention that the land transfer itself is an independent violation of the Establishment Clause”).
The District Court should have evaluated Buono’s modification request in light of the objectives of the 2002 injunction. The injunction was issued to address the impression conveyed by the cross on federal, not private, land. Even if its purpose were characterized more generally as avoiding the perception of governmental endorsement, that purpose would favor — or at least not oppose — ownership of the cross by a private party rather than by the Government. Cf. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 471 (2009) (“[Pjersons who observe donated monuments routinely — and reasonably — interpret them as conveying some message on the property owner’s behalf”).
Buono argues that the cross would continue to stand on Sunrise Rock, which has no visual differentiation from the rest of the primarily federally owned Preserve. He also points to the reversionary clause in the land-transfer statute requiring that the land be returned to the Government if not maintained as a World War I memorial. Finally, he notes that the cross remains designated a national memorial by an Act of Congress, which arguably would prevent the VFW from dismantling the cross even if it wanted to do so. Brief for Respondent 37-48.
The District Court failed to consider whether, in light of the change in law and circumstances effected by the land-transfer statute, the “reasonable observer” standard continued to be the appropriate framework through which to consider the Establishment Clause concerns invoked to justify the requested relief As a general matter, courts considering Establishment Clause challenges do not inquire into “reasonable observer” perceptions with respect to objects on private land. Even if, however, this standard were the appropriate one, but see County of Allegheny, 492 U. S., at 668 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (criticizing the “reasonable observer” test); Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 763-768 (1995) (plurality opinion) (criticizing reliance on “perceived endorsement”), it is not clear that Buono’s claim is meritorious. That test requires the hypothetical construct of an objective observer who knows all of the pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding the symbol and its placement. See id., at 780 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). But see id., at 767-768 (plurality opinion) (doubting the workability of the reasonable observer test). Applying this test here, the message conveyed by the cross would be assessed in the context of all relevant factors. See Van Orden, 545 U. S., at 700 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment) (the Establishment Clause inquiry “must take account of context and consequences”); Lee, 505 U. S. at 597 (“Our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains a delicate and fact-sensitive one”).
The District Court did not attempt to reassess the findings in Buono I in light of the policy of accommodation that Congress had embraced. Rather, the District Court concentrated solely on the religious aspects of the cross, divorced from its background and context. But a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.
Respect for a coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 607 (2000); El Paso & Northeastern R. Co. v. Gutierrez, 215 U. S. 87, 96 (1909). The same respect requires that a congressional command be given effect unless no legal alternative exists. Even if, contrary to the congressional judgment, the land transfer were thought an insufficient accommodation in light of the earlier finding of religious endorsement, it was incumbent upon the District Court to consider less drastic relief than complete invalidation of the land-transfer statute. See Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 329 (2006) (in granting relief, “we try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary, for we know that [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people” (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original)); Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U. S. 678, 684 (1987). For instance, if there is to be a conveyance, the question might arise regarding the necessity of further action, such as signs to indicate the VFW’s ownership of the land. As we have noted, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to install near the cross a replica of its original memorial plaque. One of the signs that appears in early photographs of the cross specifically identifies the VFW as the group that erected it.
Noting the possibility of specific remedies, however, is not an indication of agreement about the continued necessity for injunctive relief. The land-transfer statute’s bearing on this dispute must first be determined. To date, this Court’s jurisprudence in this area has refrained from making sweeping pronouncements, and this case is ill suited for announcing categorical rules. In light of the finding of unconstitutionality in Buono I, and the highly fact-specific nature of the inquiry, it is best left to the District Court to undertake the analysis in the first instance. On remand, if Buono continues to challenge implementation of the statute, the District Court should conduct a proper inquiry as described above.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Stevens 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.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was filed in a Federal District Court in California by reason of diversity of citizenship. It is a stockholder’s derivative suit. The first cause of action, the only one involved here, is based on alleged fraudulent wastage of assets of Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. (which we will call Warner Bros.) for the benefit of one Sperling, a son-in-law of a director of Warner Bros., and United States Pictures, Inc. (which we will call United), the son-in-law’s corporation. Extended allegations are made concerning various agreements between Warner Bros, and United which, it is charged, are unfair to Warner Bros. Demand on the directors of Warner Bros, to institute this action was not made because, it is averred, such a demand would be futile since, inter alia, all or a majority of the board of directors approved the contracts. The plaintiff is a citizen of New York; the defendant directors are citizens of California; and Warner Bros, and United are Delaware corporations.
The complaint joined Warner Bros, as a defendant. It was urged before the District Court, and it is claimed here, that since the cause of action sought to be enforced is one that belongs to the corporation and since the corporation is not “antagonistic” to the stockholder within the meaning of that term as used in Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U. S. 579, 588, Warner Bros, should be realigned as plaintiff. In that event there would be no diversity of citizenship since Delaware corporations would be on both sides of the lawsuit. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267.
The District Court held a hearing on the issue — a hearing that lasted 15 days. It found:
(1) that the contracts in controversy were made in good faith and without fraud; that they were considered by the directors to be in the best interests of Warner Bros, and that, in approving them, they exercised their best business judgment;
(2) that Warner Bros, was not under the domination or control of the Warners on the board; and that the stockholders, officers, or directors were not “antagonistic to the financial interests” of Warner Bros.;
(3) that neither all nor a majority nor any of the directors and officers of Warner Bros, “wrongfully participated” in the acts complained of; that the board was not dominated or controlled by the Warners and Sperling or by any one or more of them;
(4) that if demand had been made on Warner Bros, to institute suit, the management would not have been disqualified “from faithfully doing their duty” as officers and directors but that “such a demand would have been futile.”
For these reasons the District Court realigned Warner Bros, as a party plaintiff and dismissed the bill. 117 F. Supp. 781. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 237 F. 2d 317. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 352 U. S. 865.
This is a corporate cause of action brought by a stockholder. Whether it is a proper case for assertion by a stockholder of that cause of action is not the question here. Such was the problem involved in Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450, upon which so much reliance is placed in supporting the court below. Here we assume that this corporate cause of action may be enforced by the stockholder. We are concerned only with a question of federal diversity jurisdiction.
The gist of the findings of the District Court is that since there was no fraud on the part of the directors in making the contracts but only an exercise of independent business judgment, the management was not antagonistic to the financial interests of the corporation. That is an issue that goes to the merits, not to the question of jurisdiction. There will, of course, be antagonism between the stockholder and the management where the dominant officers and directors are guilty of fraud or misdeeds. But wrongdoing in that sense is not the sole measure of antagonism. There is antagonism whenever the management is aligned against the stockholder and defends a course of conduct which he attacks. The charge normally is cast in terms of fraud, breach of trust, or illegality. See Doctor v. Harrington, supra; Venner v. Great Northern R. Co., 209 U. S. 24; Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U. S. 518, 522, 523. The answer, of course, always denies the charge of wrongdoing. To stop and try the charge of wrongdoing is to delve into the merits. That does not seem to us to be the proper course. It is a time-consuming, wasteful exertion of energy on a preliminary issue in the case. The instant case is a good illustration, for it has been over eight years in the courts on this question of jurisdiction.
Since our decision in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, the law which governs the merits in these derivative actions is local law. Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 555-556. The result, then, of the approach followed by the court below is to have more than a preliminary trial on matters going to the merits of the controversy. Obviously federal law would govern the preliminary trial on the issues of wrongdoing, for that matter goes to the question of federal jurisdiction. Yet should the District Court decide those issues in favor of the stockholder, a second trial on the merits will require that the same issues be tried out according to the set of rules supplied by local law.
It seems to us that the proper course is not to try out the issues presented by the charges of wrongdoing but to determine the issue of antagonism on the face of the pleadings and by the nature of the controversy. The bill and answer normally determine whether the management is antagonistic to the stockholder, as Central R. Co. v. Mills, 113 U. S. 249, and Doctor v. Harrington, supra, indicate. The management may refuse or fail to act for any number of reasons. Fraud may be one; the reluctance to take action against a close business associate may be another; honest belief in the wisdom of the course of action which the management has approved may be still another; and so on. As the Court said in Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Albany & S. R. Co., 213 U. S. 435, 451, where the management was deemed to be antagonistic to the stockholder, “The attitude of the directors need not be sinister. It may be sincere.” Whenever the management refuses to take action to undo a business transaction or whenever, as in this case, it so solidly approves it that any demand to rescind would be futile, antagonism is evident. The cause of action, to be sure, is that of the corporation. But the corporation has become through its managers hostile and antagonistic to the enforcement of the claim.
Collusion to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the District Courts may, of course, always be shown; and it will always defeat jurisdiction. Absent collusion, there is diversity jurisdiction when the real collision of issues, Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U. S. 63, 69, or as stated in Helm v. Zarecor, 222 U. S. 32, 36, “the actual controversy,” is between citizens of different States. This is a practical not a mechanical determination and is resolved by the pleadings and the nature of the dispute.
Here it is plain that the stockholder and those who manage the corporation are completely and irrevocably opposed on a matter of corporate practice and policy. A trial may demonstrate that the stockholder is wrong and the management right. It may show a dispute that lies in the penumbra of business judgment, unaffected by fraud. But that issue goes to the merits, not to jurisdiction. There is jurisdiction if there is real collision between the stockholder and his corporation. That there is such a collision is evident here.
The judgment must therefore be reversed and the case remanded to the District Court. Reversed
While the action was pending plaintiff died and for him a special administrator has been substituted. The latter is a citizen of California.
Had the suit been originally commenced by the decedent’s representative, it would have been the citizenship of the representative which would have been determinative of jurisdiction in this diversity case. See Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, 669; Mexican Central R. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 429, 434; Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co., 284 U. S. 183, 186. But jurisdiction, once attached, is not impaired by a party’s later change of domicile. Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537. As Chief Justice Marshall said in that case: “It is quite clear, that the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought, and that after vesting, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events.” Id., p. 539. The rationale, that jurisdiction is tested by the facts as they existed when the action is brought, is applied to a situation where a party dies and a non-diverse representative is substituted. Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1 (1834).
The bill therefore meets the requirements of Rule 23 (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that the stockholder show with particularity what efforts he made to get those who control the corporation to take action, “and the reasons for his failure to obtain such action or the reasons for not making such effort.” And see Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450; Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Albany & S. R. Co., 213 U. S. 435.
The Court in Doctor v. Harrington, supra, at p. 587, said, “The ultimate interest of the corporation made defendant may be the same as that of the stockholder made plaintiff, but the corporation may be under a control antagonistic to him, and made to act in a way detrimental to his rights. In other words, his interests, and the interests of the corporation, may be made subservient to some illegal purpose. If a controversy hence arise, and the other conditions of jurisdiction exist, it can be litigated in a Federal court.”
The complaint in that case charged fraud by a dominant director and stockholder to his advantage and to the detriment of the minority stockholders. The answer denied the fraud. The Court did not stop, as the District Court did in the instant case, to inquire if transactions complained of were colorable or were sustained by sound business judgment. After reviewing the earlier decisions, the Court concluded, “The case at bar is brought within the doctrine of those cases by the allegations of the bill.” Id., p. 588. The leading case cited by the Court was Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450, where in determining whether a proper case for a derivative action had been made out, the Court looked only to the nature of the charges contained in the biU. Id., pp. 461-462.
28 U. S. C. § 1359 provides:
“A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”
Collusion is shown, for example, where the neglect or refusal of the directors to take the desired action on the part of the corporation is simulated so that it may be made to appear that the diversity of citizenship necessary for federal jurisdiction exists. Detroit v. Dean, 106 U. S. 537; Quincy v. Steel, 120 U. S. 241.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Stevens joined.
On August 15, 1977, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted a petition for writ of mandamus ordering petitioner, a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, “to proceed immediately” to adjudicate a claim based upon the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and brought by respondent, Calvert Fire Insurance Co., against American Mutual Reinsurance Co., despite the pendency of a substantially identical proceeding between the same parties in the Illinois state courts. 560 F. 2d 792, 797. The Court of Appeals felt that our recent decision in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976), compelled the issuance of the writ. We granted certiorari to consider the propriety of the use of mandamus to review a District Court’s decision to defer to concurrent state proceedings, 434 U. S. 1008, and we now reverse.
I
Respondent Calvert writes property and casualty insurance. American Mutual operates a reinsurance pool whereby a number of primary insurers protect themselves against unanticipated losses. Membership in the pool requires both the payment of premiums by pool members and indemnification of the pool in the event that losses exceed those upon which the premiums are calculated. Calvert joined the pool in early 1974, but in April of that year notified American Mutual of its election to rescind the agreement by which it became a member.
In July 1974, American Mutual sued in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., to obtain a declaration that the pool agreement between it and Calvert was in full force and effect. Six months later, Calvert in its answer to that suit asserted that the pool agreement was not enforceable against it because of violations by American Mutual of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Illinois Securities Act, the Maryland Securities Law, and the state common law of fraud. With its answer Calvert filed a counterclaim seeking $2 million in damages from American Mutual on all of the grounds that it set up in defense except for the defense based on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Since § 27 of that Act, 48 Stat. 902, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa (1976 ed.), granted the district courts of the United States exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the Act, Calvert on the same day filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking damages from American Mutual for an alleged violation of Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 (1977), issued under § 10 (b) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b) (1976 ed.). Joined with this Rule 10b-5 count were claims based on each of the other grounds asserted by it in defense to American Mutual’s state-court action.
In February 1975, more than seven months after it had begun its state-court action, but less than one month after Calvert had filed its answer and counterclaim in that action and its complaint in the federal court, American Mutual moved to dismiss or abate the latter. The claim for dismissal was based on the substantive assertion that the reinsurance agreement was not a “security” within the meaning of the 1933 or 1934 Act. The motion to abate was based on the fact that the state proceedings commenced six months before the federal proceedings included every claim and defense except the claim for damages based on Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act.
In May 1975, Judge Will substantially granted American Mutual’s motion to defer the federal proceeding until the completion of the state proceedings, observing that a tentative trial date had already been set by the state court. Federal litigation of the same issues would therefore be duplicatiye and wasteful. He rejected Calvert’s contention that the court should proceed with the entire case because of its exclusive jurisdiction under the 1934 Act, noting that the state court was bound to provide the equitable relief sought by Calvert by recognizing a valid Rule 10b-5 claim as a defense to the state action. Only Calvert’s claim for damages under Rule 10b-5 was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal court. Petitioner therefore stayed all aspects of Calvert’s federal action subject to' the concurrent jurisdiction of both courts, recognizing “only Calvert’s very limited claim for monetary damages under the 1934 Securities Act as a viable claim in this court.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B-9. On May 9, 1975, Judge Will heard oral argument on the basic question of whether Calvert's interest in the reinsurance pool is a security within the meaning of the 1934 Act. He has not yet rendered a decision on that issue.
Judge Will rejected two motions to reconsider his stay order and refused to certify an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). On May 26, 1976, Calvert petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Will to proceed to adjudicate its Rule 10b-5 claims. Nearly 14 months later, on August 15, 1977, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and directed Judge Will to “proceed immediately with Calvert's claim for damages and equitable relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.” 560 F. 2d, at 797.
We granted certiorari to consider Judge Will's contention that the issuance of the writ of mandamus impermissibly-interfered with the discretion of a district court to control its own docket. 434 U. S. 1008 (1978).
II
The correct disposition of this case hinges in large part on the appropriate standard of inquiry to be employed by a court of appeals in determining whether to issue a writ of mandamus to a district court. On direct appeal, a court of appeals has broad authority to “modify, vacate, set aside or reverse” an order of a district court, and it may direct such further action on remand “as may be just under the circumstances.” 28 U. S. C. § 2106. By contrast, under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a), courts of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus only when “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” Whereas a simple showing of error may suffice to obtain a reversal on direct appeal, to issue a writ of mandamus under such circumstances “would undermine the settled limitations upon the power of an appellate court to review interlocutory orders.” Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 98 n. 6 (1967).
As we have repeatedly reaffirmed in cases such as Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U. S. 394, 402 (1976), and Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U. S. 379, 382 (1953), the “traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction both at common law and in the federal courts has been to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21, 26 (1943). Calvert makes no contention that petitioner has exceeded the bounds of his jurisdiction. Rather, it contends that the District Court, in entering the stay order, has refused “to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Ibid. There can be no doubt that, where a district court persistently and without reason refuses to adjudicate a case properly before it, the court of appeals may issue the writ “in order that [it] may exercise the jurisdiction of review given by law.” Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, 270 (1873). “Otherwise the appellate jurisdiction could be defeated and the purpose of the statute authorizing the writ thwarted by unauthorized action of the district court obstructing the appeal.” Roche, supra, at 25:
To say that a court of appeals has the power to direct a district court to proceed to judgment in a pending case “when it is its duty to do so,” 319 U. S., at 26, states the standard but does not decide this or any other particular case. It is essential that the moving party satisfy “the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is 'clear and indisputable.' ” Bankers Life & Cas. Co., supra, at 384, quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576, 582 (1899). Judge Will urges that Calvert does not have a “clear and indisputable” right to the adjudication of its claims in the District Court without regard to the concurrent state proceedings. To that issue we now must turn.
Ill
It is well established that “the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction.” McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 282 (1910). It is equally well settled that a district court is “under no compulsion to exercise that jurisdiction,” Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U. S. 491, 494 (1942), where the controversy may be settled more expeditiously in the state court. Although most of our decisions discussing the propriety of stays or dismissals of duplicative actions have concerned conflicts of jurisdiction between two federal district courts, e. g., Kerotest Mfg. Co., v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U. S. 180 (1952); Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248 (1936), we have recognized the relevance of those cases in the analogous circumstances presented here. See Colorado River, 424 U. S., at 817-819. In both situations, the decision is largely committed to the “carefully considered judgment,” id., at 818, of the district court.
This power has not always been so clear. In McClellan, on facts similar to those presented here, this Court indicated that the writ might properly issue where the District Court had stayed its proceedings in deference to concurrent state proceedings. Such an automatic exercise of authority may well have been appropriate in a day when Congress had authorized fewer claims for relief in the federal courts, so that duplicative litigation and the concomitant tension between state and federal courts could rarely result. However, as the overlap between state claims and federal claims increased, this Court soon recognized that situations would often arise when it would be appropriate to defer to the state courts.
“Ordinarily it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same issues, not governed by federal law, between the same parties. Gratuitous interference with the orderly and comprehensive disposition of a state court litigation should be avoided.” Brillhart, supra, at 495.
The decision in such circumstances is largely committed to the discretion of the district court. 316 U. S., at 494. Furthermore, Colorado River, supra, at 820, established that such deference may be equally appropriate even when matters of substantive federal law are involved in the case.
It is true that Colorado River emphasized “the virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” 424 U. S., at 817. That language underscores our conviction that a district court should exercise its discretion with this factor in mind, but it in no way undermines the conclusion of Brillhart that the decision whether to defer to the concurrent jurisdiction of a state court is, in the last analysis, a matter committed to the district court's discretion. Seizing upon the phrase “unflagging obligation” in an opinion which upheld the correctness of a district court’s final decision to dismiss because of concurrent jurisdiction does little to bolster a claim for the extraordinary writ of mandamus in a case such as this where the District Court has rendered no final decision.
We think it of considerably more importance than did the Court of Appeals that Colorado River came before the Court of Appeals on appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1291 following outright dismissal of the action by the District Court, rather than through an effort on the part of the federal-court plaintiff to seek mandamus. Calvert contends here, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed, that Judge Will’s order deferring the federal proceedings was “equivalent to a dismissal.” 560 F. 2d, at 796. We are loath to rest our analysis on this ubiquitous phrase, for if used carelessly or without a precise definition it may impede rather than assist sound resolution of the underlying legal issue.
Obviously, if Judge Will had dismissed Calvert’s action Calvert could have appealed the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which could have required such action of Judge Will “as may be just under the circumstances.” 28 U. S. C. § 2106. Since he did not dismiss the action, Calvert remained free to urge reconsideration of his decision to defer based on new information as to the progress of the state case; to this extent, at least, deferral was not “equivalent to a dismissal.”
There are sound reasons for our reiteration of the rule that a district court’s decision to defer proceedings because of concurrent state litigation is generally committed to the discretion of that court. No one can seriously contend that a busy federal trial judge, confronted both with competing demands on his time for matters properly within his jurisdiction and with inevitable scheduling difficulties because of the unavailability of lawyers, parties, and witnesses, is not entrusted with a wide latitude in setting his own calendar. Had Judge Will simply decided on his own initiative to defer setting this case for trial until the state proceedings were completed, his action would-have been the “equivalent” of granting the motion of American Mutual to defer, yet such action would at best have afforded Calvert a highly dubious claim for mandamus. We think the fact that the judge accomplished this same result by ruling favorably on a party’s motion to defer does not change the underlying legal question.
Although the District Court’s exercise of its discretion may be subject to review and modification in a proper interlocutory appeal, cf. Landis, 299 U. S., at 256-259, we are convinced that it ought not to be overridden by a writ of mandamus. Where a matter is committed to the discretion of a district court, it cannot be said that a litigant’s right to a particular result is “clear and indisputable.”
Calvert contends that a district court is without power to stay proceedings, in deference to a contemporaneous state action, where the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the issue presented. Whether or not this is so, petitioner has not purported to stay consideration of Calvert’s claim for damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which is the only issue which may not be concurrently resolved by both courts. It is true that petitioner has not yet ruled upon this claim. Where a district court obstinately refuses to adjudicate a matter properly before it, a court of appeals may issue the writ to correct “unauthorized action of the district court obstructing the appeal.” Roche, 319 U. S., at 25, citing Ex parte United States, 287 U. S. 241 (1932). Calvert, however, has neither alleged nor proved such a heedless refusal to proceed as a basis for the issuance of the writ here. Its petition offers only the bare allegation that Judge Will “in effect” abated the damages claim in deference to the state proceedings. App. 12. Judge Will has never issued such an order, and the sparse record before us will not support any such inference. So far as appears, the delay in adjudicating the damages claim is simply a product of the normal excessive load of business in the District Court, compounded by “the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant” in this mandamus proceeding. Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 260 (1947).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Calvert's answer in the state action explicitly contended that it was “entitled to rescission of its purchase of the aforesaid security” because of the alleged Rule 10b-5 violation. App. to Pet. for Cert. D-5. It sought identical equitable relief in its federal complaint. Id., at E-6. See Weiner v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., 521 F. 2d 817, 822 (CA9 1975); Aetna State Bank v. Altheimer, 430 F. 2d 750, 754 (CA7 1970).
The state court, however, has reached a decision on the issue. The Circuit Court concluded that the agreement was not a security, and therefore struck the federal issues from Calvert's answer and counterclaim. On an interlocutory appeal the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the agreement was not a security within the meaning of either the 1933 or the 1934 Act and that, in any event, § 2 (b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1012 (b) (1976 ed.), exempted insurance from the reach of the federal securities laws. American Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 52 Ill. App. 3d 922, 367 N. E. 2d 104 (1977), pet. for leave to appeal denied, No. 50,085 (Jan. 26, 1978), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 906 (1978).
As already noted, the stay order did not apply to Calvert’s claim for damages under Rule 10b-5. Judge Will had stayed Calvert’s claim for equitable relief because the state court had jurisdiction to rescind the agreement by recognition of a Rule 10b-5 defense.
The petition did not seek to require Judge Will to proceed with the state-law claims or the federal claim based on the 1933 Act. 560 F. 2d 792, 794 n. 2.
Although Calvert’s petition addressed only its Rule 10b-5 claims, the court went on to note: “The logic behind our holding in this case supports the conclusion that the stay of 1933 Act claims, as well as the 1934 Act claims, was improper.” 560 F. 2d, at 797 n. 6.
A classic example of the proper issuance of the writ to protect eventual appellate jurisdiction is Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U. S. 336 (1976), in which a case had been remanded to the state courts on grounds utterly unauthorized by the controlling statute. The dissenters in that case urged that Congress had intended to bar all review of remand orders, not that mandamus would have been inappropriate absent such a bar. Id., at 354 (Rehnquist, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Stewart, J., dissenting).
This Court there held, not that the writ should issue, but that the Court of Appeals should have required the District Judge to show cause why the writ should not issue. Judge Carland presented an affidavit to this Court attempting to defend his stay order on the basis of substantially completed state proceedings. As that affidavit was not in the record before the Court of Appeals, this Court did not “pass upon the sufficiency of those proceedings to authorize the orders in question," 217 U. S., at 283, but directed the Court of Appeals to do so in the first instance.
Although in at least one instance we approved the issuance of the writ upon a mere showing of abuse of discretion, La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U. S. 249, 257 (1957), we warned soon thereafter against the dangers of such a practice. “Courts faced with petitions for the peremptory writs must be careful lest they suffer themselves to be misled by labels such as 'abuse of discretion’ and 'want of power’ into interlocutory review of non-appealable orders on the mere ground that they may be erroneous.” Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 98 n. 6 (1967).
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U. S. 500 (1959), is not to the contrary. Both the Court and the dissenters agreed that mandamus should issue to protect a clear right to a jury trial. Id., at 511; ibid. (Stewart, J., dissenting). The Court simply concluded that it was “not permissible,” id., at 508, for the District Court to postpone a jury trial until after most of the relevant issues had been settled in an equitable action before the court. Here, we have repeatedly recognized that it is permissible for a district court to defer to the concurrent jurisdiction of a state court.
That a litigant’s right 'to proceed with a duplicative action in a federal court can never be said to be “clear and indisputable” is made all the more apparent by our holding earlier this Term in General Atomic Co. v. Felter, 434 U. S. 12 (1977), that a state court lacks the power to restrain vexatious litigation in the federal courts. There, we reaffirmed the principle that “[fjederal courts are fully capable of preventing their misuse for purposes of harassment.” Id., at 19.
The only other issue encompassed by the writ was Calvert’s Rule 10b-5 claim for equitable relief. It is not disputed here that the state court has jurisdiction to rescind the agreement as Calvert requests. That being conceded, we find no merit in Calvert’s further argument that the statutory grant of exclusive jurisdiction in any way distinguishes this aspect of the case from our earlier decisions in which both the state and federal courts had power to grant the desired relief.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the legality of convictions of petitioner, an alien previously ordered deported, for (1) willful failure to depart from the United States, and (2) willful failure to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to his departure, within six months from the date of the final order of deportation.
Section 20 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat. 890, as amended, 57 Stat. 553, 64 Stat. 1012, 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. IV) § 156 (c), provided, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny alien against whom an order of deportation is outstanding . . . who shall willfully fail or refuse to depart from the United States within a period of six months from the date of such order of deportation, or from the date of the enactment of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, whichever is the later, or shall willfully fail or refuse to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to his departure, . . . shall upon conviction be guilty of a felony, and shall be imprisoned not more than ten years . . . .” It is the above-quoted provisions of § 20 (c) that are involved here.
Petitioner, a native of Finland, went to Canada in 1910 and later acquired Canadian citizenship. He entered the United States in 1916 and, except for several foreign trips, has since resided here. A final order of deportation was entered against him on April 9, 1952, under the Act of October 16,1918, 40 Stat. 1012, as amended, 41 Stat. 1008, 54 Stat. 673, 64 Stat. 1006, 1008, 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. IV) § 137, by reason of his membership in the Communist Party of the United States from 1923 to 1930.
On November 10, 1953, petitioner was indicted, in two counts, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The first count charged him with willful failure to depart from the United States within six months from the date of the deportation order. The second count charged him with willful failure to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to his departure from the United States within six months from the date of the deportation order. Upon a trial before a jury he was convicted on both counts. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years on Count T, and imposition of sentence on Count 2 was suspended until completion of service of the sentence on Count 1. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 240 F. 2d 94. We granted certiorari. 353 U. S. 935.
Petitioner challenges the judgments of conviction on a number of grounds, but in the view we take of the case it is necessary to consider only the first ground, namely, that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict on either count.
This is a criminal case. It is therefore necessary that the prosecution adduce evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is no less true when the defendant is an alien. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 586. The crucial element of the crime charged in the first count is that petitioner "did willfully fail to depart from the United States” within six months from the deportation order of April 9, 1952. (Emphasis supplied.) A thorough review of the record discloses no evidence that any country was willing, in that period, to receive petitioner. There can be no willful failure to depart until “the country willing to receive the alien is identified.” United States v. Spector, 343 U. S. 169, 171. It therefore cannot be said that there was any evidence to support the jury’s finding that petitioner “did willfully fail to depart from the United States” within six months from the deportation order. The evidence on Count 1 is thus insufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment of conviction thereon must fall.
The Government argues that petitioner willfully failed to make timely application to Finland, or to some other country, to receive him, and that if he had done so he might have been able to identify, within the time prescribed, a country to which he could go. While this argument has some relation to Count 1, it mainly involves, and therefore brings us to a consideration of, the adequacy of the evidence to support the verdict on Count 2. On April 18, 1952, nine days after entry of the order of deportation, the officer in charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at Duluth, Minnesota, at the request of the District Director of Immigration at Chicago, sent Inspector Maki to interview petitioner and obtain “personal data, usually called passport data.” Maki admitted at the trial that, in that interview, he “told [petitioner] that [he] had been instructed to get this personal history; that [he] was going to prepare this on the Passport Data form, and that it would [be sent to Chicago where it] would be considered by [the] Service down there with a view towards [the] Service obtaining some travel document or other in [petitioner’s] case,” and that this was common procedure in such cases. Petitioner furnished the information requested, and it was forwarded by Maki, on April 21, 1952, to the District Director at Chicago. On April 30, 1952, petitioner received a letter from the officer in charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Office in Duluth, which, after reciting that an order directing petitioner’s deportation from the United States had been entered on April 25, 1952, said:
“Arrangements to effect your deportation pursuant to such order are being made and when completed you will be notified when and where to present yourself for deportation.”
The letter continued, summarizing pertinent provisions of §'20 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, and concluded: “Therefore, you will recognize the importance of making every effort in good faith to obtain passport or other travel documents so that you may effect your departure pursuant to the said order of deportation within the time prescribed by the quotation above from the [Immigration Act of 1917, as amended].”
On February 12, 1953, an investigator of the Service interviewed and took a written and signed statement from petitioner, which was put in evidence by the Government at the trial. In that statement petitioner corroborated Maki’s statement to him of April 9, 1952, acknowledged receipt of the letter of April 30, 1952, and stated, in substance, that he had not applied for travel documents because, relying on Maki’s statement and the letter mentioned, he had “been waiting for instructions from the immigration authorities” or “from Mr. Maki as to when [he] should start to make application for a passport, in case the Service had failed to get a visa or a passport.” Petitioner’s statement further recited that he had never received any request from the Service “to execute any passport application” and that he had not willfully refused to depart from the United States nor to apply in good faith for travel documents, but wanted “to cooperate [with the Attorney General to get] a passport to Finland . . . .”
Is this evidence sufficient to support the jury’s finding that petitioner “did willfully fail to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to his departure from the United States”? We believe that it is not. There can be no willful failure by a deportee, in the sense of § 20 (c), to apply to, and identify, a country willing to receive him in the absence of evidence, or an inference permissible under the statute, of a “bad purpose” or “[non-]justifiable excuse,” or the like. Cf. United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389, 394; Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, 497, 498. Inspector Maki had informed petitioner that his purpose, in procuring the “passport data” on April 9, 1952, was to send it to the District Director at Chicago, where it “would be considered . . . with a view towards . . . obtaining some travel document or other in his case.” Moreover, the letter of April 30, 1952, from the officer in charge of the Duluth office, told petitioner, in the plainest language, that the Service was making the arrangements to effect his deportation and, when completed, he would be notified when and where to present himself for deportation. Surely petitioner was justified in relying upon the plain meaning of those simple words, and it cannot be said that he acted “willfully” — i. e., with a “bad purpose” or without “justifiable excuse”- — in doing so, until, at least, they were in some way countermanded, which was never done within the prescribed period. It is true that the last paragraph of that letter drew attention to the importance of making good-faith efforts to obtain the documents necessary to effect departure within the time prescribed, but that language did not in terms negate, and cannot fairly be said implicitly to have negated, the earlier paragraph of the letter, because, as stated, that paragraph of the letter plainly told petitioner that the Service was itself making the necessary arrangements for his deportation and, when completed, he would be notified when and where to present himself for deportation. In this factual setting we believe there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that petitioner acted willfully in failing to apply for documents necessary to his departure within the time prescribed. The evidence on Count 2 is thus insufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment of conviction on that count must also fall.
Reversed.
That Act provided, in pertinent part:
“[Sec. 1] That any alien who is a member of any one of the following classes shall be excluded from admission into the United States:
“ (2) Aliens who, at any time, shall be or shall have been members of any of the following classes:
“(C) Aliens who are members of or affiliated with (i) the Communist Party of the United States . . . .” (64 Stat. 1006.)
“Sec. 4. (a) Any alien who was at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time thereafter, ... a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumerated in section 1 (2) of this Act, shall upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported in the manner provided in the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to the classes of aliens mentioned in this Act, irrespective of the time of their entry into the United States.” (64 Stat. 1008.)
He was asked at the deportation hearing to specify the country to which he would prefer to go, if deported from the United States, and he answered: “To my native country, Finland.” Deportees are authorized to designate the country of their first choice by § 20 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended.
There was evidence that after expiration of the period of six months from the issue of the deportation order on April 9, 1952, petitioner obtained a passport to Canada. But this evidence was irrelevant to the issue whether Canada was willing to receive petitioner ' during the period covered by the indictment, 'and, in fact, counsel for the Government objected to this evidence upon the ground that the Canadian passport did not show Canada’s willingness to accept petitioner “within the six months’ period [after April 9, 1952], which is the . . . period that we are concerned with in this indictment.”
This was, in fact, not the date of the deportation order, which was April 9, 1952, but, rather, was the date of the warrant of deportation ordering petitioner deported to Finland.
That summary read as follows: “In this connection you are reminded that [§ 20 (e) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended] . . . declares that any such alien 'who shall willfully fail or refuse to depart from the United States within a period of six months from the date of such order of deportation, ... or shall willfully fail or refuse to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to his departure, or who shall connive or conspire, or take any other action, designed to prevent or hamper or with the purpose of preventing or hampering his departure pursuant to such order of deportation, or who shall willfully fail or refuse to present himself for deportation at the time and place required by the Attorney General pursuant to such order of deportation, shall upon conviction be guilty of a felony. . .
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 146, 65 Stat. 601, 602, 29 U. S. C. § 159 (h), provides that the Board shall make no investigation nor issue any complaint on behalf of a union unless there is on file with the Board a non-Communist oath of each officer of the union and of each officer of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit. Section 9 (h) further provides that “The provisions of section 35 A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable in respect to such affidavits.” Section 35 A of the Criminal Code applies a criminal sanction to false affidavits filed under § 9 (h). The question in this case is whether criminal prosecution under that provision is the exclusive remedy for the filing of a false affidavit under § 9 (h) or whether the Board may take administrative action and, on a finding that a false affidavit has been filed, enter an order of decompliance, withholding from the union in question the benefits of the Act until it is satisfied that the union has complied. The court below held that the criminal sanction was the exclusive remedy for filing the false affidavit. 96 U. S. App. D. C. 416, 226 F. 2d 780. That decision is in conflict with a ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Labor Board v. Lannom Mfg. Co., 226 F. 2d 194. We granted the petitions for certiorari in each case in order to resolve the conflict. 351 U. S. 949; 351 U. S. 905.
The union involved in the present case is the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. The union filed a complaint with the Board charging that the Precision Scientific Co. refused to bargain with it in violation of the Act. During the course of the hearing before the Board, the company challenged the veracity of affidavits filed by one Travis, an officer of the union, under § 9 (h). The Board, in accord with its practice, refused to allow that issue to be litigated in the unfair labor practice proceeding. But later on, it issued an order directing an administrative investigation and hearing. A hearing was held before an examiner who found, among other things, that the § 9 (h) affidavit filed by Travis in August 1949 was false and that the union membership knew it was false and yet continued to re-elect him as an officer., The Board agreed with the trial examiner, held that the union was not and had not been in compliance with § 9 (h) of the Act, and ordered that the union be accorded no further benefits under the Act until it had complied. Maurice E. Travis, 111 N. L. R. B. 422. The Board, thereafter, dismissed the union’s complaint against Precision Scientific Co., an action later vacated pursuant to a stay issued by the court below.
The instant suit was brought in the District Court by the union, which prayed that the Board's order of decom-pliance be enjoined. Precision Scientific Co. intervened. The District Court denied a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals reversed, 96 U. S. App. D. C. 416, 226 F. 2d 780, on the authority of its prior decision in Farmer v. International Fur & Leather Workers Union, 95 U. S. App. D. C. 308, 221 F. 2d 862. It held that a false affidavit filed under § 9 (h) of the Act gave rise only to a criminal penalty against the guilty union officer and did not in any way alter the union’s right to the benefits of the Act, even where its members were aware of the officer’s fraud.
We agree with the court below that the Board has no authority to deprive unions of their compliance status under § 9 (h) and that the only remedy for the filing of a false affidavit is the criminal penalty provided in § 35 A of the Criminal Code. We start with a statutory provision that contains only one express sanction, viz., prosecution for making a false statement. No other sections of the Act expressly supplement that one sanction.
The aim of § 9 (h) is clear. It imposes a criminal penalty for filing a false affidavit so as to deter Communist officers from filing at all. The failure to file stands as a barrier to the making of an investigation by the Board and the issuance of any complaint for the benefit of the union in question. The section, therefore, provides an incentive to the members of the union to rid themselves of Communist leadership and elect officers who can file affidavits in order to receive the benefits of the Act. The filing of the required affidavits by the necessary officers is the key that makes available to the union the benefits of the Act.
The Board is under a duty to determine whether a filing has been made by each person specified in § 9 (h), since its power to act on union charges is conditioned on filing of the necessary affidavits. That was the extent of our rulings in Labor Board v. Highland Park Co., 341 U. S. 322; Labor Board v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 350 U. S. 264. The argument made by the Board would have us go further and read into the Act an implied power to determine not only whether the affidavit has been filed but also whether the affidavit filed is true or false. And for that position reliance is placed on general statements in cases like Labor Board v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 318 U. S. 9, 18-19, that the Board has implied power to protect its process from abuse.
We are dealing here with a special provision that has a precise history. Both the Senate and the House originally passed bills which, though the language differed one from the other, made the test of compliance the fact of nonmembership of union officers in the Communist Party. See 1 Leg. Hist., Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Nat. Labor Rel. Bd., 1948), pp. 190, 251. If those provisions had become the law, the Board would have been required to conduct an inquiry into whether the officers were in fact non-Communist, at least where the veracity of the affiant was challenged. But a fundamental change in § 9 (h) was made by the Conference Committee. As stated in the Conference Report respecting the provisions in the two bills,
“In reconciling the two provisions the conferees took into account the fact that representation proceedings might be indefinitely delayed if the Board was required to investigate the character of all the local and national officers as well as the character of the officers of the parent body or federation. The conference agreement provides that no certification shall be made or any complaint issued unless the labor organization in question submits affidavits executed by each of its officers and officers of its national or international body, to the effect that they are not members or affiliates of the Communist Party or any other proscribed organization. The penal provisions of section 35 (a) of the Criminal Code (U. S. C., title 18, sec. 80) are made applicable to the execution of such affidavits.” 2 Leg. Hist., op. cit., supra, p. 1542.
Senator Taft explained the change to the Senate:
“This provision making the filing of affidavits with respect to Communist Party affiliation by its officers a condition precedent to use of the processes of the Board has been criticized as creating endless delays. It was to prevent such delays that this provision was amended by the conferees. Under both the Senate and House bills the Board’s certification proceedings could have been infinitely delayed while it investigated and determined Communist Party affiliation. Under the amendment an affidavit is sufficient for the Board’s purpose and there is no delay unless an officer of the moving union refuses to file the affidavit required.” Id., at 1625; 93 Cong. Rec. 6860.
This explicit statement by the one most responsible for the 1947 amendments seems to us to put at rest the question raised by this case. If, in spite of the change in wording of § 9 (h) made by the Conference Committee, the Board could still investigate the truth or falsity of the affidavits filed, the unfair labor practice proceedings might be “infinitely delayed,” to use Senator Taft’s words. Under the construction presently urged by the Board, Senator Taft’s assurance that “an affidavit is sufficient for the Board’s purpose” would be disregarded.
Much argument is advanced that the contrary position is favored by policy considerations. For example, it is said that if the Board can look into the truth or falsity of all § 9 (h) affidavits and enter orders of decompliance in case they are found to be false, union members will have greater incentive to rid themselves of Communist leaders. But the rule written into § 9 (h) is for the protection of unions as well as for the detection of Communists. It is not fair to read it only against the background of a case where the members knew their officer was a Communist. We are dealing with a requirement equally applicable to all unions, whether the members are innocent of such knowledge or guilty. As Judge Bazelon stated in Farmer v. United Electrical Workers, 93 U. S. App. D. C. 178, 181, 211 F. 2d 36, 39, there is no indication that Congress meant to impose on a union the drastic penalty of decompliance “because its officer had deceived the union as well as the Board by filing a false affidavit.” The penalty stated in § 9 (h) is one against the guilty officers. In view of the wording of § 9 (h) and its legislative history, we cannot find an additional sanction which in practical effect would run against the members of the union, not their guilty officers. That was the Board’s original position, and we think it is the correct one.
Affirmed.
“No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsection (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10, unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. The provisions of section 35 A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable in respect to such affidavits.”
Section 35 A provides a penalty of $10,000, or a prison term or both, for making, among other things, fraudulent statements “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.” 52 Stat. 197, 18 U. S. C. § 1001.
See In the Matter of Lion Oil Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 565, 566; Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 108 N. L. R. B. 490, 491.
See the colloquy between Senators Ferguson and McClellan in 2 Leg. Hist., Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Nat. Labor Rel. Bd., 1948), pp. 1434-1435.
In the Matter of Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp., 76 N. L. R. B. 842, 843, a proceeding involving an unfair labor practice, the Board refused to entertain evidence that the affidavits filed under § 9 (h) were false, the Board saying: “In the instant case there is on file an affidavit identifying the officers of the Union, and non-Communist affidavits signed by each officer so identified. It is not the purpose of the statute to require the Board to investigate the authenticity or truth of the affidavits which have been filed. Persons desiring to establish falsification or fraud have recourse to the Department of Justice for a prosecution under Section 35 (a) of the Criminal Code. The evidence sought to be adduced under this allegation is accordingly immaterial.” And see In the Matter of Alpert and Alpert, 92 N. L. R. B. 806, 807.
On March 18, 1952, Paul M. Herzog, then Chairman of the Board, testified on § 9 (h) problems in Senate hearings. He reported that in the four years ending June 30, 1951, there had been filed with the Board 232,000 non-Communist affidavits. He reviewed the history of § 9 (h) and remarked how “intolerable and delaying” the administrative process would have been if the proposals originally contained in § 9 (h), and which we have discussed, had been enacted into law:
“. . . Had this provision been enacted into law, the Board would have been inundated with litigation on an issue concerning which proof is singularly difficult to obtain, to the detriment of speedy disposal of cases which cry out for early employee recourse to the ballot box.
“Instead, Congress imposed an obligation on labor union 'officers’— without defining them in the statute — to take the affirmative step of forswearing Communist affiliation. The theory evidently was that if these officers’ refusal to sign affidavits deprived their constituents of all the Board’s facilities, the spotlighting of that refusal would soon generate pressure from below to remove them from office. It was apparent from the outset that the NLRB’s sole function was to make certain that the necessary persons filed these affidavits, and that, once they had done so pursuant to the rules we adopted, we were to process their cases without inquiring into the truth or falsity of the affidavits themselves. Where such an issue arose, the Board’s statutory duty was only to refer the affidavit to the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution for perjury under the Criminal Code. We have made 55 such referrals since 1947.”
Hearings, Senate Subcommittee of Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Communist Domination of Unions and National Security, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 91.
On November 10, 1953, the Board issued a Statement of Policy which overturned its previous position. The Board then concluded that a conviction for filing a false affidavit “would necessarily invalidate any certifications or other official action taken by the Board in reliance on the truth of such affidavits.” The extent of this change in policy was underscored by the Board’s further decision to hold in abeyance representation elections which concerned a union whose officers were under indictment for filing false affidavits. 18 Fed. Reg. 7185.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Sallye Lipscomb French died 20 days after executing a will leaving most of her estate to certain churches in the District of Columbia. Section 18-302 of the D. C. Code (1973) voids religious devises and bequests made within 30 days of death. Prevented by this statutory provision from carrying out the terms of the will, appellee Doyle as executor sought instructions in the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Both that court and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held the statute unconstitutional. The decedent’s heirs and next of kin brought an appeal to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (1), which provides for review by appeal in cases “where is drawn in question the validity of a... statute of the United States and the decision is against its validity.” We postponed consideration of the question of our appellate jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits. 430 U. S. 929. Because we conclude that a law applicable only in the District of Columbia is not a “statute of the United States” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (1), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Before 1970 the judgments of the trial courts of the District of Columbia were appealable to the United States Court of Appeals. Ultimate review in this Court was available under 28 U. S. C. § 1254, which was applicable to all of the 11 Federal Courts of Appeals. A right of appeal to this Court from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit thus existed only where that court had invalidated a state statute. All other cases, including those challenging the validity of local statutes of the District of Columbia, were reviewable here by writ of certiorari.
The District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 substantially modified the structure and jurisdiction of the courts in the District, but there is no indication that Congress intended these changes to enlarge the right of appeal to this Court from the courts of that system. The aim of the Act was to establish “a Federal-State court system in the District of Columbia analogous to court systems in the several States.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-907, p. 35 (1970). The Act provided that cases would no longer have to proceed from the local courts to the United States Court of Appeals, and then to this Court under § 1254. Instead, the judgments of the newly created local Court of Appeals were made directly reviewable here, like the judgments of state courts. Accordingly, § 1257, the jurisdictional provision concerning Supreme Court review of state-court decisions, was amended to include the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as “the highest court of a State.”
In Palmore v. United States, 411 U. S. 389 (1973), we recognized that the analogy between the local courts of the District and the courts of the States was not perfect. Although Congress had expressly classified the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as a state court, it had not indicated that D. C. Code provisions should be treated as state statutes. Thus, where the District of Columbia courts had upheld a local statute against constitutional attack, we concluded that an appeal as of right would not lie to this Court under § 1257 (2), which applies to state-court decisions rejecting constitutional challenges to state statutes. Underlying our decision was the long-established principle that counsels a narrow construction of jurisdictional provisions authorizing appeals as of right to this Court, in the absence of clear congressional intent to enlarge the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction. 411 U. S., at 396.
The legislative history of the 1970 Act is as unenlightening about the applicability of § 1257 (1) as it is about that of § 1257 (2). In the Senate Committee hearings on an early version of the Act, there was one brief reference to § 1257:
“The Chairman [Senator Tydings],... On page 3, section 11-102 there is a provision relating to appeal:
“ ‘The highest court of the District of Columbia is the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. For purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court and other purposes of law, it shall be deemed the highest court of the state.’ [Emphasis added.]
“Now, my question to you is a question raised about that language. Is that sufficiently broad to allow the Supreme Court review by certiorari?
“Mr. Kleindienst. We believe so.
“The Chairman. As well as appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 12750 [sic]? Because the language, you know, leaves out certiorari. Certiorari is an important vehicle to reach the Supreme Court.
“Mr. Kleindienst. We believe the language covers cer-tiorari but it would be easy to clarify.”
Although Senator Tydings seems to have assumed that both the appeal and certiorari provisions of § 1257 would apply to the judgments of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, it is not clear whether he thought the appeal provision of § 1257 (1) or that of § 1257 (2) would govern. And if he had in mind § 1257 (1), he made no reference to possible distinctions between federal statutes of solely local concern and those of broader scope. Nowhere in the legislative history do we find further discussion of this point.
The omission is understandable. The question had not arisen before the 1970 reorganization because § 1257 then applied only to state courts, which seldom if ever confronted federal statutes of wholly local application. Although the courts of the District were accustomed to seeing such federal statutes, the jurisdictional provision that applied to them did not mention “statutes of the United States.” Rather, § 1254 divides cases from the courts of appeals into’ two categories— those invalidating state statutes and all others.
Although the precise question at issue in this case thus seems to have escaped the attention of Congress, it was clear that a general right of appeal from the District of Columbia courts to this Court on questions concerning the validity of local law did not exist at the time of the 1970 reorganization. In the absence of an express provision so ordaining, it cannot be assumed that Congress intended to enlarge this Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction by simply shifting review of District of Columbia court judgments from § 1254 to § 1257.
Indeed, the purposes of the 1970 Act strongly imply the contrary. As we noted in Patmore, Congress intended “to establish an entirely new court system with functions essentially similar to those of the local courts found in the 50 States of the Union with responsibility for trying and deciding those distinctively local controversies that arise under local law, including local criminal laws having little, if any, impact beyond the local jurisdiction.” 411 U. S., at 409.
This Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments under § 1257 is reserved for cases threatening the supremacy of federal law. When state courts invalidate state statutes on federal grounds, uniformity of national law is not threatened and there is no automatic right of appeal to this Court. From the analogy of the local D. C. courts to state courts drawn by Congress in the 1970 Act, it follows that no right of appeal should lie to this Court when a local court of the District invalidates a law of exclusively local application. From such judgments and from similar state-court judgments, there is no appeal to this Court, but only review by writ of certiorari according to the terms of § 1257 (3).
This construction of § 1257 (1) neither enlarges nor reduces this Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction as a result of the 1970 Act. It gives litigants in the courts of the District the same right of review in this Court as is enjoyed by litigants in the courts of the States.
For the reasons expressed in this opinion, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice White, with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Powell join, dissenting.
In Palmore v. United States, 411 U. S. 389 (1973), this Court held that provisions of the District of Columbia Code enacted by the United States Congress were not “state laws” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2) and that a decision of the D. C. Court of Appeals upholding such provisions was reviewable in this Court only on certiorari. Today, this Court holds that an Act of Congress relating exclusively to the District of Columbia is also not a “statute of the United States” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (1). Thus, even where the D. C. Court of Appeals strikes down such a congressional enactment on federal constitutional grounds, there is no right of direct appeal to this Court, review being limited to this Court’s discretionary acceptance of a writ of certiorari. Because I believe that this holding is inconsistent with the prior decisions of this Court and contrary to the congressional scheme determining Supreme Court jurisdiction, I dissent from the majority opinion.
I
In the early years of the judicial system, all cases from the federally created-court in the District of Columbia involving more than a specified jurisdictional amount were appealable to the United States Supreme Court. In 1885, the jurisdictional amount was raised to $5,000, but special provision was made for appeal without regard to the sum in dispute in
“any case... in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exercised under the United States....” Ch. 355, 23 Stat. 443.
Since the enactment of this statute, this Court has consistently held that a constitutional attack upon a congressional enactment relating exclusively to the District of Columbia draws into question a “statute” or “law” of the United States within the meaning of the relevant jurisdictional statute.
This view underlies the opinion in Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210 (1889), in which an absence of jurisdiction was found for another reason. It was made explicit in Parsons v. District of Columbia, 170 U. S. 45 (1898), in which the Court upheld its jurisdiction over a challenge to a congressional scheme for water main assessments in the District of Columbia. “ [W] e think it plainly appears,” the Court stated, “that the validity of statutes of the United States and of an authority exercised under the United States was drawn into question in the court below... Id., at 50. Accord, Smoot v. Heyl, 227 U. S. 518 (1913) (upholding Supreme Court jurisdiction over a challenge to the validity of a District of Columbia party-wall regulation).
In 1911 the Congress abolished this Court’s jurisdiction over appeals from the District of Columbia predicated on jurisdictional amount, but added a provision for appeal in cases in which “the construction of any law of the United States is drawn in question by the defendant.” 36 Stat. 1159. In American Security & Trust Co. v. District of Columbia Comm’rs, 224 U. S. 491 (1912), the Court construed this provision not to include laws pertaining exclusively to the District of Columbia, because the alternative construction would have defeated the congressional purpose “to effect a substantial relief to this court from indiscriminate appeals where a sum above $5,000 was involved.” Id., at 495. Nevertheless, the Court noted that “there is no doubt that the special act of Congress was in one sense a law of the United States” and the Court’s opinion distinguished the statutory provision pertaining to appeals in “Cases involving the constitutionality of any law of the United States.”
In Heald v. District of Columbia, 254 U. S. 20 (1920), the Court squarely held once again that a constitutional attack on a federal statute pertaining exclusively to the District of Columbia drew into question the validity of a “law of the United States” within the meaning of the appeal statute. The Court explicitly rejected the suggestion that American Security & Trust Co. was controlling, since that case itself had recognized a “difference between the two subjects.” 254 U. S., at 22. The Court also noted that the current appeal statute had been intended to “reenact provisions of prior statutes which had been construed as conveying authority to review controversies concerning the constitutional power of Congress to enact local statutes.” Id., at 22-23, citing Parsons v. District of Columbia, supra, and Smoot v. Heyl, supra. Since the Heald decision, this Court has not commented further on the issue raised therein, but commentators have concluded that a “federal statute, for purposes of § 1257 (1), plainly means enactments by the Congress of the United States, including those which are limited in operation to the District of Columbia....” R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice 82 (4th ed. 1969). Accord, Boskey, Appeals from State Courts under the Federal Judicial Code, 30 Va. L. Rev. 57, 59 (1943).
II
It was against this background that Congress enacted the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970. 84 Stat. 473. It established a separate court system for the District of Columbia, headed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Appeals from that court to the United States Supreme Court were to be regulated by 28 U. S. C. § 1257, which was amended to provide:
“For the purposes of this section, the term ‘highest court of a State’ includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.”
The Act also included a provision specifying that for purposes of determining the original jurisdiction of the district courts, “references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress do not include laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.” 28 U. S. C. § 1363, added by § 172 (c)(1) of the Reorganization Act, 84 Stat. 590. No proviso was added to 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (1) to indicate that the reference to “statute of the United States” in that provision was not to include federal laws pertaining to the District of Columbia.
The clear implication of Congress’ action with respect to § 1257 was that statutes relating to the District of Columbia would continue to be viewed, as they had been in the past, as statutes of the United States. Although Congress amended § 1257, characterizing the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as a “state court,” it did not also insert a restrictive provision similar to that limiting the jurisdiction of the district courts with respect to D. C. Code provisions. The legislative history gives no indication that Congress disagreed with the prior decisions of this Court holding that a constitutional attack upon a federal law local in operation would be viewed as a challenge to a “statute” or “law of the United States” within the meaning of the applicable appeal statute. In these circumstances, one can only conclude that the Congress intended that decisions invalidating laws concerning the District of Columbia would receive the same scrutiny from this Court as decisions invalidating other federal laws.
This Court’s decision in Palmore v. United States, 411 U. S. 389 (1973), supports — if indeed it does not require — that conclusion. The Court there held that provisions of the District of Columbia Code enacted by Congress were not “statutes of a state” within the meaning of § 1257 (2) and that D. C. court decisions upholding these laws would be reviewable only on certiorari. The Court reasoned:
“We are entitled to assume that in amending § 1257, Congress legislated with care, and that had Congress intended to equate the District Code and state statutes for the purposes of § 1257, it would have said SO' expressly and not left the matter to mere implication.” 411 U. S., at 395.
The Court suggested that an express provision “ ‘would have been easy,’ ” id., at 395 n. 5, quoting Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 113 (1889), and pointed out several exceptions for the District of Columbia within the Federal Judicial Code, including the provision added by the 1970 Act excluding federal statutes relating to the District of Columbia from the original jurisdiction of the district courts.
This reasoning obviously applies with even greater force to the language of § 1257 (1). Had Congress wished to exclude laws relating to the District of Columbia, it could have used almost precisely the same device as was used with respect to district court jurisdiction. “Jurisdictional statutes are to be construed 'with precision and with fidelity to the terms by which Congress has expressed its wishes.’ ” Palmore v. United States, supra, at 396, quoting Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U. S. 206, 212 (1968).
Read together with Palmore, the effect of this Court’s decision is to put District of Columbia statutes in a unique class: They are neither statutes of a State nor statutes of the United States. Whether the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upholds them or strikes them down, there is no appeal to this Court. If Congress had intended that its enactments relating to the District of Columbia were to be treated as mongrel statutes, distinct from the recognized classifications of the Judicial Code, it would surely have said so.
III
Appellee St. Matthew’s Cathedral recognizes that this Court’s mandatory jurisdiction over appeals of state decisions invalidating federal laws was designed to assure that national legislation would not erroneously be set aside by local courts. Appellee argues that there is no necessity for such review of the decisions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals because “it is an Article I court over which Congress has pie-. nary power.” Brief for Appellee St. Matthew’s Cathedral 11. I have some doubt as to whether that power could or should be used in the manner that appellee appears to contemplate. In any event, Congress, in amending § 1257, has made clear that the District of Columbia Court.of Appeals should be regarded as the “highest court of a State.” Appellee’s argument, which is predicated on the notion that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is a type of federal court, must therefore be rejected.
Nor do I agree that we should view federal legislation relating to the District of Columbia as not sufficiently national in significance to merit mandatory review. We are not free to disregard § 1257 (1). Moreover, the clause giving the Congress power to legislate for the District of Columbia stands beside the other enumerated powers of Congress in Art. I, § 8, of the United States Constitution. “ ‘The object of the grant of exclusive legislation over the district was... national in the highest sense, and the city organized under the grant became the city, not of a state, not of a district, but of a nation.’ ” O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516, 539-540 (1933), quoting Grether v. Wright, 75 F. 742, 756-757 (CA6 1896) (Taft, J.). Though today the District of Columbia has a measure of home rule, the United States retains important interests in the District of Columbia, ranging from extensive federal property to the welfare of hundreds of thousands of federal employees. That the statute involved in this case is narrow in scope should not be permitted to camouflage the Nation's vital interest in the validity of laws governing its Capital.
I can see no reason for denying mandatory jurisdiction of constitutional challenges to D. C. Code provisions other than the general need to lessen the number of cases heard by this Court. While this may be a worthy objective, it should be effectuated by statutory amendment, not strained construction. Jurisdiction is not a handy tool for carving a workload of acceptable size and shape, but a solemn obligation imposed by the Congress and enforceable by every deserving litigant. Because I believe that the Court here shirks that duty, I dissent from the opinion of the Court.
Section 18-302 states:
“A devise or bequest of real or personal property to a minister, priest, rabbi, public teacher, or preacher of the gospel, as such, or to a religious sect, order or denomination, or to or for the support, use, or benefit thereof, or in trust therefor, is not valid unless it is made at least 30 days before the death of the testator.”
This provision originated in the Organic Act of 1801, 2 Stat. 103, ch. 15, § 1. It was amended by Congress as recently as 1965. 79 Stat. 688.
The Superior Court opinion is unpublished. The opinion of the Court of Appeals appears at Estate of French, 365 A. 2d 621 (1976).
Stressing that the statute “is directed only to religious groups and practitioners,” the Superior Court held the statute to be “an invalid infringement of the free exercise of religion provisions of the First Amendment” and “invalid as a denial of due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.”
The D. C. Court of Appeals invalidated the statute only under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The majority concluded “that the classification established by §18-302 [religious legatees versus all others] has no rational relationship to the purpose of the legislation and hence denies religious legatees equal protection of the law.” Id., at 624.
Six States have somewhat similar statutes, although none of them is restricted to religious bequests and devises. Fla. Stat. § 732.803 (1976); Ga. Code § 113-107 (1975); Idaho Code § 15-2-615 (Supp. 1977); Miss. Code Ann. § 91-5-31 (1973); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 91-142 (1964); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2107.06 (1976). As stated above, the D. C. statute’s singular focus on religious beneficiaries is apparently what prompted the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals to declare it unconstitutional. Thus the decisions of the trial and appellate courts in this case do not necessarily raise doubts about the constitutionality of the somewhat similar statutes of the other six jurisdictions.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1257 states:
“Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court as follows:
“(1) By appeal, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States and the decision is against its validity.
“(2) By appeal, where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of any state on the ground of its' being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity.
“(3) By writ of certiorari, where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a State statute is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution, treaties or statutes of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.
“For the purposes of this section, the term 'highest court of a State’ includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.”
The jurisdiction of the local courts substantially overlapped that of the federal courts in the District before 1970. See Palmore v. United States, 411 U. S. 389, 392 n. 2 (1973). Appeals from all these courts were channeled through the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which became the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1934. Ch. 426, 48 Stat. 926.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1254 states:
“Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by the following methods:
“(1) By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree;
“(2) By appeal by a party relying on a State statute held by a court of appeals to be invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, but such appeal shall preclude review by writ of certiorari at the instance of such appellant, and the review on appeal shall be restricted to the Federal questions presented;
“(3) By certification at any time by a court of appeals of any question of law in any civil or criminal case as to which instructions are desired, and upon such certification the Supreme Court may give binding instructions or require the entire record to be sent up for decision of the entire matter in controversy.”
Section 1254 was largely derived from §§ 239 and 240 of the Judiciary Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 938.
Before 1925, there was a right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (predecessor to the United States Court of Appeals) in cases involving the constitutionality of local statutes, but not in cases involving the coristruetion of local statutes. This rule arose from a somewhat strained construction given the jurisdictional statute of 1911, 36 Stat. 1159, § 250. Paragraph three of that section provided for appeals from the District's courts in “cases involving... the constitutionality of any law of the United States....” Paragraph six provided for appeals in “cases in which the construction of any law of the United States is drawn in question by the defendant.” The Court construed the same words- — -“any law of the United States”— differently in the two paragraphs.
In American Security & Trust Co. v. District of Columbia Comm’rs, 224 U. S. 491 (1912), the Court concluded that a congressional Act applicable solely to the District of Columbia was not a “law of the United States” for purposes of paragraph six. Mr. Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court reasoned that “all cases in the District arise under acts of Congress and probably it would require little ingenuity to raise a question of construction in almost any one of them.” By restricting paragraph six to laws of national scope, the Court thought that its jurisdiction would be “confined to what naturally and properly belongs to it.” Id., at 494-495.
In Heald v. District of Columbia, 254 U. S. 20 (1920), the Court construed paragraph three to allow appeals in cases involving the constitutionality of local statutes. This paragraph re-enacted “provisions of prior statutes which had been construed as conveying authority to review controversies concerning the constitutional power of Congress to enact local statutes.” Id., at 22-23. Although it meant interpreting the identical words in the same jurisdictional statute in different ways, the Court held that the prior construction should continue “in the absence of plain implication to the contrary.” Id., at 23.
Or by certification. See 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (3), set out in n. 5, supra. Some cases arising in the District reached this Court by routes other than § 1254. In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969), the Court heard direct appeals from several three-judge District Court decisions, one of them a decision in the District of Columbia holding a D. C. Code provision unconstitutional. After noting that 28 U. S. C. § 2282 (which has since been repealed) required a three-judge court to hear a-challenge to the constitutionality of “any Act of Congress,” the Court without further discussion concluded that it saw “no reason to make an exception for Acts of Congress pertaining to the District of Columbia.” 394 U. S., at 625 n. 4.
In United States v. Vuitch, 402 U. S. 62 (1971), the Court reviewed a District Court judgment holding a criminal provision of the D. C. Code unconstitutional. The United States had taken a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under 18 U. S. C. §3731 (1964 ed.), which had been recently amended, but which was still applicable to that case. Section 3731 allowed direct appeals “in all criminal cases... dismissing any indictment... where such decision... is based upon the invalidity... of the statute upon which the indictment... is founded.” By a margin of 5-4, the Court held that the word “statute” in § 3731 encompassed D. C. Code provisions. Stressing the nationwide confusion surrounding criminal statutes like the one in question, the Court reasoned that the purpose underlying § 3731 “would not be served by our refusing to decide this case now after it has been orally argued.” 402 U. S., at 66. Writing for the four dissenters, Mr. Justice Harlan attributed the Court’s expansive reading of this jurisdictional provision to the fact that it had been amended and would have no effect upon subsequent cases. Id., at 93.
In both these cases, the Court concluded that D. C. Code provisions were federal statutes for purposes of the applicable appellate provisions. However, each jurisdictional provision is to be interpreted in the light of its own antecedents, purposes, and context. See American Security & Trust Co. v. District of Columbia Comm’rs, supra. The special circumstances of these two cases thus render them of little aid in the task of construing § 1257 (1).
84 Stat. 473.
84 Stat. 475, § 111.
84 Stat. 590, § 172. See n. 3, supra.
Hearings on S. 1066, S. 1067, S. 1214, S. 1215, S. 1711, and S. 2601 (Reorganization of the District of Columbia Courts) before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 1159 (1969). The draft of the bill offered by the administration apparently had used the word “appeal” in the broad sense of direct review. The provision was later revised to reflect that intention:
“Final judgments and decrees of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals are reviewable by the Supreme Court of the United States in accordance with section 1257 of title 28, United States Code.” 84 Stat. 475.
Cf. n. 6, supra.
As part of the 1970 Court Reform Act, Congress enacted 28 U. S. C. § 1363, which provides:
“For the purposes of this chapter, references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress do not include laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.”
Chapter 85 of Title 28, to which § 1363 refers, governs the jurisdiction of the United States district courts. The enactment of this section hardly implies that Congress must have intended that references to “laws of the United States” found in all other jurisdictional chapters and sections (including § 1257) would include provisions of the D. C. Code.
Before 1970, the district courts had jurisdiction over some cases arising under D. C. Code provisions. See n. 4, supra. This jurisdiction rested on three jurisdictional provisions of the D. C. Code (§§ 11-521, 11-522, 11-523 (1967)) and on various jurisdictional provisions found in ch. 85, many of which referred to “statutes of the United States” or “Acts of Congress.” The 1970 Act repealed these three jurisdictional provisions of the D. C. Code and also enacted 28 U. S. C. § 1363 as a conforming amendment to assure the removal from the jurisdiction of the District Court for the District of Columbia of those cases arising under D. C. Code provisions. In view of its limited focus, the enactment of § 1363 cannot rationally support the inference that Congress examined other jurisdictional provisions and decided, as to them, that references to “statutes of the United States” should include D. C. Code provisions. Such an inference would be especially tenuous if applied to § 1257, because § 1257 did not previously govern eases questioning the validity of D. C. Code provisions. See supra, at 66. In any event, a clearer indication of congressional intent than this sort of negative implication is required to extend this Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction.
It is more the nature of the D. C. Code than its limited geographical impact that distinguishes it from other federal statutes. Unlike most congressional enactments, the Code is a comprehensive set of laws equivalent to those enacted by state and local governments having plenary power to legislate for the general welfare of their citizens.
Of course, 1257 (1) would be applicable if the District of Columbia Court of Appeals should invalidate a federal law other than a provision of the D. C. Code.
Treating “the papers whereon the appeal was taken... as a petition for writ of certiorari,” 28 U. S. C. § 2103, we deny the petition. See n. 2, supra.
See 2 Stat. 106 (judgments of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia in excess of $100 could be reviewed by appeal or writ of error); ch. 39, 3 Stat. 261 (raising jurisdictional amount to $1,000); 12 Stat. 764 (decisions of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which replaced the Circuit Court, would be reviewable on the same basis).
The Court found that the validity of the Act involved there had not been drawn into question.
Between 1925 and 1970 all cases from local District of Columbia courts were channeled through the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which later became the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See ante, at 61 n. 4. Since that court was clearly a federal court composed of judges tenured under Art. Ill of the Constitution, there was no need for mandatory review of decisions of that court invalidating federal statutes. Hence its decisions were reviewable in this Court on the same basis as the decisions of the other federal courts of appeals. 43 Stat. 938.
As the majority recognizes, see ante, at 63-64, n. 6, this Court has recently ruled in other contexts that D. C. Code provisions are “statutes of the United States,” United States v. Vuitch, 402 U. S. 62 (1971) (criminal appeal statute), and “Acts of Congress,” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969) (three-judge court appeals). While these decisions may not be directly relevant here, they confirm the traditional understanding that— in the absence of contrary congressional command — congressional enactments dealing with the District of Columbia are to be treated like other federal laws.
The majority argues that, as of 1970, no general right of appeal existed from District of Columbia courts to this Court in constitutional challenges to D. C. Code provisions and that "it cannot be assumed that Congress intended to enlarge this Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction by simply shifting review of District of Columbia court judgments from § 1254 to § 1257.” Ante, at 66. This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, as the majority opinion itself concedes, the shift from § 1254 to § 1257 did enlarge this Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction, by including cases arising in the District of Columbia which invalidated federal statutes of national scope. See ante, at 68 n. 14. Second, and more importantly, the shift in review provisions was not a “simple” or technical change, but rather basic
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The United States is subject to a cause of action for the benefit of at least some individuals adversely affected by a federal agency’s violation of the Privacy Act of 1974. The question before us is whether plaintiffs must prove some actual damages to qualify for a minimum statutory award of $1,000. We hold that they must.
HH
Petitioner Buck Doe filed for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 83 Stat. 792, 30 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., with the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, the division of the Department of Labor responsible for adjudicating it. The application form called for a Social Security number, which the agency then used to identify the applicant’s claim, as on documents like “multicaptioned” notices of hearing dates, sent to groups of claimants, their employers, and the lawyers involved in their cases. The Government concedes that following this practice led to disclosing Doe’s Social Security number beyond the limits set by the Privacy Act. See 5 U. S. C. § 552a(b).
Doe joined with six other black lung claimants to sue the Department of Labor, alleging repeated violations of the Act and seeking certification of a class of “ ‘all claimants for Black Lung Benefits since the passage of the Privacy Act.’” Pet. for Cert. 6a. Early on, the United States stipulated to an order prohibiting future publication of applicants’ Social Security numbers on multicaptioned hearing notices, and the parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court denied class certification and entered judgment against all individual plaintiffs except Doe, finding that their submissions had raised no issues of cognizable harm. As to Doe, the court accepted his uncontroverted evidence of distress on learning of the improper disclosure, granted summary judgment, and awarded $1,000 in statutory damages under 5 U. S. C. § 552a(g)(4).
A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part but reversed on Doe’s claim, holding the United States entitled to summary judgment across the board. 306 F. 3d 170 (2002). The Circuit treated the $1,000 statutory minimum as available only to plaintiffs who suffered actual damages because of the agency’s violation, id., at 176-179, and then found that Doe had not raised a triable issue of fact about actual damages, having submitted no corroboration for his claim of emotional distress, such as evidence of physical symptoms, medical treatment, loss of income, or impact on his behavior. In fact, the only indication of emotional affliction was Doe’s conclusory allegations that he was “ ‘torn ... all to pieces’” and “‘greatly concerned and worried’” because of the disclosure of his Social Security number and its potentially “ ‘devastating’ ” consequences. Id., at 181.
Doe petitioned for review of the holding that some actual damages must be proven before a plaintiff may receive the minimum statutory award. See Pet. for Cert. i. Because the Fourth Circuit’s decision requiring proof of actual damages conflicted with the views of other Circuits, see, e. g., Orekoya v. Mooney, 330 F. 3d 1, 7-8 (CA1 2003); Wilborn v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 49 F. 3d 597, 603 (CA9 1995); Waters v. Thornburgh, 888 F. 2d 870,872 (CADC 1989); Johnson v. Department of Treasury, IRS, 700 F. 2d 971, 977, and n. 12 (CA5 1983); Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F. 2d 327, 330-331 (CA11 1982), we granted certiorari. 539 U. S. 957 (2003). We now affirm.
II
[I]n order to protect the privacy of individuals identified in information systems maintained by Federal agencies, it is necessary ... to regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information by such agencies.” Privacy Act of 1974, § 2(a)(5), 88 Stat. 1896. The Act gives agencies detailed instructions for managing their records and provides for various sorts of civil relief to individuals aggrieved by failures on the Government’s part to comply with the requirements.
Subsection (g)(1) recognizes a civil action for agency misconduct fitting within any of four categories (the fourth, in issue here, being a catchall), 5 U. S. C. §§552a(g)(l)(A)-(D), and then makes separate provision for the redress of each. The first two categories cover deficient management of records: subsection (g)(1)(A) provides for the correction of any inaccurate or otherwise improper material in a record, and subsection (g)(1)(B) provides a right of access against any agency refusing to allow an individual to inspect a record kept on him. In each instance, further provisions specify such things as the de novo nature of the suit (as distinct from any form of deferential review), §§552a(g)(2)(A), (g)(3)(A), and mechanisms for exercising judicial equity jurisdiction (by in camera inspection, for example), § 552a(g)(3)(A).
The two remaining categories deal with derelictions having consequences beyond the statutory violations per se.. Subsection (g)(1)(C) describes an agency’s failure to maintain an adequate record on an individual, when the result is a determination “adverse” to that person. Subsection (g)(1)(D) speaks of a violation when someone suffers an “adverse effect” from any other failure to hew to the terms of the Act. Like the inspection and correction infractions, breaches of the statute with adverse consequences are addressed by specific terms governing relief:
“In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection (g)(1)(C) or (D) of this section in which the court determines that the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or willful, the United States shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of—
“(A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000; and
“(B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.” §552a (g)(4).
III
Doe argues that subsection (g)(4)(A) entitles any plaintiff adversely affected by an intentional or willful violation to the $1,000 minimum on proof of nothing more than a statutory violation: anyone suffering an adverse consequence of intentional or willful disclosure is entitled to recovery. The Government claims the minimum guarantee goes only to victims who prove some actual damages. We think the Government has the better side of the argument.
To begin with, the Government’s position is supported by a straightforward textual analysis. When the statute gets to the point of guaranteeing the $1,000 minimum, it not only has confined any eligibility to victims of ádverse effects caused by intentional or willful actions, but has provided expressly for liability to such victims for “actual damages sustained.” It has made specific provision, in other words, for what a victim within the limited class may recover. When the very next clause of the sentence containing the explicit provision guarantees $1,000 to a “person entitled to recovery,” the simplest reading of that phrase looks back to the immediately preceding provision for recovering actual damages, which is also the Act’s sole provision for recovering anything (as distinct from equitable relief). With such an obvious referent for “person entitled to recovery” in the plaintiff who sustains “actual damages,” Doe’s theory is immediately questionable in ignoring the “actual damages” language so directly at hand and instead looking for “a person entitled to recovery” in a separate part of the statute devoid of any mention either of recovery or of what might be recovered.
Nor is it too strong to say that Doe does ignore statutory language. When Doe reads the statute to mean that the United States shall be liable to any adversely affected subject of an intentional or willful violation, without more, he treats willful action as the last fact necessary to make the Government “liable,” and he is thus able to describe anyone to whom it is liable as entitled to the $1,000 guarantee. But this way of reading the statute simply pays no attention to the fact that the statute does not speak of liability (and consequent entitlement to recovery) in a freestanding, unqualified way, but in a limited way, by reference to enumerated damages.
Doe’s manner of reading “entitle[ment] to recovery” as satisfied by adverse effect caused by intentional or willful violation is in tension with more than the text, however. It is at odds with the traditional understanding that tort recovery requires not only wrongful act plus causation reaching to the plaintiff, but proof of some harm for which damages can reasonably be assessed. See, e.g., W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 30 (5th ed. 1984). Doe, instead, identifies a person as entitled to recover without any reference to proof of damages, actual or otherwise. Doe might respond that it makes sense to speak of a privacy tort victim as entitled to recover without reference to damages because analogous common law would not require him to show particular items of injury in order to receive a dollar recovery. Traditionally, the common law has provided such victims with a claim for “general” damages, which for privacy and defamation torts are presumed damages: a monetary award calculated without reference to specific harm.
Such a rejoinder would not pass muster under the Privacy Act, however, because a provision of the Act not previously mentioned indicates beyond serious doubt that general damages are not authorized for a statutory violation. An uncod-ified section of the Act established a Privacy Protection Study Commission, which was charged, among its other jobs, to consider “whether the Federal Government should be liable for general damages incurred by an individual as the result of a willful or intentional violation of the provisions of sections 552a(g)(l)(C) or (D) of title 5.” § 5(c)(2)(B)(iii), 88 Stat. 1907. Congress left the question of general damages, that is, for another day. Because presumed damages are therefore clearly unavailable, we have no business treating just any adversely affected victim of an intentional or willful violation as entitled to recovery, without something more.
This inference from the terms of the Commission’s mandate is underscored by drafting history showing that Congress cut out the very language in the bill that would have authorized any presumed damages. The Senate bill would have authorized an award of “actual and general damages sustained by any person,” with that language followed by the guarantee that “in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000.” S. 3418, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., § 303(c)(1) (1974). Although the provision for general damages would have covered presumed damages, see n. 3, supra, this language was trimmed from the final statute, subject to any later revision that might be recommended by the Commission. The deletion of “general damages” from the bill is fairly seen, then, as a deliberate elimination of any possibility of imputing harm and awarding presumed damages. The deletion thus precludes any hope of a sound interpretation of entitlement to recovery without reference to actual damages.
Finally, Doe’s reading is open to the objection that no purpose is served by conditioning the guarantee on a person’s being entitled to recovery. As Doe treats the text, Congress could have accomplished its object simply by providing that the Government would be liable to the individual for actual damages “but in no case . . . less than the sum of $1,000” plus fees and costs. Doe’s reading leaves the reference to entitlement to recovery with no job to do, and it accordingly accomplishes nothing.
>
There are three loose ends. Doe's argument suggests it would have been illogical for Congress to create a cause of action for anyone who suffers an adverse effect from intentional or willful agency action, then deny recovery without actual damages. But this objection assumes that the language in subsection (g)(1)(D) recognizing a federal “civil action” on the part of someone adversely affected was meant, without more, to provide a complete cause of action, and of course this is not so. A subsequent provision requires proof of intent or willfulness in addition to adverse effect, and if the specific state of mind must be proven additionally, it is equally consistent with logic to require some actual damages as well. Nor does our view deprive the language recognizing a civil action by an adversely affected person of any independent effect, for it may readily be understood as having a limited but specific function: the reference in § 552a(g)(l)(D) to “adverse effect” acts as a term of art identifying a potential plaintiff who satisfies the injury-in-fact and causation requirements of Article III standing, and who may consequently bring a civil action without suffering dismissal for want of standing to sue. See Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U. S. 122, 126 (1995) (“The phrase ‘person adversely affected or aggrieved’ is a term of art used in many statutes to designate those who have standing to challenge or appeal an agency decision, within the agency or before the courts”); see also 5 U. S. C. §702 (providing review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act to individuals who have been “adversely affected or aggrieved”). That is, an individual subjected to an adverse ef-feet has injury enough to open the courthouse door, but without more has no cause of action for damages under the Privacy Act.
Next, Doe also suggests there is something peculiar in offering some guaranteed damages, as a form of presumed damages not requiring proof of amount, only to those plaintiffs who can demonstrate actual damages. But this approach parallels another remedial scheme that the drafters of the Privacy Act would probably have known about. At common law, certain defamation torts were redressed by general damages but only when a plaintiff first proved some “special harm,” i. e., “harm of a material and generally of a pecuniary nature.” 3 Restatement of Torts §575, Comments a and b (1938) (discussing defamation torts that are “not actionable per se”); see also 3 Restatement (Second) of Torts §575, Comments a and b (1976) (same). Plaintiffs claiming such torts could recover presumed damages only if they could demonstrate some actual, quantifiable pecuniary loss. Because the recovery of presumed damages in these cases was supplemental to compensation for specific harm, it was hardly unprecedented for Congress to make a guaranteed minimum contingent upon some showing of actual damages, thereby avoiding giveaways to plaintiffs with nothing more than “abstract injuries,” Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 101-102 (1983).
In a final effort to save his claim, Doe points to a pair of statutes with remedial provisions that are worded similarly to § 552a(g)(4). See Tax Reform Act of 1976, § 1201(i)(2)(A), 90 Stat. 1665-1666, 26 U. S. C. §6110(j)(2)(A); § 1202(e)(1), 90 Stat. 1687, 26 U. S. C. § 7217(c) (1976 ed., Supp. V) (repealed 1982); Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, § 201, 100 Stat. 1866,18 U. S. C. § 2707(c). He contends that legislative history of these subsequent enactments shows that Congress sometimes used language similar to 5 U. S. C. §552a(g)(4) with the object of authorizing true liquidated damages remedies. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 94-938, p. 348 (1976) (discussing § 1202(e)(1) of the Tax Reform Act); S. Rep. No. 99-541, p. 43 (1986) (discussing §201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act). There are two problems with this argument. First, as to § 1201(i)(2)(A) of the Tax Reform Act, the text is too far different from the language of the Privacy Act to serve as any sound basis for analogy; it does not include the critical limiting phrase “entitled to recovery.” But even as to § 1202(e)(1) of the Tax Reform Act and § 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the trouble with Doe’s position is its reliance on the legislative histories of completely separate statutes passed well after the Privacy Act. Those of us who look to legislative history have been wary about expecting to find reliable interpretive help outside the record of the statute being construed, and we have said repeatedly that “ ‘subsequent legislative history will rarely override a reasonable interpretation of a statute that can be gleaned from its language and legislative history prior to its enactment,’” Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159, 170, n. 5 (2001) (quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 118, n. 13 (1980)).
V
The “entitlement] to recovery” necessary to qualify for the $1,000 minimum is not shown merely by an intentional or willful violation of the Act producing some adverse effect. The statute guarantees $1,000 only to plaintiffs who have suffered some actual damages. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Privacy Act says nothing about standards of proof governing equitable relief that may be open to victims of adverse determinations or effects, although it may be that this inattention is explained by the general provisions for equitable relief within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706. Indeed, the District Court relied on the APA in determining that it had jurisdiction to enforce the stipulated order prohibiting the Department of Labor from using Social Security numbers in multiparty captions. Doe v. Herman, Civ. Action No. 97-0G43-B, 1998 WL 34194937, *5-*7 (DC Va., Mar. 18, 1998).
Indeed, if adverse effect of intentional or willful violation were alone enough to make a person entitled to recovery, then Congress could have conditioned the entire subsection (g)(4)(A) as applying only to “a person entitled to recovery.” That, of course, is not what Congress wrote. As we mentioned before, Congress used the entitled-to-recovery phrase only to describe those entitled to the $1,000 guarantee, and it spoke of entitlement and guarantee only after referring to an individual’s actual damages, indicating that “actual damages” is a further touchstone of the entitlement.
3 Restatement of Torts §621, Comment a (1938) (“It is not necessary for the plaintiff [who is seeking general damages in an action for defamation] to prove any specific harm to his reputation or any .other loss caused thereby”); 4 id., § 867, Comment d (1939) (noting that damages are available for privacy torts “in the same way in which general damages are given for defamation,” without proof of “pecuniary loss [or] physical harm”); see also 3 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 621, Comment a (1976).
The Commission ultimately recommended that the Act should “permit the recovery of special and general damages . . . but in no case should a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000 or more than the sum of $10,000 for general damages in excess of the dollar amount of any special damages.” Personal Privacy in an Information Society: The Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission 531 (July 1977).
On this point, we do not understand Justice Ginsburg’s dissent to take issue with our conclusion that Congress explicitly rejected the proposal to make presumed damages available for Privacy Act violations. Instead, Justice Ginsburg appears to argue only that Congress would have wanted nonpecuniary harm to qualify as actual damages undér subsection (g)(4)(A). Post, at 635, n. 4 (plaintiff may recover for emotional distress ‘“that he proves to have been actually suffered by him’” (quoting 3 Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, at 402, Comment b)). That issue, however, is not before us today. See n. 12, infra.
While theoretically there could also have been a third category, that of “nominal damages,” it is implausible that Congress intended tacitly to recognize a nominal damages remedy after eliminating the explicit reference to general damages.
Justice Scalia does not join this paragraph or footnote 8.
Justice Ginsburg responds that our reading is subject to a similar criticism: “Congress more rationally [c]ould have written: ‘actual damages ... but in no case shall a person who proves such damages [in any amount] receive less than $1,000.”’ Post, at 630. Congress’s use of the entitlement phrase actually contained in the statute, however, is explained by drafting history. The first bill passed by the Senate authorized recovery of both actual and general damages. See supra, at 622 and this page. At that point, when discussing eligibility for the $1,000 guarantee, it was reasonable to refer to plaintiffs with either sort of damages by the general term “a person entitled to recovery.” When subsequent amendment limited recovery to actual damages by eliminating the general, no one apparently thought to delete the inclusive reference to entitlement. But this failure to remove the old language did not affect its reference to “actual damages,” the term remaining from the original pair, “actual and general.”
Nor are we convinced by the analysis mentioned in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, that any plaintiff who can demonstrate that he was adversely affected by intentional or willful agency action is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under 5 U. S. C. § 552a(g)(4)(B), and is for that reason “a person entitled to recovery” under subsection (g)(4)(A). See 306 F. 3d 170, 188-189 (CA4 2002). Instead of treating damages as a recovery entitling a plaintiff to costs and fees, see, e. g., 42 U. S. C. § 1988(b) (allowing “a reasonable attorney’s fee” to a “prevailing party” under many federal civil rights statutes); Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247-258 (1975) (discussing history of American courts’ power to award fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs), this analysis would treat costs and fees as the recovery entitling a plaintiff to minimum damages; it would get the cart before the horse.
We also reject the related suggestion that the category of cases with actual damages not exceeding $1,000 is so small as to render the minimum award meaningless under our reading. It is easy enough to imagine pecuniary expenses that might turn out to be reasonable in particular cases but fall well short of $1,000: fees associated with running a credit report, for example, or the charge for a Valium prescription. Since we do not address the definition of actual damages today, see n. 12, infra, this challenge is too speculative to overcome our interpretation of the statute’s plain language and history.
In support of Doe’s position, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent also cites another item of extratextual material, an interpretation of the Privacy Act that was published by the Office of Management and Budget in 1975 as a guideline for federal agencies seeking to comply with the Act. Post, at 633. The dissent does not claim that any deference is due this interpretation, however, and we do not ñnd its unelaborated conclusion persuasive.
The Courts of Appeals are divided on the precise definition of actual damages. Compare Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F. 2d 327, 331 (CA11 1982) (actual damages are restricted to pecuniary loss), with Johnson v. Department of Treasury, IRS, 700 F. 2d 971, 972-974 (CA5 1983) (actual damages can cover adequately demonstrated mental anxiety even without any out-of-pocket loss). That issue is not before us, however, since the petition for certiorari did not raise it for our review. We assume without deciding that the Fourth Circuit was correct to hold that Doe’s complaints in this case did not rise to the level of alleging actual damages. We do not suggest that out-of-pocket expenses are necessary for recovery of the $1,000 minimum; only that they suffice to qualify under any view of actual damages.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | E | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The appellee, Stein, published a bi-weekly newspaper, the Dallas Notes. Stein was charged with two violations of Art. 527, § 1, of the Texas Penal Code, which then prohibited, among other things, the possession of obscene materials. While these two cases were pending in state courts, Stein brought the present action in a federal district court under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983, 1985, representing himself and a class consisting of present and future employees of and contributors to his newspaper. The defendants were the district attorney of Dallas County, and the Dallas chief of police. He sought:
“[PJermanent injunctive relief against the Dallas Police Department, requiring that , . . there be no arrest of plaintiff, nor seizure of his property on grounds of obscenity without a prior judicial determination of the obscene character of the material in question; . . .
“. . . That the Court adjudge, decree and declare the rights of the parties with respect to the application of Article 527 of the Texas Penal Code;
. . That the Court grant such other and further relief as is just and equitable.”
A three-judge court was convened. 28 U. S. C. § 2284. That court refused to require a hearing on the obscene character of the material before its seizure and the arrest of the plaintiff. It held that the request for such relief was “based on the alleged harassment and . . . not an attack upon the constitutionality of a statute.” The court went on to emphasize that its consideration did “not in any way involve an appraisal of the constitutionality of the application of Article 527 to Plaintiff. Our sole concern is the determination of whether the statute is constitutionally defective on its face.” The three-judge court then turned to the statute itself, and held that §§ 1 and 2 were unconstitutional, and that § 3 would be constitutional only if the definition of obscenity were changed somewhat. The court issued appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief effectuating its conclusions. 300 F. Supp. 602 (1969). Texas officials appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 396 U. S. 954 (1969).
Today we have again stressed the rule that federal intervention affecting pending state criminal prosecutions, either by injunction or by declaratory judgment, is proper only where irreparable injury is threatened. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943). The existence of such injury is a matter to be determined carefully under the facts of each case. In this case the District Court made no findings of any irreparable injury as defined by our decisions today; therefore, the judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37, and Samuels v. Mackell, ante, p. 66. See also Boyle v. Landry, ante, p. 77.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice White concurs in the result.
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, see ante, p. 54.]
Texas Penal Code, Art. 527, 1961 Tex. Gen. Laws, c. 461, § 1, provided:
“Section 1. Whoever shall knowingly photograph, act in, pose for, model for, print, sell, offer for sale, give away, exhibit, televise, publish, or offer to publish, or have in his possession or under his control, or otherwise distribute, make, display, or exhibit any obscene book, magazine, story, pamphlet, paper, writing, card, advertisement, circular, print, pictures, photograph, motion picture film, image, cast, slide, figure, instrument, statue, drawing, phonograph record, mechanical recording, or presentation, or other article which is obscene, shall be fined not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) nor imprisoned more than one (1) year in the county jail or both.
“Sec. 2. Whoever shall knowingly offer for sale, sell, give away, exhibit, televise, or otherwise distribute, make, display, or exhibit any obscene book, magazine, story, pamphlet, paper, writing, card, advertisement, circular, print, pictures, photograph, motion picture film, image, cast, slide, figure, instrument, statue, drawing, phonograph record, mechanical recording, or presentation, or other article which is obscene, to a minor shall be fined not more than Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) nor imprisoned in the county jail more than two (2) years or both.
“Sec. 3. For purposes of this article the word ‘obscene’ is defined as whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests. Provided) further, for the purpose of this article, the term ‘contemporary community standards’ shall in no case involve a territory or geographic area less than the State of Texas.
“Sec. 4. Whoever shall be convicted for the second time of a violation of this article shall be deemed guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the State penitentiary for not more than five (5) years or by a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) or by both such fine and imprisonment.
“Sec. 5. It shall be a defense to any charges brought hereunder if such prohibited matter or act shall be regularly in use in any bona fide, religious, educational or scientific institution or the subject of a bona fide scientific investigation.
“The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any motion pictures produced or manufactured as commercial motion pictures which (1) have the seal under the Production Code of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.; or (2) legally move in interstate commerce under Federal Law; or (3) are legally imported from foreign countries into the United States and have been passed by a Customs Office of the United States Government at any port of entry.
“The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any daily or weekly newspaper.
“Sec. 6. The district courts of this State and the judges thereof shall have full power, authority, and jurisdiction, upon application by any district or county attorney within their respective jurisdictions, to issue any and all proper restraining orders, temporary and permanent injunctions, and any other writs and processes appropriate to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Act.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC or “piggyback”) service, a form of mixed train and truck transportation, enables a carrier to transport a trailer and its contents over rail on a flatcar and then to haul the trailer on the highway. The goods need not be unloaded and reloaded when they move from the rail mode to the truck mode; the shipment remains within the trailer or container during the entire journey. Various forms of TOFC and container-on-flatcar (COFC) service have been offered to the public by railroads, motor carriers, and freight forwarders since the 1930’s. These cases concern the extent of the State of Texas’ jurisdiction over what is known as “Plan II TOFC/COFC service,” which has long been defined as follows:
“Plan II (All-Rail):
“Door-to-door service performed by the railroad, which moves its own trailers or containers on flatcars under open tariffs usually similar to those of truckers.” See American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 397, 403 (1967).
The ICC’s statutory authority includes jurisdiction to grant exemptions from regulation as well as to regulate. In 1980, Congress enacted the Staggers Rail Act, 94 Stat. 1895, 49 U. S. C. §10101 et seq., which authorizes the ICC to exempt from state regulation “transportation that is provided by a rail carrier as a part of a continuous intermodal movement.” See § 10505(f). It is undisputed that the ICC may grant an exemption from regulation to interstate TOFC/ COFC transportation provided by a rail carrier. The question presented is whether the grant of authority to the ICC under § 10505(f) encompasses the motor freight portion of a Plan II TOFC/COFC shipment entirely within the State of Texas.
HH
In 1981, the Commission adopted a regulation exempting Plan II service from state regulation. The regulation unambiguously covers both the motor portion and the rail portion of Plan II service. In a separate case involving interstate Plan II shipments, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the regulation, specifically rejecting an argument that, the Commission had no authority to exempt the motor portion of the intermodal service. It held that “rail-owned truck TOFC/COFC service is ‘transportation that is provided by a rail carrier.’” American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. ICC, 656 F. 2d 1115, 1120 (1981).
On September 27, 1982, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Railroads) petitioned the Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) to apply the ICC’s exemption to their Texas intrastate TOFC/COFC traffic. App. 7-10. The RCT took the position that it retained the authority to regulate the motor carrier segment of intrastate transportation provided by an interstate rail carrier. The Staggers Rail Act provides that a state commission may regulate intrastate transportation provided by a rail carrier, but only to the extent that it conforms with the federal Act and only if the ICC determines that the State’s proposed regulatory standards and procedures are consistent with federal standards and procedures. The RCT granted a partial exemption which covered the rail but not the pre-rail and post-ex-rail truck service portions of the intrastate TOFC/COFC service. Id., at 11-12.
The Railroads petitioned the ICC under 49 U. S. C. § 11501(c) to review the RCT’s decision and to grant the full TOFC/COFC exemption. The ICC held that the State Commission’s assertion of regulatory jurisdiction over “incidental pre-rail and ex-rail over-the-road movements” of Plan II TOFC/COFC service was inconsistent with the federal standards contained in its 1981 regulation. The State of Texas sought review of the ICC’s order in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Railroads intervened as respondents. That court reversed, holding that the truck portion of the intrastate movements at issue was not “transportation . . . provided by a rail carrier” within the meaning of § 10505(f) but rather was “transportation provided by a motor carrier” within the meaning of § 10521(b)(1). Texas v. United States, 770 F. 2d 452 (1985). The Court of Appeals distinguished American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. ICC, supra, as limited to TOFC/COFC shipments that at some point in their journey crossed a state boundary. When the service is purely intrastate, the Court of Appeals held, the motor portions of TOFC/ COFC service by railroad-owned trucks constitute transportation provided by a motor carrier under § 10521(b)(1) and for that reason are expressly reserved for state regulation. We granted the petitions for certiorari of the ICC and the Railroads, 476 U. S. 1157 (1986). We are persuaded that the Court of Appeals erred.
II
It is undisputed that the Commission’s power to grant these exemptions from state regulation is coextensive with its own authority to regulate, or not to regulate, these inter-modal movements by rail carriers. We therefore focus our review on the extent of the Commission’s jurisdiction over the trucking segment of intrastate TOFC/COFC activities. Since all of the railroads interested in this proceeding are engaged in interstate commerce, the Commission has authority over the intrastate transportation, as well as the interstate transportation, provided by such carriers. All of the elements of the Plan II TOFC/COFC service at issue are provided on equipment owned and operated by a rail carrier over which the ICC has jurisdiction. Thus, the plain language of § 10505(f) unambiguously supports the ICC’s position.
It is true, of course, that the text of § 10521(b)(1) can be read to support the contrary result because it is possible to regard the rail carrier as a “motor carrier” during the truck portion of the intermodal movement. We believe, however, that the correct, and certainly the more natural, reading of the statute is that all of the TOFC/COFC service provided by interstate rail carriers on equipment which they own is “transportation provided by a rail carrier” subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC.
The position urged by respondents encounters three serious difficulties. First, it is inconsistent with the agency’s historical treatment of Plan II TOFC/COFC service as “provided by a railroad.” In Ex parte 230, Substituted Service-Charges and Practices of For-Hire Carriers and Freight Forwarders (Piggyback Service), 322 I. C. C. 301, 304-305, 309-312 (1964), the Commission stated:
“Under plan II, the railroad holds out to provide a complete door-to-door service under a single bill of lading. Neither the shipper nor the consignee intervenes in any way in the overall transportation activities or does anything beyond tendering the shipment to the railroad at origin or at the shipper’s loading dock.” Id., at 311.
The Commission .recognized that the distinctive element of Plan II service was not the use of trailers or containers to offer door-to-door pickup and delivery service via rail and highway, but rather the identity of the carrier offering this service:
“[A]ll three — rail carrier, motor carrier, and freight forwarder — are even today providing, through the use of piggyback, services which in physical characteristics are substantially similar. Any one of the three can offer a transportation service which includes door-to-door pickup and delivery, movement of loaded trailers between a shipper’s premises and a rail yard, and line-haul transportation of the loaded trailers by rail. The railroad does this under its plan II TOFC tariff; the trucker does it under plan I, in which it is encouraged by the railroads . . . and the freight forwarder does it through use of plans III and IV rail tariffs.” Id., at 330.
In none of the plans was a rail carrier treated either as a hybrid, or as a motor carrier, during the truck segment of the intermodal movement. Presumably, in enacting § 10505, Congress was aware of the Commission’s consistent practice of regulating railroads as “rail carriers” even when they performed Plan II intermodal service.
Second, the State’s interpretation of § 10521(b)(1) would make that section authorize state regulation of TOFC/COFC services in areas where it has already been rejected. The term “intrastate transportation provided by a motor carrier” must refer either to the intrastate motor portion of any TOFC/COFC movement or to the entire intrastate movement when a portion of it is performed by truck service. If the term refers only to the motor portion, the State’s reading of the statute would preserve the State’s power to regulate the intrastate motor portion of an interstate Plan II TOFC/ COFC shipment. But Texas acknowledges that it has no such power. Alternatively, if the term refers to every intrastate shipment that includes a motor segment, the railroad must be regarded as a “motor carrier” even during the rail portion of the intermodal movement, and the RCT would retain the power to regulate the entire intrastate movement. Again, Texas does not claim that authority. We think it clear that the only way to square the words of the statute with those aspects of the ICC’s jurisdiction that the State does accept is to hold that the ICC’s authority over intrastate transportation provided by an interstate rail carrier encompasses the entire movement, even when it includes a truck segment under Plan II.
Third, the special statutory authority of the Commission to determine the proper interrelationship of different modes of transportation supports its interpretation of the Staggers Rail Act. The statute was a response to the concern that differing state and federal standards applying to the industry and excessive governmental regulation by both federal and state authorities had contributed to the financial difficulties of major railroads. In its statement of rail transportation policy, Congress unambiguously expressed its interest in allowing free competition, to the maximum extent possible, to govern the financial health of the railroad industry. The importance of that policy is confirmed by the fact that the statement of general transportation policy applicable to' all types of carriers, which generally prescribes the impartial regulation of all competing modes of transportation, is introduced by an exception providing that the special policy statement endorsing competition in railroad transportation shall prevail when transportation policy has an impact on rail carriers. Even if the question of the extent to which § 10521(b)(1) restricts the Commission’s power under § 10505 in these cases were in doubt, the statutory statement of policy priorities would lead us to agree with the ICC’s view that the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of competition, rather than partial state regulation of Plan II TOFC/COFC service.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The petitions for certiorari include both TOFC and COFC service. Pet. for Cert. in No. 85-1222, p. I; Pet. for Cert. in No. 85-1267, p. i. A container, unlike a trailer, cannot itself be hauled on the highway by a tractor rig; it must first be placed on a suitable truck trailer. For the purposes of this opinion, however, there are no relevant differences between TOFC and COFC service.
“TOFC service is inherently bimodal in that its basic characteristic is the combination of the inherent advantages of rail and motor transportation: the railroad’s ability to provide efficient line-haul transportation of huge volumes of freight for great distances at high speed; and the motor carrier’s ability to provide door-to-door, and if necessary job- or farm-site, pickup and delivery.” Ex parte No. 230, Substituted Service-Charges and Practices of For-Hire Carriers and Freight Forwarders (Piggyback Service), 322 I. C. C. 301, 329 (1964).
See generally id., at 305-309 (describing growth of TOFC service).
See 49 CFR § 1039.13 (1986). See also Improvement of TOFC/COFC Regulation, 364 I. C. C. 731, aff’d, American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. ICC, 656 F. 2d 1115 (CA5 1981).
The exemption encompasses “[r]ailroad and truck transportation provided by a rail carrier as part of a continuous intermodal movement.” 49 CFR § 1039.13 (1986) (emphasis added). In some plans, the motor portion of an intermodal movement is performed by a trucking company, freight forwarder, or shipper. See American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 397, 403 (1967). In such plans, the exemption applies only to the rail portion of the intermodal service.
See 49 U. S. C. § 11501. At the time it issued the decision at issue in this case, the Railroad Commission of Texas had provisional certification to regulate intrastate transportation provided by a rail carrier. The Commission no longer has this statutory authority to regulate intrastate rail rates, classification, rules, and practices of interstate carriers because it was denied certification by the ICC in Ex parte No. 388 (Sub-No. 31), State Intrastate Rail Rate Authority — Texas, 11. C. C. 2d 26 (1984), aff’d, Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. United States, 246 U. S. App. D. C. 352, 765 F. 2d 221 (1985).
See ICC No. 39627, Petition Under 49 U. S. C. 11501(c) by Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, et al., for Review of an Order of the Railroad Commission of Texas, decided Jan. 19, 1984 (Service Date Jan. 23,1984); ICC, No. 39704, Petition of Road-Rail Transportation Company, Inc., Under 49 U. S. C. 11501(c) for Review of an Order of the Railroad Commission of Texas, decided Apr. 11, 1984 (Service Date Apr. 13, 1984).
Section 10505(f) provides:
“The Commission may exercise its authority under this section to exempt transportation that is provided by a rail carrier as a part of a continuous intermodal movement.”
Section 10521(b)(1) provides:
“(b) This subtitle does not—
“(1) except as provided in sections 10922(c)(2), 10935, and 11501(e) of this title, affect the power of a State to regulate intrastate transportation provided by a motor carrier.”
Sections 10922, 10935, and 11501(e) are not relevant to the issue.
The ICC found that the Railroad Commission of Texas’ refusal to apply the entire TOFC/COFC exemption violated federal standards and procedures binding upon the State Commission, and authorized the Railroads “to establish any rate, classification, rule, or practice pertaining to intrastate rail or motor transportation provided by a rail carrier as part of a continuous intermodal movement within the State of Texas, to the same extent and in the same manner that they establish rates, classifications, rules, or practices for similar interstate movements.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 85-1222, pp. 21a-22a. The Court of Appeals stated:
“The thrust of the argument of the State of Texas is that the I. C. C. lacks jurisdiction over the trucking segment of the totally intrastate TOFC activities of the intrastate [sic] rail carriers. Without this jurisdiction, Texas maintains, the I. C. C. could not exempt the intrastate highway transportation from state regulation. We are constrained to agree.” Texas v. United States, 770 F. 2d 452, 453 (CA5 1985) (emphasis added).
This quotation reveals an incompleteness in the Court of Appeals’ reasoning. If the rail carriers were “intrastate rail carriers,” the ICC would not have had jurisdiction over either the rail or the motor portion of their intrastate movements. But this conclusion does not necessarily extend to the rail and motor portions of intrastate movements by all other rail carriers, specifically those that operate across state boundaries. In fact, the Railroads in this proceeding are all interstate rail carriers, and the ICC has consistently exercised jurisdiction over their intrastate, as well as their interstate, movements. See n. 14, infra. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals did not err in its underlying conclusion that the ICC’s authority to grant an exemption from federal regulation coincides with its authority to grant an exemption from state regulation. In its argument in this case, the State of Texas also recognizes that the scope of the ICC’s authority over exemptions from state regulation is coextensive with its own jurisdiction either to impose federal regulation or to grant an exemption from federal regulation. Thus, although this case involves the ICC’s effort to grant exemptions from regulation, the same legal question would be presented if the ICC were trying to regulate the rates for an interstate rail carrier’s intrastate movements, and the carrier asserted that only the state commission had such power.
See 49 U. S. C. §§ 10501 and 11501. The Commission does not assert jurisdiction over wholly intrastate carriers; nor does it assert the authority to exempt such carriers from state regulation.
See n. 7, supra.
Our holding that the ICC’s jurisdiction under § 10505(f) includes the intrastate portions of Plan II TOFC/COFC service applies whether or not a State has been certified under 49 U. S. C. § 11501. Because the Railroad Commission of Texas is not now certified to regulate railroads, the statute independently places the truck portion of intra-Texas TOFC/COFC service within the jurisdiction of the ICC:
“Any intrastate transportation provided by a rail carrier in a State which may not exercise jurisdiction over an intrastate rate, classification, rule, or practice of that carrier due to a denial of certification under this subsection shall be deemed to be transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under [§ 10501 et seq.V’ 49 U. S. C. § 11501(b)(4)(B).
And of course the Fifth Circuit so held in American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. ICC, 656 F. 2d 1115 (1981). The reason why Texas does not have that power is that the statute plainly authorized the ICC either to regulate, or to exempt from regulation, such continuous interstate movements. We think it clear that the ICC’s authority over intrastate rail transportation by an interstate rail carrier encompasses the entire movement, even when it includes a truck segment. This conclusion was at least implicit in the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. ICC, supra, at 1120:
“[R]ail-owned truck TOFC/COFC service is ‘transportation that is provided by a rail carrier.’ Had Congress intended to limit the Commission’s exemption authority to rail transportation, it could easily have done so by using that language. Instead, it chose the broad ‘transportation-that-is-provided-by-a-rail-earrier’ language and presumably did so with knowledge that it previously had defined ‘transportation’ to include the movement of passengers or property by motor vehicle.” (Citations omitted; footnotes omitted.)
The Court of Appeals based its conclusion that “transportation provided by a rail carrier” should be defined more narrowly for intrastate traffic than for interstate commerce on the “potential mischief” of exempting intrastate rail travel from regulation. The Court of Appeals focused on the hypothetical example of a small intrastate rail carrier that provides minimal rail service within a city and extensive truck service to convey goods to and from the city, and is exempt from state regulation. See 770 F. 2d, at 454-455. This scenario could only occur, however, if the ICC had authority to exempt such transportation from regulation. But because the hypothetical railroad is only an intrastate carrier, the ICC would not have any jurisdiction over it, and the speculative potential for mischief would not exist. In this case, by contrast, the Railroads are interstate carriers whose TOFC/COFC services include some segments entirely within Texas. See Guide to Piggyback Routes, Distribution 190, 196 (July 1982) (route diagrams for TOFC/COFC service). See also n. 9, supra.
“[W]e cannot accept arguments based upon arguable inference from nonspecific statutory language, limiting the Commission’s power to adopt rules which, essentially, reflect its judgment in light of current facts as to the proper interrelationship of several modes of transportation with respect to an important new development.” American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S., at 410. The reading of the Act proposed by respondents impermissibly limits the ICC’s power to implement national transportation policy in the evolving area of intermodal transportation.
See H. R. Rep. No. 96-1035, pp. 38, 61, 128-130 (1980); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-1430, p. 79 (1980).
Section 10101a “establishes a specific rail transportation policy to guide the Commission in its duties in regulation of the railroad industry.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-1430, supra, at 80. Section 10101a provides, in part:
“10101a. Rail transportation policy
“In regulating the railroad industry, it is the policy of the United States Government—
“(1) to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish reasonable rates for transportation by rail;
“(4) to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system with effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes, to meet the needs of the public and the national defense;
“(5) to foster sound economic conditions in transportation and to ensure effective competition and coordination between rail carriers and other modes;
“(7) to reduce regulatory barriers to entry into and exit from the industry.”
Section 10101 provides in part:
“(a) Except where policy has an impact on rail carriers, in which case the principles of section 10101a of this title shall govern, to ensure the development, coordination, and preservation of a transportation system that meets the transportation needs of the United States, including the United States Postal Service and national defense, it is the policy of the United States Government to provide for the impartial regulation of the modes of transportation . . .
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The jury is a central foundation of our justice system and our democracy. Whatever its imperfections in a particular case, the jury is a necessary check on governmental power. The jury, over the centuries, has been an inspired, trusted, and effective instrument for resolving factual disputes and determining ultimate questions of guilt or innocence in criminal cases. Over the long course its judgments find acceptance in the community, an acceptance essential to respect for the rule of law. The jury is a tangible implementation of the principle that the law comes from the people.
In the era of our Nation's founding, the right to a jury trial already had existed and evolved for centuries, through and alongside the common law. The jury was considered a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty. See The Federalist No. 83, p. 451 (B. Warner ed. 1818) (A. Hamilton). The right to a jury trial in criminal cases was part of the Constitution as first drawn, and it was restated in the Sixth Amendment. Art. III, § 2, cl. 3 ; Amdt. 6.
By operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is applicable to the States. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149-150, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968).
Like all human institutions, the jury system has its flaws, yet experience shows that fair and impartial verdicts can be reached if the jury follows the court's instructions and undertakes deliberations that are honest, candid, robust, and based on common sense. A general rule has evolved to give substantial protection to verdict finality and to assure jurors that, once their verdict has been entered, it will not later be called into question based on the comments or conclusions they expressed during deliberations. This principle, itself centuries old, is often referred to as the no-impeachment rule. The instant case presents the question whether there is an exception to the no-impeachment rule when, after the jury is discharged, a juror comes forward with compelling evidence that another juror made clear and explicit statements indicating that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in his or her vote to convict.
I
State prosecutors in Colorado brought criminal charges against petitioner, Miguel Angel Peña-Rodriguez, based on the following allegations. In 2007, in the bathroom of a Colorado horse-racing facility, a man sexually assaulted two teenage sisters. The girls told their father and identified the man as an employee of the racetrack. The police located and arrested petitioner. Each girl separately identified petitioner as the man who had assaulted her.
The State charged petitioner with harassment, unlawful sexual contact, and attempted sexual assault on a child. Before the jury was empaneled, members of the venire were repeatedly asked whether they believed that they could be fair and impartial in the case. A written questionnaire asked if there was "anything about you that you feel would make it difficult for you to be a fair juror." App. 14. The court repeated the question to the panel of prospective jurors and encouraged jurors to speak in private with the court if they had any concerns about their impartiality. Defense counsel likewise asked whether anyone felt that "this is simply not a good case" for them to be a fair juror. Id., at 34. None of the empaneled jurors expressed any reservations based on racial or any other bias. And none asked to speak with the trial judge.
After a 3-day trial, the jury found petitioner guilty of unlawful sexual contact and harassment, but it failed to reach a verdict on the attempted sexual assault charge. When the jury was discharged, the court gave them this instruction, as mandated by Colorado law:
"The question may arise whether you may now discuss this case with the lawyers, defendant, or other persons. For your guidance the court instructs you that whether you talk to anyone is entirely your own decision.... If any person persists in discussing the case over your objection, or becomes critical of your service either before or after any discussion has begun, please report it to me." Id., at 85-86.
Following the discharge of the jury, petitioner's counsel entered the jury room to discuss the trial with the jurors. As the room was emptying, two jurors remained to speak with counsel in private. They stated that, during deliberations, another juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward petitioner and petitioner's alibi witness. Petitioner's counsel reported this to the court and, with the court's supervision, obtained sworn affidavits from the two jurors.
The affidavits by the two jurors described a number of biased statements made by another juror, identified as Juror H.C. According to the two jurors, H.C. told the other jurors that he "believed the defendant was guilty because, in [H.C.'s] experience as an ex-law enforcement officer, Mexican men had a bravado that caused them to believe they could do whatever they wanted with women." Id., at 110. The jurors reported that H.C. stated his belief that Mexican men are physically controlling of women because of their sense of entitlement, and further stated, " 'I think he did it because he's Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.' " Id., at 109. According to the jurors, H.C. further explained that, in his experience, "nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls." Id., at 110. Finally, the jurors recounted that Juror H.C. said that he did not find petitioner's alibi witness credible because, among other things, the witness was " 'an illegal.' " Ibid. (In fact, the witness testified during trial that he was a legal resident of the United States.)
After reviewing the affidavits, the trial court acknowledged H.C.'s apparent bias. But the court denied petitioner's motion for a new trial, noting that "[t]he actual deliberations that occur among the jurors are protected from inquiry under [Colorado Rule of Evidence] 606(b)." Id., at 90. Like its federal counterpart, Colorado's Rule 606(b) generally prohibits a juror from testifying as to any statement made during deliberations in a proceeding inquiring into the validity of the verdict. See Fed. Rule Evid. 606(b). The Colorado Rule reads as follows:
"(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith. But a juror may testify about (1) whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jurors' attention, (2) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or (3) whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict form. A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror may not be received on a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying." Colo. Rule Evid. 606(b) (2016).
The verdict deemed final, petitioner was sentenced to two years' probation and was required to register as a sex offender. A divided panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction, agreeing that H.C.'s alleged statements did not fall within an exception to Rule 606(b) and so were inadmissible to undermine the validity of the verdict. - -- P.3d ----, 2012 WL 5457362.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 4 to 3. 350 P.3d 287 (2015). The prevailing opinion relied on two decisions of this Court rejecting constitutional challenges to the federal no-impeachment rule as applied to evidence of juror misconduct or bias. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987) ; Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 521, 190 L.Ed.2d 422 (2014). After reviewing those precedents, the court could find no "dividing line between different types of juror bias or misconduct," and thus no basis for permitting impeachment of the verdicts in petitioner's trial, notwithstanding H.C.'s apparent racial bias. 350 P.3d, at 293. This Court granted certiorari to decide whether there is a constitutional exception to the no-impeachment rule for instances of racial bias. 578 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1513, 194 L.Ed.2d 602 (2016).
Juror H.C.'s bias was based on petitioner's Hispanic identity, which the Court in prior cases has referred to as ethnicity, and that may be an instructive term here. See, e.g., Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 355, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (plurality opinion). Yet we have also used the language of race when discussing the relevant constitutional principles in cases involving Hispanic persons. See, e.g.,ibid. ; Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2411, 186 L.Ed.2d 474 (2013) ; Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 189-190, 101 S.Ct. 1629, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981) (plurality opinion). Petitioner and respondent both refer to race, or to race and ethnicity, in this more expansive sense in their briefs to the Court. This opinion refers to the nature of the bias as racial in keeping with the primary terminology employed by the parties and used in our precedents.
II
A
At common law jurors were forbidden to impeach their verdict, either by affidavit or live testimony. This rule originated in Vaise v. Delaval, 1 T.R. 11, 99 Eng. Rep. 944 (K.B. 1785). There, Lord Mansfield excluded juror testimony that the jury had decided the case through a game of chance. The Mansfield rule, as it came to be known, prohibited jurors, after the verdict was entered, from testifying either about their subjective mental processes or about objective events that occurred during deliberations.
American courts adopted the Mansfield rule as a matter of common law, though not in every detail. Some jurisdictions adopted a different, more flexible version of the no-impeachment bar known as the "Iowa rule." Under that rule, jurors were prevented only from testifying about their own subjective beliefs, thoughts, or motives during deliberations. See Wright v. Illinois & Miss. Tel. Co., 20 Iowa 195 (1866). Jurors could, however, testify about objective facts and events occurring during deliberations, in part because other jurors could corroborate that testimony.
An alternative approach, later referred to as the federal approach, stayed closer to the original Mansfield rule. See Warger, supra, at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 526. Under this version of the rule, the no-impeachment bar permitted an exception only for testimony about events extraneous to the deliberative process, such as reliance on outside evidence-newspapers, dictionaries, and the like-or personal investigation of the facts.
This Court's early decisions did not establish a clear preference for a particular version of the no-impeachment rule. In United States v. Reid, 12 How. 361, 13 L.Ed. 1023 (1852), the Court appeared open to the admission of juror testimony that the jurors had consulted newspapers during deliberations, but in the end it barred the evidence because the newspapers "had not the slightest influence" on the verdict. Id., at 366. The Reid Court warned that juror testimony "ought always to be received with great caution." Ibid. Yet it added an important admonition: "cases might arise in which it would be impossible to refuse" juror testimony "without violating the plainest principles of justice." Ibid.
In a following case the Court required the admission of juror affidavits stating that the jury consulted information that was not in evidence, including a prejudicial newspaper article. Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 151, 13 S.Ct. 50, 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892). The Court suggested, furthermore, that the admission of juror testimony might be governed by a more flexible rule, one permitting jury testimony even where it did not involve consultation of prejudicial extraneous information. Id., at 148-149, 13 S.Ct. 50 ; see also Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 382-384, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114 (1912) (stating that the more flexible Iowa rule "should apply," but excluding evidence that the jury reached the verdict by trading certain defendants' acquittals for others' convictions).
Later, however, the Court rejected the more lenient Iowa rule. In McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 35 S.Ct. 783, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915), the Court affirmed the exclusion of juror testimony about objective events in the jury room. There, the jury allegedly had calculated a damages award by averaging the numerical submissions of each member. Id., at 265-266, 35 S.Ct. 783. As the Court explained, admitting that evidence would have "dangerous consequences": "no verdict would be safe" and the practice would "open the door to the most pernicious arts and tampering with jurors." Id., at 268, 35 S.Ct. 783 (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet the Court reiterated its admonition from Reid, again cautioning that the no-impeachment rule might recognize exceptions "in the gravest and most important cases" where exclusion of juror affidavits might well violate "the plainest principles of justice." 238 U.S., at 269, 35 S.Ct. 783 (quoting Reid, supra, at 366; internal quotation marks omitted).
The common-law development of the no-impeachment rule reached a milestone in 1975, when Congress adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rule 606(b). Congress, like the McDonald Court, rejected the Iowa rule. Instead it endorsed a broad no-impeachment rule, with only limited exceptions.
The version of the rule that Congress adopted was "no accident." Warger, 574 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 527. The Advisory Committee at first drafted a rule reflecting the Iowa approach, prohibiting admission of juror testimony only as it related to jurors' mental processes in reaching a verdict. The Department of Justice, however, expressed concern over the preliminary rule. The Advisory Committee then drafted the more stringent version now in effect, prohibiting all juror testimony, with exceptions only where the jury had considered prejudicial extraneous evidence or was subject to other outside influence. Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates, 56 F.R.D. 183, 265 (1972). The Court adopted this second version and transmitted it to Congress.
The House favored the Iowa approach, but the Senate expressed concern that it did not sufficiently address the public policy interest in the finality of verdicts. S.Rep. No. 93-1277, pp. 13-14 (1974). Siding with the Senate, the Conference Committee adopted, Congress enacted, and the President signed the Court's proposed rule. The substance of the Rule has not changed since 1975, except for a 2006 modification permitting evidence of a clerical mistake on the verdict form. See 574 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct. 521.
The current version of Rule 606(b) states as follows:
"(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror's or another juror's vote; or any juror's mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror's affidavit or evidence of a juror's statement on these matters.
"(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:
"(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention;
"(B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or
"(C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form."
This version of the no-impeachment rule has substantial merit. It promotes full and vigorous discussion by providing jurors with considerable assurance that after being discharged they will not be summoned to recount their deliberations, and they will not otherwise be harassed or annoyed by litigants seeking to challenge the verdict. The rule gives stability and finality to verdicts.
B
Some version of the no-impeachment rule is followed in every State and the District of Columbia. Variations make classification imprecise, but, as a general matter, it appears that 42 jurisdictions follow the Federal Rule, while 9 follow the Iowa Rule. Within both classifications there is a diversity of approaches. Nine jurisdictions that follow the Federal Rule have codified exceptions other than those listed in Federal Rule 606(b). See Appendix, infra. At least 16 jurisdictions, 11 of which follow the Federal Rule, have recognized an exception to the no-impeachment bar under the circumstances the Court faces here: juror testimony that racial bias played a part in deliberations. Ibid. According to the parties and amici, only one State other than Colorado has addressed this issue and declined to recognize an exception for racial bias. See Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 377-379, 961 A.2d 786, 807-808 (2008).
The federal courts, for their part, are governed by Federal Rule 606(b), but their interpretations deserve further comment. Various Courts of Appeals have had occasion to consider a racial bias exception and have reached different conclusions. Three have held or suggested there is a constitutional exception for evidence of racial bias. See United States v. Villar, 586 F.3d 76, 87-88 (C.A.1 2009) (holding the Constitution demands a racial-bias exception); United States v. Henley, 238 F.3d 1111, 1119-1121 (C.A.9 2001) (finding persuasive arguments in favor of an exception but not deciding the issue); Shillcutt v. Gagnon, 827 F.2d 1155, 1158-1160 (C.A.7 1987) (observing that in some cases fundamental fairness could require an exception). One Court of Appeals has declined to find an exception, reasoning that other safeguards inherent in the trial process suffice to protect defendants' constitutional interests. See United States v. Benally, 546 F.3d 1230, 1240-1241 (C.A.10 2008). Another has suggested as much, holding in the habeas context that an exception for racial bias was not clearly established but indicating in dicta that no such exception exists. See Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223, 237-239 (C.A.3 2003) (Alito, J.). And one Court of Appeals has held that evidence of racial bias is excluded by Rule 606(b), without addressing whether the Constitution may at times demand an exception. See Martinez v. Food City, Inc., 658 F.2d 369, 373-374 (C.A.5 1981).
C
In addressing the scope of the common-law no-impeachment rule before Rule 606(b)'s adoption, the Reid and McDonald Courts noted the possibility of an exception to the rule in the "gravest and most important cases." Reid, 12 How., at 366 ; McDonald, 238 U.S., at 269, 35 S.Ct. 783. Yet since the enactment of Rule 606(b), the Court has addressed the precise question whether the Constitution mandates an exception to it in just two instances.
In its first case, Tanner, 483 U.S. 107, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90, the Court rejected a Sixth Amendment exception for evidence that some jurors were under the influence of drugs and alcohol during the trial. Id., at 125, 107 S.Ct. 2739. Central to the Court's reasoning were the "long-recognized and very substantial concerns" supporting "the protection of jury deliberations from intrusive inquiry." Id., at 127, 107 S.Ct. 2739. The Tanner Court echoed McDonald's concern that, if attorneys could use juror testimony to attack verdicts, jurors would be "harassed and beset by the defeated party," thus destroying "all frankness and freedom of discussion and conference." 483 U.S., at 120, 107 S.Ct. 2739 (quoting McDonald, supra, at 267-268, 35 S.Ct. 783 ). The Court was concerned, moreover, that attempts to impeach a verdict would "disrupt the finality of the process" and undermine both "jurors' willingness to return an unpopular verdict" and "the community's trust in a system that relies on the decisions of laypeople." 483 U.S., at 120-121, 107 S.Ct. 2739.
The Tanner Court outlined existing, significant safeguards for the defendant's right to an impartial and competent jury beyond post-trial juror testimony. At the outset of the trial process, voir dire provides an opportunity for the court and counsel to examine members of the venire for impartiality. As a trial proceeds, the court, counsel, and court personnel have some opportunity to learn of any juror misconduct. And, before the verdict, jurors themselves can report misconduct to the court. These procedures do not undermine the stability of a verdict once rendered. Even after the trial, evidence of misconduct other than juror testimony can be used to attempt to impeach the verdict. Id., at 127, 107 S.Ct. 2739. Balancing these interests and safeguards against the defendant's Sixth Amendment interest in that case, the Court affirmed the exclusion of affidavits pertaining to the jury's inebriated state. Ibid.
The second case to consider the general issue presented here was Warger, 574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 521, 190 L.Ed.2d 422. The Court again rejected the argument that, in the circumstances there, the jury trial right required an exception to the no-impeachment rule. Warger involved a civil case where, after the verdict was entered, the losing party sought to proffer evidence that the jury forewoman had failed to disclose prodefendant bias during voir dire. As in Tanner, the Court put substantial reliance on existing safeguards for a fair trial. The Court stated: "Even if jurors lie in voir dire in a way that conceals bias, juror impartiality is adequately assured by the parties' ability to bring to the court's attention any evidence of bias before the verdict is rendered, and to employ nonjuror evidence even after the verdict is rendered." 574 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 529.
In Warger, however, the Court did reiterate that the no-impeachment rule may admit exceptions. As in Reid and McDonald, the Court warned of "juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged." 574 U.S., at ---- - ----, n. 3, 135 S.Ct., at 529, n. 3. "If and when such a case arises," the Court indicated it would "consider whether the usual safeguards are or are not sufficient to protect the integrity of the process." Ibid.
The recognition in Warger that there may be extreme cases where the jury trial right requires an exception to the no-impeachment rule must be interpreted in context as a guarded, cautious statement. This caution is warranted to avoid formulating an exception that might undermine the jury dynamics and finality interests the no-impeachment rule seeks to protect. Today, however, the Court faces the question that Reid,McDonald, and Warger left open. The Court must decide whether the Constitution requires an exception to the no-impeachment rule when a juror's statements indicate that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in his or her finding of guilt.
III
It must become the heritage of our Nation to rise above racial classifications that are so inconsistent with our commitment to the equal dignity of all persons. This imperative to purge racial prejudice from the administration of justice was given new force and direction by the ratification of the Civil War Amendments.
"[T]he central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate racial discrimination emanating from official sources in the States." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 192, 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964). In the years before and after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, it became clear that racial discrimination in the jury system posed a particular threat both to the promise of the Amendment and to the integrity of the jury trial. "Almost immediately after the Civil War, the South began a practice that would continue for many decades: All-white juries punished black defendants particularly harshly, while simultaneously refusing to punish violence by whites, including Ku Klux Klan members, against blacks and Republicans." Forman, Juries and Race in the Nineteenth Century, 113 Yale L.J. 895, 909-910 (2004). To take one example, just in the years 1865 and 1866, all-white juries in Texas decided a total of 500 prosecutions of white defendants charged with killing African-Americans. All 500 were acquitted. Id., at 916. The stark and unapologetic nature of race-motivated outcomes challenged the American belief that "the jury was a bulwark of liberty," id., at 909, and prompted Congress to pass legislation to integrate the jury system and to bar persons from eligibility for jury service if they had conspired to deny the civil rights of African-Americans, id., at 920-930. Members of Congress stressed that the legislation was necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial and to guarantee the equal protection of the laws. Ibid.
The duty to confront racial animus in the justice system is not the legislature's alone. Time and again, this Court has been called upon to enforce the Constitution's guarantee against state-sponsored racial discrimination in the jury system. Beginning in 1880, the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit the exclusion of jurors on the basis of race. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 305-309, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880). The Court has repeatedly struck down laws and practices that systematically exclude racial minorities from juries. See, e.g., Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, 26 L.Ed. 567 (1881) ; Hollins v. Oklahoma, 295 U.S. 394, 55 S.Ct. 784, 79 L.Ed. 1500 (1935) (per curiam ); Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed. 1244 (1953) ; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954) ; Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977). To guard against discrimination in jury selection, the Court has ruled that no litigant may exclude a prospective juror on the basis of race. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) ; Edmonson v.
Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) ; Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992). In an effort to ensure that individuals who sit on juries are free of racial bias, the Court has held that the Constitution at times demands that defendants be permitted to ask questions about racial bias during voir dire. Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973) ; Rosales-Lopez, 451 U.S. 182, 101 S.Ct. 1629, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 ; Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28, 106 S.Ct. 1683, 90 L.Ed.2d 27 (1986).
The unmistakable principle underlying these precedents is that discrimination on the basis of race, "odious in all aspects, is especially pernicious in the administration of justice." Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 555, 99 S.Ct. 2993, 61 L.Ed.2d 739 (1979). The jury is to be "a criminal defendant's fundamental 'protection of life and liberty against race or color prejudice.' " McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 310, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987) (quoting Strauder, supra, at 309). Permitting racial prejudice in the jury system damages "both the fact and the perception" of the jury's role as "a vital check against the wrongful exercise of power by the State." Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 411, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) ; cf. Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 315, 51 S.Ct. 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054 (1931) ; Buck v. Davis, ante, at 22.
IV
A
This case lies at the intersection of the Court's decisions endorsing the no-impeachment rule and its decisions seeking to eliminate racial bias in the jury system. The two lines of precedent, however, need not conflict.
Racial bias of the kind alleged in this case differs in critical ways from the compromise verdict in McDonald, the drug and alcohol abuse in Tanner, or the pro-defendant bias in Warger. The behavior in those cases is troubling and unacceptable, but each involved anomalous behavior from a single jury-or juror-gone off course. Jurors are presumed to follow their oath, cf. Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 799, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001), and neither history nor common experience show that the jury system is rife with mischief of these or similar kinds. To attempt to rid the jury of every irregularity of this sort would be to expose it to unrelenting scrutiny. "It is not at all clear... that the jury system could survive such efforts to perfect it." Tanner, 483 U.S., at 120, 107 S.Ct. 2739.
The same cannot be said about racial bias, a familiar and recurring evil that, if left unaddressed, would risk systemic injury to the administration of justice. This Court's decisions demonstrate that racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional, and institutional concerns. An effort to address the most grave and serious statements of racial bias is not an effort to perfect the jury but to ensure that our legal system remains capable of coming ever closer to the promise of equal treatment under the law that is so central to a functioning democracy.
Racial bias is distinct in a pragmatic sense as well. In past cases this Court has relied on other safeguards to protect the right to an impartial jury. Some of those safeguards, to be sure, can disclose racial bias. Voir dire at the outset of trial, observation of juror demeanor and conduct during trial, juror reports before the verdict, and nonjuror evidence after trial are important mechanisms for discovering bias. Yet their operation may be compromised, or they may prove insufficient.
For instance, this Court has noted the dilemma faced by trial court judges and counsel in deciding whether to explore potential racial bias at voir dire. See Rosales-Lopez, supra ; Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976). Generic questions about juror impartiality may not expose specific attitudes or biases that can poison jury deliberations. Yet more pointed questions "could well exacerbate whatever prejudice might exist without substantially aiding in exposing it." Rosales-Lopez, supra, at 195, 101 S.Ct. 1629 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in result).
The stigma that attends racial bias may make it difficult for a juror to report inappropriate statements during the course of juror deliberations. It is one thing to accuse a fellow juror of having a personal experience that improperly influences her consideration of the case, as would have been required in Warger. It is quite another to call her a bigot.
The recognition that certain of the Tanner safeguards may be less effective in rooting out racial bias than other kinds of bias is not dispositive. All forms of improper bias pose challenges to the trial process. But there is a sound basis to treat racial bias with added precaution. A constitutional rule that racial bias in the justice system must be addressed-including, in some instances, after the verdict has been entered-is necessary to prevent a systemic loss of confidence in jury verdicts, a confidence that is a central premise of the Sixth Amendment trial right.
B
For the reasons explained above, the Court now holds that where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.
Not every offhand comment indicating racial bias or hostility will justify setting aside the no-impeachment bar to allow further judicial inquiry. For the inquiry to proceed, there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury's deliberations and resulting verdict. To qualify, the statement must tend to show that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror's vote to convict. Whether that threshold showing has been satisfied is a matter committed to the substantial discretion of the trial court in light of all the circumstances, including the content and timing of the alleged statements and the reliability of the proffered evidence.
The practical mechanics of acquiring and presenting such evidence will no doubt be shaped and guided by state rules of professional ethics and local court rules, both of which often limit counsel's post-trial contact with jurors. See 27 C. Wright & V. Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6076, pp. 580-583 (2d ed. 2007) (Wright); see also Variations of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.5 (Sept. 15
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (Convention) imposes liability on an air carrier for a passenger’s death or bodily injury caused by an “accident” that occurred in connection with an international flight. In Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392 (1985), the Court explained that the term “accident” in the Convention refers to an “unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” and not to “the passenger’s own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft.” Id., at 405, 406. The issue we must decide is whether the “accident” condition precedent to air carrier liability under Article 17 is satisfied when the carrier’s unusual and unexpected refusal to assist a passenger is a link in a chain of causation resulting in a passenger’s pre-existing medical condition being aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin. We conclude that it is.
I
The following facts are taken from the District Court’s findings, which, being unchallenged by either party, we accept as true. In December 1997, Dr. Abid Hanson and his wife, Rubina Husain (hereinafter respondent), traveled with their children and another family from San Francisco to Athens and Cairo for a family vacation. During a stopover in New York, Dr. Hanson learned for the first time that petitioner allowed its passengers to smoke on international flights. Because Dr. Hanson had suffered from asthma and was sensitive to secondhand smoke, respondent requested and obtained seats away from the smoking section. Dr. Hanson experienced no problems on the flights to Cairo.
For the return flights, Dr. Hanson and respondent arrived early at the Cairo airport in order to request nonsmoking seats. Respondent showed the check-in agent a physician’s letter explaining that Dr. Hanson “has [a] history of recurrent anaphylactic reactions,” App. 81, and asked the agent to ensure that their seats were in the nonsmoking section. The flight to Athens was uneventful.
After boarding the plane for the flight to San Francisco, Dr. Hanson and respondent discovered that their seats were located only three rows in front of the economy-class smoking section. Respondent advised Maria Leptourgou, a flight attendant for petitioner, that Dr. Hanson could not sit in a smoking area, and said, “‘You have to move him.’” 116 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1125 (ND Cal. 2000). The flight attendant told her to “ ‘have a seat.’ ” Ibid. After all the passengers had boarded but prior to takeoff, respondent again asked Ms. Leptourgou to move Dr. Hanson, explaining that he was “‘allergic to smoke.’” Ibid. Ms. Leptourgou replied that she could not reseat Dr. Hanson because the plane was “ ‘totally full’ ” and she was “too busy” to help. Ibid.
Shortly after takeoff, passengers in the smoking section began to smoke, and Dr. Hanson was soon surrounded by ambient cigarette smoke. Respondent spoke with Ms. Leptourgou a third time, stating, “‘You have to move my husband from here.’” Id., at 1126. Ms. Leptourgou again refused, stating that the plane was full. Ms. Leptourgou told respondent that Dr. Hanson could switch seats with another passenger, but that respondent would have to ask other passengers herself, without the flight crew’s assistance. Respondent told Ms. Leptourgou that Dr. Hanson had to move even if the only available seat was in the cockpit or in business class, but Ms. Leptourgou refused to provide any assistance.
About two hours into the flight, the smoking noticeably increased in the rows behind Dr. Hanson. Dr. Hanson asked respondent for a new inhaler because the one he had been using was empty. Dr. Hanson then moved toward the front of the plane to get some fresher air. While he was leaning against a chair near the galley area, Dr. Hanson gestured to respondent to get his emergency kit. Respondent returned with it and gave him a shot of epinephrine. She then awoke Dr. Umesh Sabharwal, an allergist, with whom Dr. Hanson and respondent had been traveling. Dr. Sabharwal gave Dr. Hanson another shot of epinephrine and began to administer CPR and oxygen. Dr. Hanson died shortly thereafter. Id., at 1128.
Respondents filed a wrongful-death suit in California state court. Petitioner removed the case to federal court, and the District Court found petitioner liable for Dr. Hanson’s death. The District Court held that Ms. Leptourgou’s refusal to re-seat Dr. Hanson constituted an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17. Applying Saks’ definition of that term, the court reasoned that the flight attendant’s conduct was external to Dr. Hanson and, because it was in “blatant disregard of industry standards and airline policies,” was not expected or usual. 116 F. Supp. 2d, at 1134.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Applying Saks’ definition of “accident,” the Ninth Circuit agreed that the flight attendant’s refusal to reseat Dr. Hanson “was clearly external to Dr. Hanson, and it was unexpected and unusual in light of industry standards, Olympic policy, and the simple nature of Dr. Hanson’s requested accommodation.” 316 F. 3d 829,837 (2002). We granted certiorari, 538 U. S. 1056 (2003), and now affirm.
II
A
We begin with the language of Article 17 of the Convention, which provides:
“The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused, the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” 49 Stat. 3018.
In Saks, the Court recognized that the text of the Convention does not define the term “accident” and that the context in which it is used is not “illuminating.” 470 U. S., at 399. The Court nevertheless discerned the meaning of the term “accident” from the Convention’s text, structure, and history as well as from the subsequent conduct of the parties to the Convention.
Neither party here contests Saks’ definition of the term “accident” under Article 17 of the Convention. Rather, the parties differ as to which event should be the focus of the “accident” inquiry. The Court’s reasoning in Saks sheds light on whether the flight attendant’s refusal to assist a passenger in a medical crisis is the proper focus of the “accident” inquiry.
In Saks, the Court addressed whether a passenger’s “.‘loss of hearing proximately caused by normal operation of the aircraft’s pressurization system’” was an “‘accident.’” Id., at 395. The Court concluded that it was not, because the injury was her “own internal reaction” to the normal pressurization of the aircraft’s cabin. Id., at 406. The Court noted two textual clues to the meaning of the term “accident.” First, the Convention distinguishes between liability under Article 17 for death or injuries to passengers caused by an “accident” and liability under Article 18 for destruction or loss of baggage caused by an “occurrence.” Id., at 398. The difference in these provisions implies that the meaning of the term “accident” is different from that of “occurrence.” Ibid. Second, the Court found significant the fact that Article 17 focuses on the “accident which caused” the passenger’s injury and not an accident that is the passenger’s injury. Ibid. The Court explained that it is the cause of the injury — rather than the occurrence of the injury — that must satisfy the definition of “accident.” Id., at 399. And recognizing the Court's responsibility to read the treaty in a manner “consistent with the shared expectations of the contracting parties,” ibid., the Court also looked to the French legal meaning of the term “accident,” which when used to describe the cause of an injury, is usually defined as a “fortuitous, unexpected, unusual, or unintended event,” id., at 400.
Accordingly, the Court held in Saks that an “accident” under Article 17 is “an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” and not “the passenger’s own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft.” Id., at 405, 406. The Court emphasized that the definition of “accident” “should be flexibly applied after assessment of all the circumstances surrounding a passenger’s injuries.” Id., at 405. The Court further contemplated that intentional conduct could fall within the “accident” definition under Article 17, an interpretation that comports with another provision of the Convention. As such, Saks correctly characterized the term “accident” as encompassing more than unintentional conduct.
The Court focused its analysis on determining “what causes can be considered accidents,” and observed that Article 17 “embraces causes of injuries” that are “unexpected or unusual.” Id., at 404, 405. The Court did not suggest that only one event could constitute the “accident,” recognizing that “[a]ny injury is the product of a chain of causes.” Id., at 406. Thus, for purposes of the “accident” inquiry, the Court stated that a plaintiff need only be able to prove that “some link in the chain was an unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger.” Ibid.
B
Petitioner argues that the “accident” inquiry should focus on the “injury producing event,” Reply Brief for Petitioner 4, which, according to petitioner, was the presence of ambient cigarette smoke in the aircraft's cabin. Because petitioner's policies permitted smoking on international flights, petitioner contends that Dr. Hanson’s death resulted from his own internal reaction — namely, an asthma attack — to the normal operation of the aircraft. Petitioner also argues that the flight attendant’s failure to move Dr. Hanson was inaction, whereas Article 17 requires an action that causes the injury.
We disagree. As an initial matter, we note that petitioner did not challenge in the Court of Appeals the District Court’s finding that the flight attendant’s conduct in three times refusing to move Dr. Hanson was unusual or unexpected in light of the relevant industry standard or petitioner’s own company policy. 116 F. Supp. 2d, at 1133. Petitioner instead argued that the flight attendant’s conduct was irrelevant for purposes of the “accident” inquiry and that the only relevant event was the presence of the ambient cigarette smoke in the aircraft’s cabin. Consequently, we need not dispositively determine whether the flight attendant’s conduct qualified as “unusual or unexpected” under Saks, but may assume that it was for purposes of this opinion.
Petitioner’s focus on the ambient cigarette smoke as the injury producing event is misplaced. We do not doubt that the presence of ambient cigarette smoke in the aircraft’s cabin during an international flight might have been “normal” at the time of the flight in question. But petitioner’s “injury producing event” inquiry — which looks to “the precise factual ‘event’ that caused the injury” — neglects the reality that there are often multiple interrelated factual events that combine to cause any given injury. Brief for Petitioner 14. In Saks, the Court recognized that any one of these factual events or happenings may be a link in the chain of causes and — so long as it is unusual or unexpected — could constitute an “accident” under Article 17. 470 U. S., at 406. Indeed, the very fact that multiple events will necessarily combine and interrelate to cause any particular injury makes it difficult to define, in any coherent or non-question-begging way, any single event as the “injury producing event.”
Petitioner’s only claim to the contrary here is to say: “Looking to the purely factual description of relevant events, the aggravating event was Dr. Hanson remaining in his assigned non-smoking seat and being exposed to ambient smoke, which allegedly aggravated his pre-existing asthmatic condition leading to his death,” Brief for Petitioner 24, and that the “injury producing event” was “not the flight attendant’s failure to act or violation of industry standards,” Reply Brief for Petitioner 9-10. Petitioner ignores the fact that the flight attendant’s refusal on three separate occasions to move Dr. Hanson was also a “factual ‘event,’ ” Brief for Petitioner 14, that the District Court correctly found to be a “ ‘link in the chain’ ” of causes that led to Dr. Hanson’s death, 116 F. Supp. 2d, at 1135. Petitioner’s statement that the flight attendant’s failure to reseat Dr. Hanson was not the “injury producing event” is nothing more than a bald assertion, unsupported by any law or argument.
An example illustrates why petitioner’s emphasis on the ambient cigarette smoke as the “injury producing event” is misplaced. Suppose that petitioner mistakenly assigns respondent and her husband to seats in the middle of the smoking section, and that respondent and her husband do not notice that they are in the smoking section until after the flight has departed. Suppose further that, as here, the flight attendant refused to assist respondent and her husband despite repeated requests to move. In this hypothetical case, it would appear that, “[ljooking to the purely factual description of relevant events, the aggravating event was [the passenger] remaining in his assigned ... seat and being exposed to ambient smoke, which allegedly aggravated his preexisting asthmatic condition leading to his death.” Brief for Petitioner 24. To argue otherwise, petitioner would have to suggest that the misassignment to the smoking section was the “injury producing event,” but this would simply beg the question. The fact is, the exposure to smoke, the misassignment to the smoking section, and the refusal to move the passenger would all be factual events contributing to the death of the passenger. In the instant case, the same can be said: The exposure to the smoke and the refusal to assist the passenger are happenings that both contributed to the passenger’s death.
And petitioner's argument that the flight attendant’s failure to act cannot constitute an “accident” because only affirmative acts are “event[s] or happening[s]” under Saks is unavailing. 470 U. S., at 405. The distinction between action and inaction, as petitioner uses these terms, would perhaps be relevant were this a tort law negligence case. But respondents do not advocate, and petitioner vigorously rejects, that a negligence regime applies under Article 17 of the Convention. The relevant “accident” inquiry under Saks is whether there is “an unexpected or unusual event or happening.” Ibid, (emphasis added). The rejection of an explicit request for assistance would be an “event” or “happening” under the ordinary and usual definitions of these terms. See American Heritage Dictionary 635 (3d ed. 1992) (“event”: “[something, that takes place; an occurrence”); Black’s Law Dictionary 554-555 (6th ed. 1990) (“event”: “Something that happens”); Webster’s New International Dictionary 885 (2d ed. 1949) (“event”: “The fact of taking place or occurring; occurrence” or “[t]hat which comes, arrives, or happens”).
Moreover, the fallacy of petitioner’s position that an “accident” cannot take the form of inaction is illustrated by the following example. Suppose that a passenger on a flight inexplicably collapses and stops breathing and that a medical doctor informs the flight crew that the passenger’s life could be saved only if the plane lands within one hour. Suppose further that it is industry standard and airline policy to divert a flight to the nearest airport when a passenger otherwise faces imminent death. If the plane is within 30 minutes of a suitable airport, but the crew chooses to continue its cross-country flight, “[t]he notion that this is not an unusual event is staggering.” McCaskey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 562, 574 (SD Tex. 2001).
Confirming this interpretation, other provisions of the Convention suggest that there is often no distinction between action and inaction on the issue of ultimate liability. For example, Article 25 provides that Article 22’s liability cap does not apply in the event of “wilful misconduct or . . . such default on [the carrier’s] part as, in accordance with the law of the court to which the case is submitted, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct.” 49 Stat. 3020 (emphasis added). Because liability can be imposed for death or bodily injury only in the case of an Article 17 “accident” and Article 25 only lifts the caps once liability has been found, these provisions read together tend to show that inaction can give rise to liability. Moreover, Article 20(1) makes clear that the “due care” defense is unavailable when a carrier has failed to take “all necessary measures to avoid the damage.” Id., at 3019. These provisions suggest that an air carrier’s inaction can be the basis for liability.
Finally, petitioner contends that the Ninth Circuit improperly created a negligence-based “accident” standard under Article 17 by focusing on the flight crew’s negligence as the “accident.” The Ninth Circuit stated: “The failure to act in the face of a known, serious risk satisfies the meaning of ‘accident’ within Article 17 so long as reasonable alternatives exist that would substantially minimize the risk and implementing these alternatives would not unreasonably interfere with the normal, expected operation of the airplane.” 316 F. 3d, at 837. Admittedly, this language does seem to approve of a negligence-based approach. However, no party disputes the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the flight attendant’s conduct was “unexpected and unusual,” ibid., which is the operative language under Saks and the correct Article 17 analysis.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the conduct here constitutes an “accident” under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decir sion of this case.
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, T. S. No. 876 (1934), note following 49 U. S. C. § 40105.
Dr. Hanson and respondent did not know at the time that, despite Ms. Leptourgou’s representations, the flight was actually not full. There were 11 unoccupied passenger seats, most of which were in economy class, and 28 “non-revenue passengers,” 15 of whom were seated in economy class rows farther away from the smoking section than Dr. Hanson’s seat. 116 F. Supp. 2d, at 1126.
For religious reasons, no autopsy was performed to determine the cause of death.
The Warsaw Convention’s governing text is in French. We cite to the official English translation of the Convention, which was before the Senate when it consented to ratification of the Convention in 1934. See 49 Stat. 3014; Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392, 397 (1985).
After a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of liability under Article 17 by showing that the injury was caused by an “accident,” the air carrier has the opportunity to prove under Article 20 that it took “all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for [the airline] to take such measures.” 49 Stat. 3019. Thus, Article 17 creates a presumption of air carrier liability and shifts the burden to the air carrier to prove lack of negligence under Article 20. Lowenfeld & Mendel-sohn, The United States and the Warsaw Convention, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 497, 521 (1967). Article 22(1) caps the amount recoverable under Article 17 in the event of death or bodily injury, and Article 25(1) removes the cap if the damage is caused by the “wilful misconduct” of the airline or its agent, acting within the scope of his employment. See 49 Stat. 3019,3020. Additionally, Article 21 enables an air carrier to avoid or reduce its liability if it can prove the passenger’s comparative negligence. See id., at 3019.
The term “accident” has at least two plausible yet distinct definitions. On the one hand, as noted in Saks, “accident” may be defined as an unintended event. See Webster’s New World College Dictionary 8 (4th ed. 1999) (“a happening that is not... intended”); see also American Heritage Dictionary 10 (4th ed. 2000) (“[l]aek of intention; chance”); Saks, 470 U. S., at 400. On the other hand, as noted in Saks, the term “accident” may be defined as an event that is “unusual” or “unexpected,” whether the result of intentional action or not. Ibid. See Black’s Law Dictionary 15 (6th ed. 1990) (“an unusual, fortuitous, unexpected, unforeseen, or unlooked for event, happening or occurrence” and “if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the person to whom it happens”); see also American Heritage Dictionary, supra, at 10 (“[a]n unexpected and undesirable event,” “[a]n unforeseen incident”). Although either definition of “accident” is at first glance plausible, neither party contests the definition adopted by the Court in Saks, which after carefiil examination discerned the meaning of “accident” under Article 17 of the Convention as an “unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.” 470 U. S., at 405.
The Court cited approvingly several lower court opinions where intentional acts by third parties — namely, torts committed by terrorists — were recognized as “accidents” under a “broa[dj” interpretation of Article 17. Ibid, (citing lower court cases).
Specifically, Article 25 removes the cap on air carrier liability when the injury is caused by the air carrier’s “wilful misconduct.” 49 Stat. 3020. Because there can be no liability for passenger death or bodily injury under the Convention in the absence of an Article 17 “accident,” such “wilful misconduct” is best read to be included within the realm of conduct that may constitute an “accident” under Article 17.
The dissent cites two cases from our sister signatories England and Australia — Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation, [2004] Q. B. 234, and Qantas Ltd. v. Povey, [2003] VSCA 227, ¶ 17, 2003 WL 23000692, ¶ 17 (Dec. 23, 2003) (Ormiston, J. A.), respectively — and suggests that we should simply defer to their judgment on the matter. But our conclusion is not inconsistent with Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation, where the England and Wales Court of Appeal commented on the District Court and Court of Appeals opinions in this case, and agreed that Dr. Hanson’s death had resulted from an accident. The English court reasoned: “The refusal of the flight attendant to move Dr. Hanson cannot properly be considered as mere inertia, or a non-event. It was a refusal to provide an alternative seat which formed part of a more complex incident, whereby Dr. Hanson was exposed to smoke in circumstances that can properly be described as unusual and unexpected.” [2004] Q. B., at 254, ¶ 50.
To the extent that the precise reasoning used by the courts in Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation and Povey is inconsistent with .our reasoning, we reject the analysis of those cases for the reasons stated in the body of this opinion. In such a circumstance, we are hesitant to “follo[w]” the opinions of intermediate appellate courts of our sister signatories, post, at 658 (Scalia, J., dissenting). This is especially true where there are substantial factual distinctions between these cases, see [2004] Q. B., at 248, ¶ 29 (confronting allegations of a “failure to warn of the risk of [deep-vein thrombosis], or to advise on precautions which would avoid or minimise that risk”); VSCA 227, ¶ 3, 2003 WL 23000692, ¶ 3 (noting plaintiff alleged a failure to provide “any information or warning about the risk of [deep-vein thrombosis] or of any measures to reduce the risk”), and where the respective courts of last resort — the House of Lords and High Court of Australia — have yet to speak.
We do not suggest — as the dissent erroneously contends — that liability must lie because otherwise “harsh, results,” post, at 664 (opinion of Scalia, J.), would ensue. This hypothetical merely illustrates that the failure of an airline crew to take certain necessary vital steps could quite naturally and, in routine usage of the language, be an “event or happening.”
The Montreal Protocol No. 4 to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air (1975) amends Article 25 by replacing “wilful misconduct” with the language “done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result,” as long as the airline’s employee or agent was acting “within the scope of his employment.” S. Exec. Rep. No. 105-20, p. 29 (1998). In 1998, the United States gave its advice and consent to ratification of the protocol, and it entered into force in the United States on March 4, 1999. See El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U. S. 155, 174, n. 14 (1999). Because the facts here took place in 1997-1998, Montreal Protocol No. 4 does not apply.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 878, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992), a plurality of the Court concluded that there "exists" an "undue burden" on a woman's right to decide to have an abortion, and consequently a provision of law is constitutionally invalid, if the "purpose or effect " of the provision "is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." (Emphasis added.) The plurality added that "[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right." Ibid.
We must here decide whether two provisions of Texas' House Bill 2 violate the Federal Constitution as interpreted in Casey. The first provision, which we shall call the "admitting-privileges requirement, " says that
"[a] physician performing or inducing an abortion... must, on the date the abortion is performed or induced, have active admitting privileges at a hospital that... is located not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced." Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 171.0031(a) (West Cum. Supp. 2015).
This provision amended Texas law that had previously required an abortion facility to maintain a written protocol "for managing medical emergencies and the transfer of patients requiring further emergency care to a hospital." 38 Tex. Reg. 6546 (2013).
The second provision, which we shall call the "surgical-center requirement, " says that
"the minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to the minimum standards adopted under [the Texas Health and Safety Code section] for ambulatory surgical centers." Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 245.010(a).
We conclude that neither of these provisions confers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, Casey, supra, at 878, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (plurality opinion), and each violates the Federal Constitution. Amdt. 14, § 1.
I
A
In July 2013, the Texas Legislature enacted House Bill 2 (H.B. 2 or Act). In September (before the new law took effect), a group of Texas abortion providers filed an action in Federal District Court seeking facial invalidation of the law's admitting-privileges provision. In late October, the District Court granted the injunction. Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 951 F.Supp.2d 891, 901 (W.D.Tex.2013). But three days later, the Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction, thereby permitting the provision to take effect. Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 734 F.3d 406, 419 (2013).
The Fifth Circuit subsequently upheld the provision, and set forth its reasons in an opinion released late the following March. In that opinion, the Fifth Circuit pointed to evidence introduced in the District Court the previous October. It noted that Texas had offered evidence designed to show that the admitting-privileges requirement "will reduce the delay in treatment and decrease health risk for abortion patients with critical complications," and that it would "'screen out' untrained or incompetent abortion providers." Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583, 592 (2014) (Abbott ). The opinion also explained that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence "that abortion practitioners will likely be unable to comply with the privileges requirement." Id., at 598. The court said that all "of the major Texas cities, including Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio," would "continue to have multiple clinics where many physicians will have or obtain hospital admitting privileges." Ibid. The Abbott plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari in this Court.
B
On April 6, one week after the Fifth Circuit's decision, petitioners, a group of abortion providers (many of whom were plaintiffs in the previous lawsuit), filed the present lawsuit in Federal District Court. They sought an injunction preventing enforcement of the admitting-privileges provision as applied to physicians at two abortion facilities, one operated by Whole Woman's Health in McAllen and the other operated by Nova Health Systems in El Paso. They also sought an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the surgical-center provision anywhere in Texas. They claimed that the admitting-privileges provision and the surgical-center provision violated the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in Casey.
The District Court subsequently received stipulations from the parties and depositions from the parties' experts. The court conducted a 4-day bench trial. It heard, among other testimony, the opinions from expert witnesses for both sides. On the basis of the stipulations, depositions, and testimony, that court reached the following conclusions:
1. Of Texas' population of more than 25 million people, "approximately 5.4 million" are "women" of "reproductive age," living within a geographical area of "nearly 280,000 square miles." Whole Woman's Health v. Lakey, 46 F.Supp.3d 673, 681 (W.D.Tex.2014) ; see App. 244.
2. "In recent years, the number of abortions reported in Texas has stayed fairly consistent at approximately 15-16% of the reported pregnancy rate, for a total number of approximately 60,000-72,000 legal abortions performed annually." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 681 ; see App. 238.
3. Prior to the enactment of H.B. 2, there were more than 40 licensed abortion facilities in Texas, which "number dropped by almost half leading up to and in the wake of enforcement of the admitting-privileges requirement that went into effect in late-October 2013." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 681 ; App. 228-231.
4. If the surgical-center provision were allowed to take effect, the number of abortion facilities, after September 1, 2014, would be reduced further, so that "only seven facilities and a potential eighth will exist in Texas." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 680 ; App. 182-183.
5. Abortion facilities "will remain only in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan region." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 681 ; App. 229-230. These include "one facility in Austin, two in Dallas, one in Fort Worth, two in Houston, and either one or two in San Antonio." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 680 ; App. 229-230.
6. "Based on historical data pertaining to Texas's average number of abortions, and assuming perfectly equal distribution among the remaining seven or eight providers, this would result in each facility serving between 7,500 and 10,000 patients per year. Accounting for the seasonal variations in pregnancy rates and a slightly unequal distribution of patients at each clinic, it is foreseeable that over 1,200 women per month could be vying for counseling, appointments, and follow-up visits at some of these facilities." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 682 ; cf. App. 238.
7. The suggestion "that these seven or eight providers could meet the demand of the entire state stretches credulity." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 682 ; see App. 238.
8. "Between November 1, 2012 and May 1, 2014," that is, before and after enforcement of the admitting-privileges requirement, "the decrease in geographical distribution of abortion facilities" has meant that the number of women of reproductive age living more than 50 miles from a clinic has doubled (from 800,000 to over 1.6 million); those living more than 100 miles has increased by 150% (from 400,000 to 1 million); those living more than 150 miles has increased by more than 350% (from 86,000 to 400,000); and those living more than 200 miles has increased by about 2,800% (from 10,000 to 290,000). After September 2014, should the surgical-center requirement go into effect, the number of women of reproductive age living significant distances from an abortion provider will increase as follows: 2 million women of reproductive age will live more than 50 miles from an abortion provider; 1.3 million will live more than 100 miles from an abortion provider; 900,000 will live more than 150 miles from an abortion provider; and 750,000 more than 200 miles from an abortion provider. 46 F.Supp.3d, at 681-682 ; App. 238-242.
9. The "two requirements erect a particularly high barrier for poor, rural, or disadvantaged women." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 683 ; cf. App. 363-370.
10. "The great weight of evidence demonstrates that, before the act's passage, abortion in Texas was extremely safe with particularly low rates of serious complications and virtually no deaths occurring on account of the procedure." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 684 ; see, e.g., App. 257-259, 538; see also id., at 200-202, 253-257.
11. "Abortion, as regulated by the State before the enactment of House Bill 2, has been shown to be much safer, in terms of minor and serious complications, than many common medical procedures not subject to such intense regulation and scrutiny." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 684 ; see, e.g., App. 223-224 (describing risks in colonoscopies ), 254 (discussing risks in vasectomy and endometrial biopsy, among others), 275-277 (discussing complication rate in plastic surgery ).
12. "Additionally, risks are not appreciably lowered for patients who undergo abortions at ambulatory surgical centers as compared to nonsurgical-center facilities." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 684 ; App. 202-206, 257-259.
13. "[W]omen will not obtain better care or experience more frequent positive outcomes at an ambulatory surgical center as compared to a previously licensed facility." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 684 ; App. 202-206.
14. "[T]here are 433 licensed ambulatory surgical centers in Texas," of which "336... are apparently either 'grandfathered' or enjo[y] the benefit of a waiver of some or all" of the surgical-center "requirements." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 680-681 ; App. 184.
15. The "cost of coming into compliance" with the surgical-center requirement "for existing clinics is significant," "undisputedly approach[ing] 1 million dollars," and "most likely exceed[ing] 1.5 million dollars," with "[s]ome... clinics" unable to "comply due to physical size limitations of their sites." 46 F.Supp.3d, at 682. The "cost of acquiring land and constructing a new compliant clinic will likely exceed three million dollars." Ibid.
On the basis of these and other related findings, the District Court determined that the surgical-center requirement "imposes an undue burden on the right of women throughout Texas to seek a previability abortion," and that the "admitting-privileges requirement,... in conjunction with the ambulatory-surgical-center requirement, imposes an undue burden on the right of women in the Rio Grande Valley, El Paso, and West Texas to seek a previability abortion." Id., at 687. The District Court concluded that the "two provisions" would cause "the closing of almost all abortion clinics in Texas that were operating legally in the fall of 2013," and thereby create a constitutionally "impermissible obstacle as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion" by "restricting access to previously available legal facilities." Id., at 687-688. On August 29, 2014, the court enjoined the enforcement of the two provisions. Ibid.
C
On October 2, 2014, at Texas' request, the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's injunction. Whole Woman's Health v. Lakey, 769 F.3d 285, 305. Within the next two weeks, this Court vacated the Court of Appeals' stay (in substantial part) thereby leaving in effect the District Court's injunction against enforcement of the surgical-center provision and its injunction against enforcement of the admitting-privileges requirement as applied to the McAllen and El Paso clinics. Whole Woman's Health v. Lakey, 574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 399, 190 L.Ed.2d 247 (2014). The Court of Appeals then heard Texas' appeal.
On June 9, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court on the merits. With minor exceptions, it found both provisions constitutional and allowed them to take effect. Whole Women's Health v. Cole, 790 F.3d 563, 567 (per curiam ), modified, 790 F.3d 598 (C.A.5 2015). Because the Court of Appeals' decision rests upon alternative grounds and fact-related considerations, we set forth its basic reasoning in some detail. The Court of Appeals concluded:
• The District Court was wrong to hold the admitting-privileges requirement unconstitutional because (except for the clinics in McAllen and El Paso) the providers had not asked them to do so, and principles of res judicata barred relief. Id., at 580-583.
• Because the providers could have brought their constitutional challenge to the surgical-center provision in their earlier lawsuit, principles of res judicata also barred that claim. Id., at 581-583.
• In any event, a state law "regulating previability abortion is constitutional if: (1) it does not have the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus; and (2) it is reasonably related to (or designed to further) a legitimate state interest." Id., at 572.
• "[B]oth the admitting privileges requirement and" the surgical-center requirement "were rationally related to a legitimate state interest," namely, "rais[ing] the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions and... protect[ing] the health and welfare of women seeking abortions." Id., at 584.
• The "[p]laintiffs" failed "to proffer competent evidence contradicting the legislature's statement of a legitimate purpose." Id., at 585.
• "[T]he district court erred by substituting its own judgment [as to the provisions' effects] for that of the legislature, albeit... in the name of the undue burden inquiry." Id., at 587.
• Holding the provisions unconstitutional on their face is improper because the plaintiffs had failed to show that either of the provisions "imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of women." Id., at 590.
• The District Court erred in finding that, if the surgical-center requirement takes effect, there will be too few abortion providers in Texas to meet the demand. That factual determination was based upon the finding of one of plaintiffs' expert witnesses (Dr. Grossman) that abortion providers in Texas " 'will not be able to go from providing approximately 14,000 abortions annually, as they currently are, to providing the 60,000 to 70,000 abortions that are done each year in Texas once all' " of the clinics failing to meet the surgical-center requirement " 'are forced to close.' " Id., at 589-590. But Dr. Grossman's opinion is (in the Court of Appeals' view) " 'ipse dixit'"; the "'record lacks any actual evidence regarding the current or future capacity of the eight clinics' "; and there is no "evidence in the record that" the providers that currently meet the surgical-center requirement "are operating at full capacity or that they cannot increase capacity." Ibid.
For these and related reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's holding that the admitting-privileges requirement is unconstitutional and its holding that the surgical-center requirement is unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals upheld in part the District Court's more specific holding that the requirements are unconstitutional as applied to the McAllen facility and Dr. Lynn (a doctor at that facility), but it reversed the District Court's holding that the surgical-center requirement is unconstitutional as applied to the facility in El Paso. In respect to this last claim, the Court of Appeals said that women in El Paso wishing to have an abortion could use abortion providers in nearby New Mexico.
II
Before turning to the constitutional question, we must consider the Court of Appeals' procedural grounds for holding that (but for the challenge to the provisions of H.B. 2 as applied to McAllen and El Paso) petitioners were barred from bringing their constitutional challenges.
A
Claim Preclusion-Admitting-Privileges Requirement
The Court of Appeals held that there could be no facial challenge to the admitting-privileges requirement. Because several of the petitioners here had previously brought an unsuccessful facial challenge to that requirement (namely, Abbott, 748 F.3d, at 605 ; see supra, at 2300 - 2301), the Court of Appeals thought that "the principle of res judicata" applied. 790 F.3d, at 581. The Court of Appeals also held that res judicata prevented the District Court from granting facial relief to petitioners, concluding that it was improper to "facially invalidat[e] the admitting privileges requirement," because to do so would "gran[t] more relief than anyone requested or briefed." Id., at 580. We hold that res judicata neither bars petitioners' challenges to the admitting-privileges requirement nor prevents us from awarding facial relief.
For one thing, to the extent that the Court of Appeals concluded that the principle of res judicata bars any facial challenge to the admitting-privileges requirement, see ibid., the court misconstrued petitioners' claims. Petitioners did not bring a facial challenge to the admitting-privileges requirement in this case but instead challenged that requirement as applied to the clinics in McAllen and El Paso. The question is whether res judicata bars petitioners' particular as-applied claims. On this point, the Court of Appeals concluded that res judicata was no bar, see 790 F.3d, at 592, and we agree.
The doctrine of claim preclusion (the here-relevant aspect of res judicata) prohibits "successive litigation of the very same claim" by the same parties. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). Petitioners' postenforcement as-applied challenge is not "the very same claim" as their preenforcement facial challenge. The Restatement of Judgments notes that development of new material facts can mean that a new case and an otherwise similar previous case do not present the same claim. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24, Comment f (1980) ( "Material operative facts occurring after the decision of an action with respect to the same subject matter may in themselves, or taken in conjunction with the antecedent facts, comprise a transaction which may be made the basis of a second action not precluded by the first"); cf. id., § 20(2) ("A valid and final personal judgment for the defendant, which rests on the prematurity of the action or on the plaintiff's failure to satisfy a precondition to suit, does not bar another action by the plaintiff instituted after the claim has matured, or the precondition has been satisfied"); id., § 20, Comment k (discussing relationship of this rule with § 24, Comment f ). The Courts of Appeals have used similar rules to determine the contours of a new claim for purposes of preclusion. See, e.g., Morgan v. Covington, 648 F.3d 172, 178 (C.A.3 2011) ("[R]es judicata does not bar claims that are predicated on events that postdate the filing of the initial complaint"); Ellis v. CCA of Tenn. LLC, 650 F.3d 640, 652 (C.A.7 2011) ; Bank of N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 919 (C.A.2 2010) ; Smith v. Potter, 513 F.3d 781, 783 (C.A.7 2008) ; Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 521, 529 (C.A.6 2006) ; Manning v. Auburn, 953 F.2d 1355, 1360 (C.A.11 1992). The Restatement adds that, where "important human values-such as the lawfulness of continuing personal disability or restraint-are at stake, even a slight change of circumstances may afford a sufficient basis for concluding that a second action may be brought." § 24, Comment f ; see Bucklew v. Lombardi, 783 F.3d 1120, 1127 (C.A.8 2015) (allowing as-applied challenge to execution method to proceed notwithstanding prior facial challenge).
We find this approach persuasive. Imagine a group of prisoners who claim that they are being forced to drink contaminated water. These prisoners file suit against the facility where they are incarcerated. If at first their suit is dismissed because a court does not believe that the harm would be severe enough to be unconstitutional, it would make no sense to prevent the same prisoners from bringing a later suit if time and experience eventually showed that prisoners were dying from contaminated water. Such circumstances would give rise to a new claim that the prisoners' treatment violates the Constitution. Factual developments may show that constitutional harm, which seemed too remote or speculative to afford relief at the time of an earlier suit, was in fact indisputable. In our view, such changed circumstances will give rise to a new constitutional claim. This approach is sensible, and it is consistent with our precedent. See Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765, 772, 51 S.Ct. 252, 75 L.Ed. 690 (1931) (where "suit was brought immediately upon the enactment of the law," "decision sustaining the law cannot be regarded as precluding a subsequent suit for the purpose of testing [its] validity... in the lights of the later actual experience"); cf. Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 328, 75 S.Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955) (judgment that "precludes recovery on claims arising prior to its entry" nonetheless "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist"); United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153, 58 S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938) ("[T]he constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist"); Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405, 415, 55 S.Ct. 486, 79 L.Ed. 949 (1935) ("A statute valid as to one set of facts may be invalid as to another. A statute valid when enacted may become invalid by change in the conditions to which it is applied" (footnote omitted)); Third Nat. Bank of Louisville v. Stone, 174 U.S. 432, 434, 19 S.Ct. 759, 43 L.Ed. 1035 (1899) ("A question cannot be held to have been adjudged before an issue on the subject could possibly have arisen"). Justice ALITO'S dissenting opinion is simply wrong that changed circumstances showing that a challenged law has an unconstitutional effect cannot give rise to a new claim. See post, at 2328 - 2329 (hereinafter the dissent).
Changed circumstances of this kind are why the claim presented in Abbott is not the same claim as petitioners' claim here. The claims in both Abbott and the present case involve "important human values." Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24, Comment f. We are concerned with H.B. 2's "effect... on women seeking abortions." Post, at 2345 - 2346 (ALITO, J., dissenting). And that effect has changed dramatically since petitioners filed their first lawsuit. Abbott rested on facts and evidence presented to the District Court in October 2013. 748 F.3d, at 599, n. 14 (declining to "consider any arguments" based on "developments since the conclusion of the bench trial"). Petitioners' claim in this case rests in significant part upon later, concrete factual developments. Those developments matter. The Abbott plaintiffs brought their facial challenge to the admitting-privileges requirement prior to its enforcement -before many abortion clinics had closed and while it was still unclear how many clinics would be affected. Here, petitioners bring an as-applied challenge to the requirement after its enforcement -and after a large number of clinics have in fact closed. The postenforcement consequences of H.B. 2 were unknowable before it went into effect. The Abbott court itself recognized that "[l]ater as-applied challenges can always deal with subsequent, concrete constitutional issues." Id., at 589. And the Court of Appeals in this case properly decided that new evidence presented by petitioners had given rise to a new claim and that petitioners' as-applied challenges are not precluded. See 790 F.3d, at 591 ("We now know with certainty that the non-[surgical-center] abortion facilities have actually closed and physicians have been unable to obtain admitting privileges after diligent effort").
When individuals claim that a particular statute will produce serious constitutionally relevant adverse consequences before they have occurred-and when the courts doubt their likely occurrence-the factual difference that those adverse consequences have in fact occurred can make all the difference. Compare the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the earlier case, Abbott, supra, at 598 ("All of the major Texas cities... continue to have multiple clinics where many physicians will have or obtain hospital admitting privileges"), with the facts found in this case, 46 F.Supp.3d, at 680 (the two provisions will leave Texas with seven or eight clinics). The challenge brought in this case and the one in Abbott are not the "very same claim," and the doctrine of claim preclusion consequently does not bar a new challenge to the constitutionality of the admitting-privileges requirement. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S., at 748, 121 S.Ct. 1808. That the litigants in Abbott did not seek review in this Court, as the dissent suggests they should have done, see post, at 2326, does not prevent them from seeking review of new claims that have arisen after Abbott was decided. In sum, the Restatement, cases from the Courts of Appeals, our own precedent, and simple logic combine to convince us that res judicata does not bar this claim.
The Court of Appeals also concluded that the award of facial relief was precluded by principles of res judicata. 790 F.3d, at 581. The court concluded that the District Court should not have "granted more relief than anyone requested or briefed." Id., at 580. But in addition to asking for as-applied relief, petitioners asked for "such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and equitable." App. 167. Their evidence and arguments convinced the District Court that the provision was unconstitutional across the board. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that (with an exception not relevant here) a "final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings." Rule 54(c). And we have held that, if the arguments and evidence show that a statutory provision is unconstitutional on its face, an injunction prohibiting its enforcement is "proper." Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 333, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) ; see ibid. (in "the exercise of its judicial responsibility" it may be "necessary... for the Court to consider the facial validity" of a statute, even though a facial challenge was not brought); cf. Fallon, As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1321, 1339 (2000) ("[O]nce a case is brought, no general categorical line bars a court from making broader pronouncements of invalidity in properly 'as-applied' cases"). Nothing prevents this Court from awarding facial relief as the appropriate remedy for petitioners' as-applied claims.
B
Claim Preclusion-Surgical-Center Requirement
The Court of Appeals also held that claim preclusion barred petitioners from contending that the surgical-center requirement is unconstitutional. 790 F.3d, at 583. Although it recognized that petitioners did not bring this claim in Abbott, it believed that they should have done so. The court explained that petitioners' constitutional challenge to the surgical-center requirement and the challenge to the admitting-privileges requirement mounted in Abbott
"arise from the same 'transactio[n] or series of connected transactions.'... The challenges involve the same parties and abortion facilities; the challenges are governed by the same legal standards; the provisions at issue were enacted at the same time as part of the same act; the provisions were motivated by a common purpose; the provisions are administered by the same state officials; and the challenges form a convenient trial unit because they rely on a common nucleus of operative facts." 790 F.3d, at 581.
For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals held petitioners' challenge to H.B. 2's surgical-center requirement was precluded.
The Court of Appeals failed, however, to take account of meaningful differences. The surgical-center provision and the admitting-privileges provision are separate, distinct provisions of H.B. 2. They set forth two different, independent requirements with different enforcement dates. This Court has never suggested that challenges to two different statutory provisions that serve two different functions must be brought in a single suit. And lower courts normally treat challenges to distinct regulatory requirements as "separate claims," even when they are part of one overarching "[g]overnment regulatory scheme." 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4408, p. 52 (2d ed. 2002, Supp. 2015) ; see Hamilton's Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F.3d 644, 650 (C.A.6 2007).
That approach makes sense. The opposite approach adopted by the Court of Appeals would require treating every statutory enactment as a single transaction which a given party would only be able to challenge one time, in one lawsuit, in order to avoid the effects of claim preclusion. Such a rule would encourage a kitchen-sink approach to any litigation challenging the validity of statutes. That outcome is less than optimal-not only for litigants, but for courts.
There are other good reasons why petitioners should not have had to bring their challenge to the surgical-center provision at the same time they brought their first suit. The statute gave the Texas Department of State Health Services authority to make rules implementing the surgical-center requirement. H.B. 2, § 11(a), App. to Pet. for Cert. 201a. At the time petitioners filed Abbott, that state agency had not yet issued any such rules. Cf. EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99, 104, 97 S.Ct. 1635, 52 L.Ed.2d 166 (1977) (per curiam ); 13B Wright, supra, § 3532.6, at 629 (3d ed. 2008) (most courts will not "undertake review before rules have been adopted"); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 204 (C.A.D.C.1988).
Further, petitioners might well have expected that those rules when issued would contain provisions grandfathering some then-existing abortion facilities and granting full or partial waivers to others. After all, more than three quarters of non-abortion-related surgical centers had benefited from that kind of provision. See 46 F.Supp.3d, at 680-681 (336 of 433 existing Texas surgical centers have been grandfathered or otherwise enjoy a waiver of some of the surgical-center requirements); see also App. 299-302, 443-447, 468-469.
Finally, the relevant factual circumstances changed between Abbott and the present lawsuit, as we previously described. See supra, at 2306 - 2307.
The dissent musters only one counterargument. According to the dissent, if statutory provisions "impos[e] the same kind of burden... on the same kind of right" and have mutually reinforcing effects, "it is evident that" they are "part of the same transaction" and must be challenged together. Post, at 2340 - 2341, 2341. But for the word "evident," the dissent points to no support for this conclusion, and we find it unconvincing. Statutes are often voluminous, with many related, yet distinct, provisions. Plaintiffs, in order to preserve their claims, need not challenge each such provision of, say, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the National Labor Relations Act, the Clean Water Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in their first lawsuit.
For all of these reasons, we hold that the petitioners did not have to bring their challenge to the surgical-center provision when they challenged the admitting-privileges provision in Abbott. We accordingly hold that the doctrine of claim preclusion does not prevent them from bringing that challenge now.
* * *
In sum, in our view, none of petitioners' claims are barred by res judicata. For all of the reasons described above, we conclude that the Court of Appeals' procedural ruling was incorrect. Cf. Brief for Professors Michael Dorf et al. as Amici Curiae 22 (professors in civil procedure from Cornell Law School, New York University School of Law, Columbia Law School, University of Chicago Law School, and Duke University Law School) (maintaining that "the panel's procedural ruling" was "clearly incorrect"). We consequently proceed to consider the merits of petitioners' claims.
III
Undue Burden-Legal Standard
We begin with the standard, as described in Casey. We recognize that the "State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 150, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). But, we added, "a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case of peer-on-peer sexual harassment is whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), precludes an action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that it does. 504 F. 3d 165 (2007). We reverse.
I
Because this case comes to us on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we assume the truth of the facts as alleged in petitioners’ complaint. During the 2000-2001 school year, the daughter of petitioners Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald was a kindergarten student in the Barnstable, Massachusetts, school system, and rode the bus to school each morning. One day she told her parents that, whenever she wore a dress, a third-grade boy on the school bus would bully her into lifting her skirt. Lisa Fitzgerald immediately called the school principal, Frederick Scully, who arranged a meeting later that day with the Fitzgeralds, their daughter, and another school official, Lynda Day. Scully and Day then questioned the alleged bully, who denied the allegations. Day also interviewed the bus driver and several students who rode the bus. She concluded that she could not corroborate the girl’s version of the events.
The Fitzgeralds’ daughter then provided new details of the alleged abuse to her parents, who relayed them to Scully. Specifically, she told her parents that in addition to bullying her into raising her skirt, the boy coerced her into pulling down her underpants and spreading her legs. Scully scheduled a second meeting with the Fitzgeralds to discuss the additional details and again questioned the boy and other students.
Meanwhile, the local police department conducted an independent investigation and concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the boy. Based partly on the police investigation and partly on the school’s own investigation, Scully similarly concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant discipline. Scully did propose remedial measures to the Fitzgeralds. He suggested transferring their daughter to a different bus or leaving rows of empty seats between the kindergarteners and older students on the original bus. The Fitzgeralds felt that these proposals punished their daughter instead of the boy and countered with alternative proposals. They suggested transferring the boy to a different bus or placing a monitor on the original bus. The Barnstable school system’s superintendent, Russell Dever, did not act on these proposals.
The Fitzgeralds began driving their daughter to school to avoid further bullying on the bus, but she continued to report unsettling incidents at school. The Fitzgeralds reported each incident to Scully. The Fitzgeralds’ daughter had an unusual number of absences during the remainder of the school year.
In April 2002, the Fitzgeralds filed suit in District Court, alleging that the school system’s response to their allegations of sexual harassment had been inadequate, resulting in further harassment to their daughter. Their complaint included: (1) a claim for violation of Title IX against the Barn-stable School Committee (the school system’s governing body), (2) claims under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the school committee and Dever, and (3) Massachusetts state-law claims against the school committee and Dever. The school committee and Dever (respondents here), filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted as to the §1983 claims and the state-law claims. On the Title IX claim, the school committee filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court also granted. Hunter v. Barnstable School Comm., 456 F. Supp. 2d 255, 266 (Mass. 2006).
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. 504 F. 3d 165. Turning first to the Title IX claim against the school committee, the court noted three points that were not in dispute: (1) The school committee was the recipient of federal funds and was therefore subject to Title IX, (2) the school committee had actual knowledge of the harassment the Fitzgeralds’ daughter suffered, and (3) if the allegations of the complaint were true, the harassment was “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.” Id., at 172. The court concluded that the Fitzgeralds’ Title IX claim lacked merit, however, because the response of the school committee and Dever to the reported harassment had been objectively reasonable. Id., at 175.
The Court of Appeals turned next to the Fitzgeralds’ § 1983 claims. Relying on this Court’s precedents in Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U. S. 1 (1981), Smith v. Robinson, 468 U. S. 992 (1984), and Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U. S. 113 (2005), the court characterized Title IX’s implied private remedy as “sufficiently comprehensive” to preclude use of § 1983 to advance statutory claims based on Title IX itself. 504 F. 3d, at 179. This reasoning, the court held, “applied] with equal force” to the constitutional claims. Ibid. The court concluded that “Congress saw Title IX as the sole means of vindicating the constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination perpetrated by educational institutions.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals’ decision deepened a conflict among the Circuits regarding whether Title IX precludes use of § 1983 to redress unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools. Compare Bruneau ex rel. Schofield v. South Kortright Central School Dist., 163 F. 3d 749, 758-759 (CA2 1998); Waid v. Merrill Area Public Schools, 91 F. 3d 857, 862-863 (CA7 1996); Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School Dist., 917 F. 2d 779, 789 (CA3 1990), with Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Assn., 459 F. 3d 676, 691 (CA6 2006); Crawford v. Davis, 109 F. 3d 1281, 1284 (CA8 1997); Seamons v. Snow, 84 F. 3d 1226, 1234 (CA10 1996). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 553 U. S. 1093 (2008), and we now reverse.
II
A
In relevant part, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
In three cases, this Court has found that statutory enactments precluded claims under this statute. Sea Clammers, supra; Smith, supra; Rancho Palos Verdes, supra. These cases establish that “[t]he crucial consideration is what Congress intended.” Smith, 468 U. S., at 1012. If Congress intended a statute’s remedial scheme to “be the exclusive avenue through which a plaintiff may assert [the] claims,” id., at 1009, the §1983 claims are precluded. See Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 120-121 (“The critical question, then, is whether Congress meant the judicial remedy expressly authorized by [the statute] to coexist with an alternative remedy available in a § 1983 action”).
In those cases in which the § 1983 claim is based on a statutory right, “evidence of such congressional intent may be found directly in the statute creating the right, or inferred from the statute’s creation of a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement under §1983.” Id., at 120 (internal quotation marks omitr ted). In cases in which the § 1983 claim alleges a constitutional violation, lack of congressional intent may be inferred from a comparison of the rights and protections of the statute and those existing under the Constitution. Where the contours of such rights and protections diverge in significant ways, it is not likely that Congress intended to displace § 1983 suits enforcing constitutional rights. Our conclusions regarding congressional intent can be confirmed by a statute’s context. Id., at 127 (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[C]on-text, not just literal text, will often lead a court to Congress’ intent in respect to a particular statute”).
In determining whether a subsequent statute precludes the enforcement of a federal right under §1983, we have placed primary emphasis on the nature and extent of that statute’s remedial scheme. See Sea Clammers, supra, at 20 (“When the remedial devices provided in a particular Act are sufficiently comprehensive, they may suffice to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under § 1983”).
Sea Clammers illustrates this approach. The plaintiffs brought suit under § 1983 for violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. This Court’s analysis focused on these two statutes’ “unusually elaborate enforcement provisions,” which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to seek civil and criminal penalties for violations, permitted “ ‘any interested person’ ” to seek judicial review, and contained detailed citizen suit provisions allowing for injunctive relief. 453 U. S., at 13-14. Allowing parallel § 1983 claims to proceed, we concluded, would have thwarted Congress’ intent in formulating and detailing these provisions.
In Smith, the plaintiffs alleged deprivation of a free, appropriate public education for their handicapped child, in violation of the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Departing from the pattern of the plaintiffs in Sea Clammers, the Smith plaintiffs relied on § 1983 to assert independent constitutional rights, not to assert the statutory rights guaranteed by the EHA. As in Sea Clammers, however, this Court focused on the statute’s detailed remedial scheme in concluding that Congress intended the statute to provide the sole avenue for relief. Smith, supra, at 1011 (noting “the comprehensive nature of the procedures and guarantees set out in the [statute] and Congress’ express efforts to place on local and state educational agencies the primary responsibility for developing a plan to accommodate the needs of each individual handicapped child”).
In Rancho Palos Verdes, we again focused on a statute’s remedial scheme in inferring congressional intent for exclusivity. After being denied a permit to build a radio tower on his property, the plaintiff brought claims for injunctive relief under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) and for damages and attorney’s fees under § 1983. Noting that the TCA provides highly detailed and restrictive administrative and judicial remedies, and explaining that “limitations upon the remedy contained in the statute are deliberate and are not to be evaded through §1983,” we again concluded that Congress must have intended the statutory remedies to be exclusive. 544 U. S., at 124.
In all three cases, the statutes at issue required plaintiffs to comply with particular procedures and/or to exhaust particular administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Sea Clammers, supra, at 6; Smith, supra, at 1011-1012; Rancho Palos Verdes, supra, at 122. Offering plaintiffs a direct route to court via § 1983 would have circumvented these procedures and given plaintiffs access to tangible benefits — such as damages, attorney’s fees, and costs — that were unavailable under the statutes. “Allowing a plaintiff to circumvent” the statutes’ provisions in this way would have been “inconsistent with Congress’ carefully tailored scheme.” Smith, 468 U. S., at 1012.
B
1
Section 901(a) of Title IX provides:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a).
The statute’s only express enforcement mechanism, § 1682, is an administrative procedure resulting in the withdrawal of federal funding from institutions that are not in compliance. In addition, this Court has recognized an implied private right of action. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 717 (1979). In a suit brought pursuant to this private right, both injunctive relief and damages are available. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 76 (1992).
These remedies — withdrawal of federal funds and an implied cause of action — stand in stark contrast to the “unusually elaborate,” “carefully tailored,” and “restrictive” enforcement schemes of the statutes at issue in Sea Clammers, Smith, and Rancho Palos Verdes. Unlike those statutes, Title IX has no administrative exhaustion requirement and no notice provisions. Under its implied private right of action, plaintiffs can file directly in court, Cannon, supra, at 717, and can obtain the full range of remedies, see Franklin, supra, at 72 (concluding that “Congress did not intend to limit the remedies available in a suit brought under Title IX”). As a result, parallel and concurrent § 1983 claims will neither circumvent required procedures, nor allow access to new remedies.
Moreover, this Court explained in Rancho Palos Verdes that “[t]he provision of an express, private means of redress in the statute itself” is a key consideration in determining congressional intent, and that “the existence of a more restrictive private remedy for statutory violations has been the dividing line between those cases in which we have held that an action would lie under § 1983 and those in which we have held that it would not.” 544 U. S., at 121 (emphasis added). As noted, Title IX contains no express private remedy, much less a more restrictive one. This Court has never held that an implied right of action had the effect of precluding suit under § 1983, likely because of the difficulty of discerning congressional intent in such a situation. See Franklin, supra, at 76 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (“Quite obviously, the search for what was Congress’ remedial intent as to a right whose very existence Congress did not expressly acknowledge is unlikely to succeed”). Mindful that we should “not lightly conclude that Congress intended to preclude reliance on §1983 as a remedy for a substantial equal protection claim,” Smith, 468 U. S., at 1012, we see no basis for doing so here.
2
A comparison of the substantive rights and protections guaranteed under Title IX and under the Equal Protection Clause lends further support to the conclusion that Congress did not intend Title IX to preclude § 1983 constitutional suits. Title IX’s protections are narrower in some respects and broader in others. Because the protections guaranteed by the two sources of law diverge in this way, we cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that “Congress saw Title IX as the sole means of vindicating the constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination perpetrated by educational institutions.” 504 F. 3d, at 179.
Title IX reaches institutions and programs that receive federal funds, 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), which may include nonpublic institutions, § 1681(c), but it has consistently been interpreted as not authorizing suit against school officials, teachers, and other individuals, see, e. g., Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F. 3d 1263, 1270 (CA11 1999). The Equal Protection Clause reaches only state actors, but § 1983 equal protection claims may be brought against individuals as well as municipalities and certain other state entities. West v. Atkins, 487 U. S. 42, 48-51 (1988).
Title IX exempts from its restrictions several activities that may be challenged on constitutional grounds. For example, Title IX exempts elementary and secondary schools from its prohibition against discrimination in admissions, § 1681(a)(1); it exempts military service schools and traditionally single-sex public colleges from all of its provisions, §§ 1681(a)(4)-(5). Some exempted activities may form the basis of equal protection claims. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515, 534 (1996) (men-only admissions policy at Virginia Military Institute violated the Equal Protection Clause); Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 731 (1982) (women-only admission policy at a traditionally single-sex public college violated the Equal Protection Clause).
Even where particular activities and particular defendants are subject to both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, the standards for establishing liability may not be wholly congruent. For example, a Title IX plaintiff can establish school district liability by showing that a single school administrator with authority to take corrective action responded to harassment with deliberate indifference. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School DisT., 524 U. S. 274, 290 (1998). A plaintiff stating a similar claim via § 1983 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause by a school district or other municipal entity must show that the harassment was the result of municipal custom, policy, or practice. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 694 (1978).
In light of the divergent coverage of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as the absence of a comprehensive remedial scheme comparable to those at issue in Sea Clammers, Smith, and Rancho Palos Verdes, we conclude that Title IX was not meant to be an exclusive mechanism for addressing gender discrimination in schools, or a substitute for § 1983 suits as a means of enforcing constitutional rights. Accordingly, we hold that § 1983 suits based on the Equal Protection Clause remain available to plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.
3
This conclusion is consistent with Title IX’s context and history. In enacting Title IX, Congress amended §902, 78 Stat. 267, 42 U. S. C. § 2000h-2, to authorize the Attorney General to intervene in private suits alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See §906, 86 Stat. 375 (adding the term “sex" to the listed grounds, which already included race, color, religion, or national origin). Accordingly, it appears that the Congress that enacted Title IX explicitly envisioned that private plaintiffs would bring constitutional claims to challenge gender discrimination; it must have recognized that plaintiffs would do so via 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
Moreover, Congress modeled Title IX after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Cannon, 441 U. S., at 694-695, and passed Title IX with the explicit understanding that it would be interpreted as Title VI was, id., at 696. At the time of Title IX’s enactment in 1972, Title VI was routinely interpreted to allow for parallel and concurrent § 1983 claims, see, e. g., Alvarado v. El Paso Independent School Dist., 445 F. 2d 1011 (CA5 1971); Nashville 1-40 Steering Comm. v. Ellington, 387 F. 2d 179 (CA6 1967); Bossier Parish School Bd. v. Lemon, 370 F. 2d 847 (CA5 1967), and we presume Congress was aware of this when it passed Title IX, see Franklin, 503 U. S., at 71 (in assessing Congress’ intent, “we evaluate the state of the law when the Legislature passed Title IX”). In the absence of any contrary evidence, it follows that Congress intended Title IX to be interpreted similarly to allow for parallel and concurrent § 1983 claims. At the least, this indicates that Congress did not affirmatively intend Title IX to preclude such claims.
Ill
One matter remains. Respondents contend that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed on independent grounds — namely, that the Fitzgeralds have no actionable §1983 claim on which to proceed. They contend that the Court of Appeals’ holding that neither the school committee nor Dever acted with deliberate indifference is conclusive and forecloses a § 1983 constitutional claim based on a similar theory of liability. They contend that all other § 1983 constitutional claims on these facts are precluded by the Fitzgeralds’ failure to allege such claims adequately or to preserve them on appeal.
The Fitzgeralds respond that they have no intention of relitigating the issue of deliberate indifference. They intend, they say, to advance claims of discriminatory treatment in the investigation of student behavior and in the treatment of student complaints, which they were foreclosed from developing at the earliest stages of litigation by the dismissal of the § 1983 claims.
As the Fitzgeralds note, no court has addressed the merits of their constitutional claims or even the sufficiency of their pleadings. Ordinarily, “we do not decide in the first instance issues not decided below,” National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Smith, 525 U. S. 459, 470 (1999), and we see no reason for doing so here.
Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment that the District Court’s dismissal of the § 1983 claims was proper and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The statutes at issue in Sea Clammers and Smith did not allow for damages. The statute at issue in Rancho Palos Verdes did not expressly allow for damages, but some lower courts interpreted it to do so. The statutes at issue in Smith and Rancho Palos Verdes did not allow for attorney’s fees and costs. See Sea Clammers, 453 U. S., at 6-7, 13-14 (addressing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V), and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 1052, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1401 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V)); Smith, 468 U. S., at 1010-1011 (addressing the EHA, 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq.); Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 122-123, and nn. 3, 4 (addressing the TCA, 110 Stat. 56, 47 U. S. C. § 332(c)(7)).
Respondents argue that constitutional protections against gender discrimination were minimal in 1972, as the only gender-based equal protection case this Court had decided employed a rational-basis standard. Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71, 76 (1971). But see Gunther, In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 34 (1972) (Reed exemplified the application of rationality review “with bite”). They further argue that because Congress could not have viewed the Equal Protection Clause as offering a meaningful remedy for sex discrimination by schools, it could not have envisioned and intended for Title IX and § 1983 constitutional claims to proceed side by side. But the relevant question is not whether Congress envisioned that the two types of claims would proceed together in addressing gender discrimination in schools; it is whether Congress affirmatively intended to preclude this result. The limited nature of constitutional protections against gender discrimination in 1972 offers no evidence that Congress did..
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has the power, under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service with respect to any “checker” or “terminal foreman,” a substantial part of whose activities in that capacity consists of doing, or immediately directing, the work of one or more “loaders” of freight for an interstate motor carrier as such class of work is defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex parte No. MC-2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 133-134, although the rest of his activities do not affect the safety of operation of any such motor carrier.
We hold that the Commission has that power and that § 13 (b) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act therefore expressly excludes any such employee from a right to the increased pay for overtime service prescribed by § 7 of that Act.
In this action, brought in the Municipal Court of Chicago, pursuant to § 16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the petitioner recovered judgment against his employer, the respondent, for $487.44 for unpaid overtime compensation for petitioner’s services, as a “checker” or “terminal foreman,” computed in accordance with § 7 of that Act. In addition, the judgment included $487.44, as liquidated damages, and $175 as an attorney’s fee, making a total of $1,149.88 and costs. The defense was that, under § 13 (b) (1), the provisions of § 7 did not apply to the petitioner’s service. On that ground, the judgment was reversed by the Appellate Court of Illinois and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment, with costs, for the respondent. 323 Ill. App. 505, 56 N. E. 2d 142. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. 389 Ill. 466, 59 N. E. 2d 817. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the question in interpreting the Motor Carrier Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. 326 U. S. 703. It was argued at the October Term, 1945, of this Court and, on January 2, 1946, was restored to the docket for reargument before a full bench at this Term. It was so argued on October 21 and 22, 1946. In addition to the briefs and arguments on behalf of the parties, we have had the benefit of those presented, at our request, on behalf of amici curiae. These were from the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, who supported the position of the petitioner, and, on the other hand, from the Interstate Commerce Commission which claimed that it possessed, under the Motor Carrier Act, the power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service with respect to the petitioner. The Solicitor General, also at our request, filed a memorandum. In it he supported the petition for certiorari and took what he has described as “a position somewhat between that of the Commission and that of the Wage and Hour Administrator.”
The respondent is a Missouri corporation, licensed in Illinois, and engaged in interstate commerce as a motor carrier of freight. It does not appear whether the respondent is a common carrier, contract carrier or private carrier of property. The result, however, does not turn upon differences between those classifications. The petitioner was employed by the respondent from October 1, 1940, through October 6, 1941, in one or more capacities which he designates generally as those of a “checker” or “terminal foreman.” While the evidence is conflicting as to some of his duties, there is ample to sustain the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois on the basis that a substantial part of his activities consisted of doing, or immediately directing, the work of one or more “loaders” of freight for an interstate motor carrier as that class of work is defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Supreme Court of Illinois accepted the Appellate Court’s description of petitioner’s activities. The power of the Commission to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service with respect to such “loaders” has been defined and delimited by it in a series of well-considered decisions, dating from the extension of its jurisdiction, in 1935, so as to include motor carriers.
The history of the development of the congressional safety program in interstate commerce, up to and including the enactment of the Motor Carrier Act in 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, tells the story.
In comparable fields, Congress previously had prescribed safety equipment, limited maximum hours of service and imposed penalties for violations of its requirements. In those Acts, Congress did not rely upon increases in rates of pay for overtime service to enforce the limitations it set upon hours of service. While a requirement of pay that is higher for overtime service than for regular service tends to deter employers from permitting such service, it tends also to encourage employees to seek it. The requirement of such increased pay is a remedial measure adapted to the needs of an economic and social program rather than a police regulation adapted to the rigid enforcement required in a safety program. Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U. S. 572, 577-578.
By 1935, 40 states had attempted to regulate safety of operation of carriers by motor vehicle. Some had established qualifications and maximum hours of service for drivers and helpers. Increased interstate movements of motor carriers then made necessary the Motor Carrier Act, 1985, approved August 9, 1935, as Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 Stat. 543. This Act vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission power to establish reasonable requirements with respect to qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees and safety of operation and equipment of common and contract carriers by motor vehicle. § 204 (a) (1) (2). Similar, but not identical, language was used as to private carriers of property by motor vehicle. § 204 (a) (3). The Act expressly superseded “any code of fair competition for any industry embracing motor carriers....” § 204 (b). Section 203 (b) listed many types of motor carriers which were exempted in general from the Act but that Section significantly applied to all of them the provisions of § 204 as to qualifications, maximum hours of service, safety of operation and equipment.
It is even more significant that in 1942, several years after enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Congress slightly, but expressly, expanded the jurisdiction of the Commission over these subjects of qualifications, maximum hours of service, safety of operation and equipment and thereby restricted, to a corresponding degree, the application of the compulsory overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In 1940, this Court, in United States v. Amer. Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, recognized the emphasis given by Congress to the clause “qualifications and maximum hours of service” in §§ 204 (a) and 203 (b). That decision reviewed the legislative history of the Act and held “that the meaning of employees in § 204 (a) (1) and (2) is limited to those employees whose activities affect the safety of operation. The Commission has no jurisdiction to regulate the qualifications or hours of service of any others.” Id. at 553. The opinion dealt with employees who devoted themselves exclusively to their respective assignments, such as those of drivers on the one hand or of clerks on the other. It demonstrated that § 204 (a) (1) and (2) related to the former but not to the latter. It did not discuss its relation to employees who, as in the present case, are required to divide their activities between those affecting safety of operation and those not affecting it.
In Southland Co. v. Bayley, 319 U. S. 44, this Court applied similar reasoning to an employee of a private carrier of property under § 204 (a) (3). It recognized the Commission’s power to find a need for its action and, having found it, to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for employees of private motor carriers of property affecting the safety of operation of such carriers. It held that, under § 13 (b) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Commission’s mere possession of that power, whether exercised or not, necessarily excluded all employees, with respect to whom the power existed, from the benefits of the compulsory overtime provisions of § 7 of that Act. The present case involves a comparable situation in that the Commission has found here that it has the power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for those doing the work of loaders for common or contract motor carriers or private motor carriers of property, but it has not found it advisable, as yet, to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for that work.
The logic of the situation is that Congress, as a primary consideration, has preserved intact the safety program which it and the Interstate Commerce Commission have been developing for motor carriers since 1936. To do this, Congress has prohibited the overlapping of the jurisdiction of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, with that of the Interstate Commerce Commission as to maximum hours of service. Congress might have done otherwise. It might have permitted both Acts to apply. There is no necessary inconsistency between enforcing rigid maximum hours of service for safety purposes and at the same time, within those limitations, requiring compliance with the increased rates of pay for overtime work done in excess of the limits set in § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Such overlapping, however, has not been authorized by Congress and it remains for us to give full effect to the safety program to which Congress has attached primary importance, even to the corresponding exclusion by Congress of certain employees from the benefits of the compulsory overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. When examined from the point of view of the Motor Carrier Act alone, much light is thrown on the meaning of its § 204 by the interpretation given to it and the applications made of it by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The reports and regulations of that Commission, issued under authority of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, both before and after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, deal so thoroughly and expertly with the safety of operation of interstate motor transportation as to entitle them to especially significant weight in the interpretation of this Act, the enforcement of which has been committed by Congress solely to that Commission.
The principal reports and regulations of the Commission, bearing upon the present controversy, are the following:
December 23, 1936. 1 M. C. C. 1. Ex parte No. MC-4 established qualifications for drivers of interstate, common or contract carriers by motor vehicle, outlined a long-term safety program and issued regulations as to safety of operation and equipment, constituting Parts, I, II, III and IV of motor carrier safety regulations.
December 29, 1937. 3 M. C. C. 665. Ex parte No. MC-2 established maximum hours of service for drivers of interstate, common or contract carriers by motor vehicles, Part V of such regulations.
July 9, 1938. 8 M. C. C. 162. Ex parte No. MC-4 modified Part III of such regulations as to safety glass.
July 12, 1938. 6 M. C. C. 557. Ex parte No. MC-2, in the light of current experience, modified Part V of the regulations as to maximum hours of service for such drivers.
December 3, 1938. 10 M. C. C. 533. Ex parte No. MC-4 adapted the Commission’s general qualifications and regulations to those types of carriers which were exempted from the Motor Carrier Act by §203 (b), but which had remained subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, under § 204, as to qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees, safety of operation and equipment.
January 27, 1939. 11 M. C. C. 203. Ex parte No. MC-2 further modified Part V of regulations as to maximum hours of service of drivers for common and contract carriers by motor vehicle.
May 9, 1939. 13 M. C. C. 481. Ex parte No. MC-28 interpreted § 204 (a) as giving the Commission authority to prescribe qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of common, contract and private carriers of property by motor vehicle only as to those employees whose activities affected safety of operation. It said:
“Our experience and the study we necessarily made in connection with the administration of the Motor Carrier Act qualify us to prescribe such regulations [i. e., as to drivers], to promote safety of operation. Quite the contrary would be true if we were called upon to prescribe general qualifications for all employees of such carriers.” Id. at 485.
Clerks, salesmen and executives were named as not being within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Referring further to its power to prescribe qualifications and maximum hours of service with respect to drivers and others, the Commission said:
“That power undoubtedly extends to drivers of such vehicles. It may well be that the activities of some employees other than drivers likewise affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles engaged in interstate and foreign commerce. If common and contract carriers, or private carriers of property, or their employees believe that the activities of employees other than drivers affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, they may file an appropriate petition, asking that a hearing be held and the question determined.” Id. at 488.
May 27, 1939. 14 M. C. C. 669. Ex parte No. MC-4. The “Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Revised,” were found to be “reasonable requirements with respect to qualifications of employees and safety of operation and equipment of common carriers and contract carriers subject to the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, and that said revised regulations should be approved, adopted, and prescribed.” Id. at 683. These revisions strengthened the provisions as to qualifications of drivers, for common and contract carriers, as to eyesight, physical condition, age, and ability to read and speak English. They extended the maximum hours of service regulations to drivers for the “exempt carriers” enumerated in § 203 (b), excepting only those referred to in subparagraph (4a) relating to farmers.
June 15, 1939. 16 M. C. C. 497. No. MC-C-189. Upon petition of American Trucking Associations, Incorporated, et al., the Commission reaffirmed its decision of May 9, 1939, in Ex parte No. MC-28, and stated the negative side of the proposition there established. It said that § 204 (a) “does not empower us to prescribe maximum hours of service for employees of motor carriers whose activities do not affect the safety of operation.” Id. at 497.
May 1, 1940. 23 M. C. C. 1. Ex parte No. MC-8. Following extended hearings, the Commission made findings that are important here. First, it found, as required by § 204 (a) (3), that “there is need for Federal regulation of private carriers of property to promote safety of operation of motor vehicles used by such carriers in the transportation of property in interstate or foreign commerce.” Id. at 42. With comparatively few exceptions, such as those relating to farm trucks and industry trucks, the Commission then applied to drivers for private carriers of property by motor vehicle in interstate and foreign commerce the same qualifications, maximum hours of service and regulations as to safety of operation and equipment that it previously had prescribed, by its orders in Ex parte No. MC-2, supra, and Ex parte No. MC-4, supra, for drivers of common and contract carriers. Id. at 22, 42.
The significance of this action in relation to the present case is that, in considering the classes of work done by drivers for private motor carriers, the Commission found many instances where only a part of the driver's activities related to driving or to other operations affecting safety of transportation. For example, the Commission dealt with drivers of farm trucks. Section 203 (b) (4a) of the Motor Carrier Act exempts farm trucks, for most purposes, from the provisions of that Act. Nevertheless, § 204 retains them within the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to the qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees whose activities affect the safety of operation of interstate carriers by motor vehicle. The Commission recognized that such drivers have many duties unrelated to those of driving or safety of operation; that farm trucks, to a large extent, do not travel public highways; that the work is not a year-round operation but generally is confined to the harvest season; but that, nevertheless, whenever such a truck is being operated in interstate transportation on the public highway, the hazards involved in such operation are comparable to those faced by drivers who devote their entire time to interstate truck driving of all kinds. With appropriate modifications, the Commission thereupon prescribed for drivers of farm trucks qualifications and maximum hours of service different from, but comparable to, those it had prescribed for
drivers of common and contract carrier trucks in general. Instead of its standard minimum requirement of 21 years of age, it set the minimum age requirement for drivers of farm trucks at 18, when the gross weight of the vehicle and load combined did not exceed 10,000 pounds. It declined to approve a minimum age of 16, although that had been accepted by some states. It eliminated the usual physical examinations. It relaxed its rule against transportation of passengers. It eliminated its requirement of keeping a driver’s log showing a written record of the trips and stops made by each driver. It retained, however, its restriction against driving more than 10 hours in any one day and, in place of the prohibition against a total of more than 60 hours on duty in a week, it limited the total hours of driving, as distinguished from other duties, to 50 hours in a week. Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M. C. C. 1, 27-28, 43.
The Commission took comparable action as to industry trucks. It recognized, for example, that a bakery driver-salesman devotes much of his effort and time to selling baked goods rather than to activities affecting the safety of operation of his truck. The Commission, however, did not relinquish jurisdiction over the qualifications of driver-salesmen nor did it refrain from regulating their driving time. It modified its usual rule by providing that, if a driver-salesman “spends more than 50 percent of his time in selling and less than 50 percent in performing such duties as driving, loading, and unloading,” he may be permitted to exceed the usual limit of 60 hours on duty in any week of 168 consecutive hours, provided only that “his hours of driving are limited to a total of not more than 40 in any such week.” Id. at 44, and see 31 (recommending 50 hours). This use by the Commission of a percentage of the driver’s time as a basis for the adjustment of his permissible maximum hours of service is to be distinguished from the suggestion of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, that the entire power of the Commission over safety regulations must be denied as a matter of law whenever, in any given week, an employee has devoted over 50% of his working time to activities not affecting safety, although he may have devoted the rest of his working time to driving a common carrier truck in interstate commerce. It is essential to the Commission’s safety program whenever and wherever hazardous activities are engaged in that affect safety of operation of an interstate motor carrier, that those who engage in them shall be qualified to do so and that maximum hours of service affecting such safety of operation shall be established and enforced. This means retaining and using, rather than relinquishing, the Commission’s jurisdiction over partial-duty drivers and partial-duty loaders, a substantial part of whose activities affects the safety of interstate motor carrier operations, although the rest of their activities may not affect the safety of such operations.
Recognizing its potential jurisdiction over others than drivers, the Commission, in that proceeding, invited private carriers of property or their employees who “believe that the activities of employees other than drivers affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles engaged in interstate or foreign commerce” to institute proceedings in order that the question be determined. Id. at 44.
March 4, 1941. 28 M. C. C. 125, Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3. In the light of the foregoing experience and hearings, together with the decision of this Court in United States v. Amer. Trucking Assns., supra, the Commission, in this latest and most informative decision, found that the classes of activities which it defined as those of mechanics, loaders and helpers affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles and that, therefore, employees engaging in such classes of activities are subject to the Commission’s power to prescribe their qualifications and maximum hours of service, pursuant to § 204 (a). As related to loaders, the Commission announced the following findings of fact which are significant in the present case:
“Findings of fact.—...
“2. That loaders, as above defined, employed by common and contract carriers and private carriers of property by motor vehicle subject to part II of the Interstate Commerce Act devote a large part of their time to activities which directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.
“4. That no employees of common and contract carriers or private carriers of property by motor vehicle, subject to part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, other than drivers and those classes of employees covered by the three preceding findings of fact [mechanics, loaders and helpers], perform duties which directly affect safety of operation.” Ex parte No. MC-2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 138-139.
These findings of fact are squarely within the jurisdiction of the Commission. They state affirmatively that, in the opinion of the Commission, the activities of loaders as described by the Commission do affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce. They include also a finding that such loaders “devote a large part of their time to activities which directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.” In the absence of any discussion or classification, on a time basis, of the several activities of loaders described by the Commission, this additional finding amounts to another way of saying that a large part of the loader’s activities affect such safety of operation. There is nothing to indicate that it uses the element of time other than as representative of the continuing work period during all of which the loader is devoting himself to the activities of his job as a loader. It amounts, therefore, merely to a finding as to the character of a large part of the activities of loaders, in accordance with the main purpose of the Commission’s proceeding which was to determine to what extent, if any, the activities of loaders affect safety of operation.
This additional finding, however, is material from another point of view. It recognizes tacitly that even a full-duty loader may engage in some activities which do not affect safety of operation. Such “non-safety” activities may make up another “large part” of the loader’s total activities. They may constitute an even larger part of his activities than his safety-affecting activities. In the present case it was shown by the courts below that, in addition to his activities in clerical checking, etc., a “substantial part” of the petitioner’s activities consisted of the very kind of activities of a loader which the Commission has described as directly affecting safety of operation. If it be suggested that significance should be attached to the Commission’s use of the word “large” rather than the lower courts’ use of the word “substantial” in this connection, such significance disappears completely when it is seen that the Commission itself substitutes the word “substantial” for the word “large” in its conclusion of law which is quoted below.
While the indefiniteness of the terms “large” or “substantial” is obvious, nevertheless, those are the words which the Commission has chosen to use in dealing with this subject. Arbitrary or sharp lines of distinction do not lend themselves readily to supplying that extra margin of security which is natural in safety engineering. The fundamental test is simply that the employee’s activities affect safety of operation. This is the test prescribed by this Court in United States v. Amer. Trucking Assns., supra. The verb “affect” is itself incapable of exact measurement. Furthermore, we are dealing here not with the final application of the power of the Commission, but rather with the limits of its discretionary power to establish the qualifications and maximum hours of service when and where deemed by it to be needed. In issuing its regulations, the Commission itself can supply whatever definiteness the occasion shall require. From the point of view of the safety program under the Motor Carrier Act, there is no need for a sharply drawn limit to the power of the Commission to make regulations with respect to employees whose activities affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce.
Turning to the conclusions of law which were reached by the Commission in the same proceeding we find the following:
“Conclusions of law.—...
“2. That our jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications and maximum hours of service for employees of common and contract carriers and private carriers of property by motor vehicle is limited to those employees who devote a substantial part of their time to activities which directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the transportation of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce.
“3. That we have power, under section 204 (a) of said part II, to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for the classes of employees covered by findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 3 above [mechanics, loaders and helpers], and that we have no such power over any other classes of employees, except drivers.
“A further hearing will be held to determine what regulations, if any, should be prescribed for those employees, other than drivers, whom we have found subject to our jurisdiction. No order is necessary at this time.” Ex parte No. MC-2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 139.
As conclusions of law, these do not have the same claim to finality as do the findings of fact made by the Commission. However, in the light of the Commission’s long record of practical experience with this subject and its responsibility for the administration and enforcement of this law, these conclusions are entitled to special consideration. Conclusion of law No. 2 must be read in close connection with finding of fact No. 2 and conclusion of law No. 3. It is apparent that, in conclusion of law No. 2, the phrase “employees who devote a substantial part of their time to activities which directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles” is intended to match the corresponding phrase in finding of fact No. 2 as to loaders who “devote a large part of their time to activities which directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles.” This is made still more clear by conclusion of law No. 3 which finds that the Commission has jurisdiction to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for the loaders included in both paragraphs. Here again there is no classification of the respective activities of loaders on the basis of the time devoted to each activity. The phrase closely follows a discussion of full-duty loaders and its reference to a “substantial part of their time” is but another way of saying a “substantial part of their activities as loaders.”
Addressing ourselves to the questions of law presented by the case before us, we reaffirm our position in United States v. Amer. Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, and Southland Co. v. Bayley, 319 U. S. 44. We recognize the Interstate Commerce Commission as the agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the Motor Carrier Act and especially charged with the establishment of qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of common and contract carriers and private carriers of property by motor vehicle in interstate and foreign commerce. We see no reason to question its considered conclusion that the activities of full-duty drivers; mechanics, loaders and helpers, as defined by it, affect safety of operation of the carriers by whom they are employed. In harmony with our reasoning in Southland Co. v. Bayley, supra, and with that of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M. C. C. 1, as to employees of private carriers, and in Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M. C. C. 125, as to mechanics, loaders and helpers in general, we hold that the Commission has the power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service under § 204 (a) with respect to full-duty employees engaged in doing the work of loaders, although the Commission has not exercised that power affirmatively by establishing qualifications and maximum hours of service with respect to loaders.
In harmony with our decision in United States v. Amer. Trucking Assns., supra, and of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex parte No. MC-28, 13 M. C. C. 481, we recognize that the Commission has such power over all employees of such carriers whose activities affect safety of operation and that the Commission does not have such power over employees whose activities do not affect safety of operation. In the American Trucking Associations case it was not determined that it was necessary for any employee to devote all, or any precise share, of his working time or of his activities, to a particular class of work in order for such class of work to be held to affect safety of operation. It was assumed, for the purposes of that case, that the employee devoted his entire working time and activities to the single class of work under consideration.
It has been noted, however, that the Commission, in defining the class of work, as a whole, of loaders, recognized, in its findings of fact, that that class of work in its nature included duties other than those directly affecting safety of operation. It said: “We conclude that loaders devote a large part of their time to activities which directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles operated in interstate or foreign commerce, and hence that we have power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for such employees under said section 204 (a).” Ex parte No. MC—2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 134, and see 139. This means that the nature of the duties of even a full-duty “loader” is such that it is not essential that more than a “large part” of his time or activities be consumed in activities directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles—for example—loading, distributing and making secure heavy or light parcels of freight on board a truck so as to contribute as much as possible to the safety of the trip. On the other hand, it means also that more than half of the time or activities of a full-duty “loader” may be consumed in activities not directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles—for example—in placing freight in convenient places in the terminal, checking bills of lading, etc. From the point of view of the Commission and its jurisdiction over safety of operation, this indicates that it is not a question of fundamental concern whether or not it is the larger or the smaller fraction of the employee’s time or activities that is devoted to safety work. It is the character of the activities rather than the proportion of either the employee’s time or of his activities that determines the actual need for the Commission’s power to establish reasonable requirements with respect to qualifications, maximum hours of service, safety of operation and equipment. This line of reasoning is consistent with that applied throughout this case. It results in keeping within the jurisdiction of the Commission’s safety program partial-duty loaders, as well as full-duty loaders, provided only that the class of work done by them affects safety of operation, regardless of whether or not in any particular week they may have devoted more hours and days to activities not affecting safety of operation than they may have devoted to those affecting such safety of operation. The Commission uses similar language in asserting its jurisdiction over mechanics and helpers. This reasoning also resembles that by which the Commission imposes upon a “driver” a maximum total of 60 hours of service “on duty” of any kind, in a “week” of 168 consecutive hours, as well as a maximum of 10 hours, in the aggregate, of driving or operating of a motor vehicle in any period of 24 consecutive hours. Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M. C. C. 665, 6 M. C. C. 557, 11 M. C. C. 203. For example, the Commission has recognized expressly that, in charter operations, the driver of a chartered bus may be on duty for long hours, but often may spend as little as one-half of that time actually driving. Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M. C. C. 665, 679. All of these conclusions recognize that an employee who is engaged in a class of work that affects safety of operation is not necessarily engaged during every hour or every day in activities that directly affect safety of operation. While the work of a full-duty driver may affect safety of operation during only that part of the time while he is driving, yet, as a practical matter, it is essential to establish reasonable requirements with respect to his qualifications and activities at all times in order that the safety of operation of his truck may be protected during those particular hours or days when, in the course of his duties as its driver, he does the particular acts that directly affect the safety of its operation.
We have set forth the Commission’s record of supervision over this field of safety of operation to demonstrate not only the extent to which the Commission serves Congress in safeguarding the public with respect to qualifications, maximum hours of service, safety of operation and equipment of interstate motor carriers, but to demonstrate the high degree of its competence in this specialized field which justifies reliance upon its findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Before examining further the new issue presented by the facts of this case, it is important to recognize that, by virtue of the unique provisions of § 13 (b) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, we are not dealing with an exception to that Act which is to be measured by regulations which Congress has authorized to be made by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor. Instead, we are dealing here with the interpretation of the scope of the safety program of the Interstate Commerce Commission, under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, which in turn is to be interpreted in the light of the regulations made by the Interstate Commerce Commission pursuant to that Act. Congress, in the Fair Labor Standards Act, does not attempt to impinge upon the scope of the Interstate Commerce Commission safety program. It accepts that program as expressive of a pre-existing congressionally approved project. Section 13 (b) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act thus requires that we interpret the scope of § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act in accordance with the purposes of the Motor Carrier Act and the regulations issued pursuant to it. It is only to the extent that the Interstate Commerce Commission does not have power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to said § 204, that the subsequent Fair Labor Standards Act has been made applicable or its Administrator has been given congressional authority to act. This interpretation puts safety first, as did Congress. It limits the Administrator’s authority to those “employees of motor carriers whose activities do not affect the safety of operation.” No. MC-C-139, 16 M. C. C. 497.
Accordingly, we should approach the issue of the partial-duty driver and the partial-duty loader squarely from the point of view of the safety program of the Interstate Commerce Commission, as developed under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, apart from the Fair Labor Standards Act. The principle to be applied is the same in the case of the loader as in that of the driver, although the issue is more obvious when the test of jurisdiction is applied to the driver than when applied to any other class of employees of the motor carrier. This is because the driver’s work more obviously and dramatically affects the safety of operation of the carrier during every moment that he is driving than does the work of the loader who loaded the freight which the driver is transporting. Furthermore, in the case of the driver, the Commission not only
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A “protective sweep” is a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. In this case we must decide what level of justification is required by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments before police officers, while effecting the arrest of a suspect in his home pursuant to an arrest warrant, may conduct a warrantless protective sweep of all or part of the premises. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a running suit seized in plain view during such a protective sweep should have been suppressed at respondent’s armed robbery trial because the officer who conducted the sweep did not have probable cause to believe that a serious and demonstrable potentiality for danger existed. 314 Md. 151, 166, 550 A. 2d 79, 86 (1988). We conclude that the Fourth Amendment would permit the protective sweep undertaken here if the searching officer “possesse[d] a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted]’ the officer in believing,” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049-1050 (1983) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 21 (1968)), that the area swept harbored an individual posing a danger to the officer or others. We accordingly vacate the judgment below and remand for application of this standard.
I
On February 3, 1986, two men committed an armed robbery of a Godfather’s Pizza restaurant in Prince George’s County, Maryland. One of the robbers was wearing a red running suit. That same day, Prince George’s County police obtained arrest warrants for respondent Jerome Edward Buie and his suspected accomplice in the robbery, Lloyd Allen. Buie’s house was placed under police surveillance.
On February 5, the police executed the arrest warrant for Buie. They first had a police department secretary telephone Buie’s house to verify that he was home. The secretary spoke to a female first, then to Buie himself. Six or seven officers proceeded to Buie’s house. Once inside, the officers fanned out through the first and second floors. Corporal James Rozar announced that he would “freeze” the basement so that no one could come up and surprise the officers. With his service revolver drawn, Rozar twice shouted into the basement, ordering anyone down there to come out. When a voice asked who was calling, Rozar announced three times: “this is the police, show me your hands.” App. 5. Eventually, a pair of hands appeared around the bottom of the stairwell and Buie emerged from the basement. He was arrested, searched, and handcuffed by Rozar. Thereafter, Detective Joseph Frolich entered the basement “in case there was someone else” down there. Id., at 14. He noticed a red running suit lying in plain view on a stack of clothing and seized it.
The trial court denied Buie’s motion to suppress the running suit, stating in part: “The man comes out from a basement, the police don’t know how many other people are down there. He is charged with a serious offense.” Id., at 19. The State introduced the running suit into evidence at Buie’s trial. A jury convicted Buie of robbery with a deadly weapon and using a handgun in the commission of a felony.
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion. The court stated that Detective Frolich did not go into the basement to search for evidence, but to look for the suspected accomplice or anyone else who might pose a threat to the officers on the scene. 72 Md. App. 562, 571-572, 531 A. 2d 1290, 1295 (1987).
“Traditionally, the sanctity of a person’s home — his castle — requires that the police may not invade it without a warrant except under the most exigent of circumstances. But once the police are lawfully within the home, their conduct is measured by a standard of reasonableness .... [I]f there is reason to believe that the arrestee had accomplices who are still at large, something less than probable cause — reasonable suspicion — should be sufficient to justify a limited additional intrusion to investigate the possibility of their presence.” Id., at 575-576, 531 A. 2d, at 1297 (emphasis in original).
The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed by a 4-to-3 vote. 314 Md. 151, 550 A. 2d 79 (1988). The court acknowledged that “when the intrusion is slight, as in the case of a brief stop and frisk on a public street, and the public interest in prevention of crime is substantial, reasonable articulable suspicion may be enough to pass constitutional muster,” id., at 159, 550 A. 2d, at 83. The court, however, stated that when the sanctity of the home is involved, the exceptions to the warrant requirement are few, and held: “[T]o justify a protective sweep of a home, the government must show that there is probable cause to believe that ‘“a serious and demonstrable potentiality for danger”’ exists.” Id., at 159-160, 550 A. 2d, at 83 (citation omitted). The court went on to find that the State had not satisfied that probable-cause requirement. Id., at 165-166, 550 A. 2d, at 86. We granted certiorari, 490 U. S. 1097 (1989).
II
It is not disputed that until the point of Buie’s arrest the police had the right, based on the authority of the arrest warrant, to search anywhere in the house that Buie might have been found, including the basement. “If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen’s participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reasonable to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law.” Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 602-603 (1980). There is also no dispute that if Detective Frolich’s entry into the basement was lawful, the seizure of the red running suit, which was in plain view and which the officer had probable cause to believe was evidence of a crime, was also lawful under the Fourth Amendment. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321, 326 (1987). The issue in this case is what level of justification the Fourth Amendment required before Detective Frolich could legally enter the basement to see if someone else was there.
Petitioner, the State of Maryland, argues that, under a general reasonableness balancing test, police should be permitted to conduct a protective sweep whenever they make an in-home arrest for a violent crime. As an alternative to this suggested bright-line rule, the State contends that protective sweeps fall within the ambit of the doctrine announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), and that such sweeps may be conducted in conjunction with a valid in-home arrest whenever the police reasonably suspect a risk of danger to the officers or others at the arrest scene. The United States, as amicus curiae supporting the State, also argues for a Terry-type standard of reasonable, articulable suspicion of risk to the officer, and contends that that standard is met here. Respondent argues that a protective sweep may not be undertaken without a warrant unless the exigencies of the situation render such warrantless search objectively reasonable. According to Buie, because the State has shown neither exigent circumstances to immediately enter Buie’s house nor an unforeseen danger that arose once the officers were in the house, there is no excuse for the failure to obtain a search warrant to search for dangerous persons believed to be on the premises. Buie further contends that, even if the warrant requirement is inapplicable, there is no justification for relaxing the probable-cause standard. If something less than probable cause is sufficient, respondent argues that it is no less than individualized suspicion — specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that there are persons on the premises who are a threat to the officers. According to Buie, there were no such specific, articulable facts to justify the search of his basement.
Ill
It goes without saying that the Fourth Amendment bars only unreasonable searches and seizures, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602 (1989). Our cases show that in determining reasonableness, we have balanced the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 588 (1983); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654 (1979). Under this test, a search of the house or office is generally not reasonable without a warrant issued on probable cause. There are other contexts, however, where the public interest is such that neither a warrant nor probable cause is required. Skinner, supra, at 619-620; Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U. S. 868, 873 (1987); New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 340-341 (1985); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 20.
The Terry case is most instructive for present purposes. There we held that an on-the-street “frisk” for weapons must be tested by the Fourth Amendment’s general proscription against unreasonable searches because such a frisk involves “an entire rubric of police conduct — necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat — which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure.” Ibid. We stated that there is “‘no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search . . . against the invasion which the search . . . entails.’” Id., at 21 (quoting Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 536-537 (1967)). Applying that balancing test, it was held that although a frisk for weapons “constitutes a severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security,” 392 U. S., at 24-25, such a frisk is reasonable when weighed against the “need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.” Id., at 24. We therefore authorized a limited patdown for weapons where a reasonably prudent officer would be warranted in the belief, based on “specific and articulable facts,” id., at 21, and not on a mere “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch,’” id., at 27, “that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual,” ibid.
In Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983), the principles of Terry were applied in the context of a roadside encounter: “[T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” Id., at 1049-1050 (quoting Terry, supra, at 21). The Long Court expressly rejected the contention that Terry restricted preventative searches to the person of a detained suspect. 463 U. S., at 1047. In a sense, Long authorized a “frisk” of an automobile for weapons.
The ingredients to apply the balance struck in Terry and Long are present in this case. Possessing an arrest warrant and probable cause to believe Buie was in his home, the officers were entitled to enter and to search anywhere in the house in which Buie might be found. Once he was found, however, the search for him was over, and there was no longer that particular justification for entering any rooms that had not yet been searched.
That Buie had an expectation of privacy in those remaining areas of his house, however, does not mean such rooms were immune from entry. In Terry and Long we were concerned with the immediate interest of the police officers in taking steps to assure themselves that the persons with whom they were dealing were not armed with, or able to gain immediate control of, a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against them. In the instant case, there is an analogous interest of the officers in taking steps to assure themselves that the house in which a suspect is being, or has just been, arrested is not harboring other persons who are dangerous and who could unexpectedly launch an attack. The risk of danger in the context of an arrest in the home is as great as, if not greater than, it is in an on-the-street or roadside investigatory encounter. A Terry or Long frisk occurs before a police-citizen confrontation has escalated to the point of arrest. A protective sweep, in contrast, occurs as an adjunct to the serious step of taking a person into custody for the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Moreover, unlike an encounter on the street or along a highway, an in-home arrest puts the officer at the disadvantage of being on his adversary’s “turf.” An ambush in a confined setting of unknown configuration is more to be feared than it is in open, more familiar surroundings.
We recognized in Terry that “[ejven a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security, and it must surely be an annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience.” Terry, supra, at 24-25. But we permitted the intrusion, which was no moré than necessary to protect the officer from harm. Nor do we here suggest, as the State does, that entering rooms not examined prior to the arrest is a de minimis intrusion that may be disregarded. We are quite sure, however, that the arresting officers are permitted in such circumstances to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety after, and while making, the arrest. That interest is sufficient to outweigh the intrusion such procedures may entail.
We agree with the State, as did the court below, that a warrant was not required. We also hold that as an incident to the arrest the officers could, as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched. Beyond that, however, we hold that there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. This is no more and no less than was required in Terry and Long, and as in those cases, we think this balance is the proper one.
We should emphasize that such a protective sweep, aimed at protecting the arresting officers, if justified by the circumstances, is nevertheless not a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found. The sweep lasts no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises.
IV
Affirmance is not required by Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), where it was held that in the absence of a search warrant, the justifiable search incident to an in-home arrest could not extend beyond the arrestee’s person and the area from within which the arrestee might have obtained a weapon. First, Chimel was concerned with a full-blown search of the entire house for evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, see id.,- at 754, 763, not the more limited intrusion contemplated by a protective sweep. Second, the justification for the search incident to arrest considered in Chimel was the threat posed by the arrestee, not the safety threat posed by the house, or more properly by unseen third parties in the house. To reach our conclusion today, therefore, we need not disagree with the Court’s statement in Chimel, id., at 766-767, n. 12, that “the invasion of privacy that results from a top-to-bottom search of a man’s house [cannot be characterized] as ‘minor,’” nor hold that “simply because some interference with an individual’s privacy and freedom of movement has lawfully taken place, further intrusions should automatically be allowed despite the absence of a warrant that the Fourth Amendment would otherwise require,” ibid. The type of search we authorize today is far removed from the “top-to-bottom” search involved in Chimel; moreover, it is decidedly not “automatic],” but may be conducted only when justified by a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the house is harboring a person posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.
V
We conclude that by requiring a protective sweep to be justified by probable cause to believe that a serious and demonstrable potentiality for danger existed, the Court of Appeals of Maryland applied an unnecessarily strict Fourth Amendment standard. The Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand this case to the Court of Appeals of Maryland for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Buie suggests that because the police could have sought a warrant to search for dangerous persons in the house, they were constitutionally required to do so. But the arrest warrant gave the police every right to enter the home to search for Buie. Once inside, the potential for danger justified a standard of less than probable cause for conducting a limited protective sweep.
The State’s argument that no level of objective justification should be required because of “the danger that inheres in the in-home arrest for a violent crime,” Brief for Petitioner 23, is rebutted by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), itself. The State argues that “[ojfficers facing the life threatening situation of arresting a violent criminal in the home should not be forced to pause and ponder the legal subtleties associated with a quantum of proof analysis,” Brief for Petitioner 23. But despite the danger that inheres in on-the-street encounters and the need for police to act quickly for their own safety, the Court in Tory did not adopt a bright-line rule authorizing frisks for weapons in all confrontational encounters. Even in high crime areas, where the possibility that any given individual is armed is significant, Terry requires reasonable, individualized suspicion before a frisk for weapons can be conducted. That approach is applied to the protective sweep of a house.
We reject the State’s attempts to analogize this case to Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977) (per curiam), and Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692 (1981). The intrusion in Mimms —requiring the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the car — was “de minimis,” 434 U. S., at 111. Summer's held that a search warrant for a house carries with it the authority to detain its occupants until the search is completed. The State contends that this case is the “mirror image” of Summers and that the arrest warrant carried with it the authority to search for persons who could interfere with the arrest. In that case, however, the search warrant implied a judicial determination that police had probable cause to believe that someone in the home was committing a crime. Here, the existence of the arrest warrant implies nothing about whether dangerous third parties will be found in the arrestee’s house. Moreover, the intrusion in Summers was less severe and much less susceptible to exploitation than a protective sweep. A more analogous ease is Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85 (1979), in which we held that, although armed with a warrant to search a bar and bartender, the police could not frisk the bar’s patrons absent individualized, reasonable suspicion that the person to be frisked was armed and presently dangerous. Here, too, the reasonable suspicion standard — “one of the relatively simple concepts embodied in the Fourth Amendment,” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1 (1989)—strikes the proper balance between officer safety and citizen privacy.
Our reliance on the cursory nature of the search is not inconsistent with our statement in Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321 (1987), that “[a] search is a search,” id., at 325, or with our refusal in Hicks to sanction a standard less than probable cause on the ground that the search of a stereo was a “cursory inspection,” rather than a “full-blown search,” id., at 328. When the officer in Hicks moved the turntable to look at its serial number, he was searching for evidence plain and simple. There was no interest in officer safety or other exigency at work in that search. A protective sweep is without question a “search,” as was the patdown in Terry, supra, at 16; they are permissible on less than probable cause only because they are limited to that which is necessary to protect the safety of officers and others.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The False Claims Act (FCA) imposes civil liability on any person who knowingly uses a “false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government,” 31 U. S. C. § 3729(a)(2), and any person who “conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid,” § 3729(a)(3). We granted review in this case to decide what a plaintiff asserting a claim under these provisions must show regarding the relationship between the making of a “false record or statement” and the payment or approval of “a false or fraudulent claim ... by the Government.”
Contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeals below, we hold that it is insufficient for a plaintiff asserting a § 3729(a)(2) claim to show merely that “[t]he false statement’s use . . . resulted] in obtaining or getting payment or approval of the claim,” 471 F. 3d 610, 621 (CA6 2006), or that “government money was used to pay the false or fraudulent claim,” id., at 622. Instead, a plaintiff asserting a § 3729(a)(2) claim must prove that the defendant intended that the false record or statement be material to the Government’s decision to pay or approve the false claim. Similarly, a plaintiff asserting a claim under § 3729(a)(3) must show that the conspirators agreed to make use of the false record or statement to achieve this end.
I
In 1985, the United States Navy entered into contracts with two shipbuilders, Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding (together the shipyards), to build a new fleet of Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers. Each destroyer required three generator sets (Gen-Sets) to supply all of the electrical power for the ship. The shipyards subcontracted with petitioner Allison Engine Company, Inc. (Allison Engine), formerly a division of General Motors, to build 90 Gen-Sets to be used in over 50 destroyers. Allison Engine in turn subcontracted with petitioner General Tool Company (GTC) to assemble the Gen-Sets, and GTC subcontracted with petitioner Southern Ohio Fabricators, Inc. (SOFCO), to manufacture bases and enclosures for the Gen-Sets. The Navy paid the shipyards an aggregate total of $1 billion for each new destroyer. Of that, Allison Engine was paid approximately $3 million per Gen-Set; GTC was paid approximately $800,000 per Gen-Set; and SOFCO was paid over $100,000 per Gen-Set. All of the funds used to pay petitioners ultimately came from the Federal Treasury.
The Navy’s contract with the shipyards specified that every part of each destroyer be built in accordance with the Navy’s baseline drawings and military standards. These requirements were incorporated into each of petitioners’ subcontracts. In addition, the contracts required that each delivered Gen-Set be accompanied by a certificate of conformance (COC) certifying that the unit was manufactured in accordance with the Navy’s requirements.
In 1995, Roger L. Sanders and Roger L. Thacker (hereinafter respondents), former employees of GTC, brought suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio as qui tarn relators seeking to recover damages pursuant to § 3729, which renders liable any person who “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” § 3729(a)(1); any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government,” § 3729(a)(2); and any person who “conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid,” § 3729(a)(3).
Respondents alleged that the invoices submitted to the shipyards by Allison Engine, GTC, and SOFCO fraudulently sought payment for work that had not been done in accordance with contract specifications. Specifically, respondents claimed that the gearboxes installed by Allison Engine in the first 52 Gen-Sets were defective and leaked oil; that GTC never conducted a required final quality inspection for approximately half of the first 67 Gen-Sets; and that the SOFCO welders who worked on the first 67 Gen-Sets did not meet military standards. Respondents also claimed that petitioners issued COCs claiming falsely that the Gen-Sets had been built to the contractually required specifications even though petitioners knew that those specifications had not been met.
The case was tried to a jury. At trial, respondents introduced evidence that petitioners had issued COCs that falsely stated that their work was completed in compliance with the Navy’s requirements and that they had presented invoices for payment to the shipyards. Respondents did not, however, introduce the invoices submitted by the shipyards to the Navy. At the close of respondents’ case, petitioners moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). Petitioners asserted that no reasonable jury could find a violation under §3729 because respondents had failed to adduce any evidence that a false or fraudulent claim had ever been presented to the Navy. The District Court granted petitioners’ motion. No. l-:95-cv-970, 2005 WL 713569 (SD Ohio, Mar. 11, 2005). The court rejected respondents’ argument that they did not have to present evidence that a claim had been submitted to the Navy because they showed that Government funds had been used to pay the invoices that were presented to the shipyards. The District Court concluded that, absent proof that false claims were presented to the Government, respondents’ evidence was legally insufficient under the FCA. Id., at *10.
On appeal, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court in relevant part. 471 F. 3d 610 (2006). The majority agreed with the District Court that liability under § 3729(a)(1) requires proof that a false claim was presented to the Government. However, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in granting petitioners’ motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to respondents’ §§ 3729(a)(2) and (3) claims. The Court of Appeals held that such claims do not require proof of an intent to cause a false claim to be paid by the Government. Rather, it determined that proof of an intent to cause a false claim to be paid by a private entity using Government funds was sufficient. In so holding, the Court of Appeals recognized that its decision conflicted with United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F. 3d 488 (CADC 2004) (Totten), cert, denied, 544 U. S. 1032 (2005).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict over the proper interpretation of §§ 3729(a)(2) and (3). 552 U. S. 989 (2007).
II
A
We turn first to § 3729(a)(2), and “[w]e start, as always, with the language of the statute.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 431 (2000). Section 3729(a)(2) imposes civil liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government.”
The interpretation of § 3729(a)(2) that was adopted by the Court of Appeals — and that is endorsed by respondents and the Government — impermissibly deviates from the statute’s language. In the view of the Court of Appeals, it is sufficient for a § 3729(a)(2) plaintiff to show that a false statement resulted in the use of Government funds to pay a false or fraudulent claim. 471 F. 3d, at 621-622. Under subsection (a)(2), however, the defendant must make the false record or statement “to get” a false or fraudulent claim “paid or approved by the Government.” “[T]o get” denotes purpose, and thus a person must have the purpose of getting a false or fraudulent claim “paid or approved by the Government” in order to be liable under § 3729(a)(2). Additionally, getting a false or fraudulent claim “paid ... by the Government” is not the same as getting a false or fraudulent claim paid using “government funds.” Id., at 622. Under §3729(a)(2), a defendant must intend that the Government itself pay the claim.
Eliminating this element of intent, as the Court of Appeals did, would expand the FCA well beyond its intended role of combating “fraud against the Government.” See Rainwater v. United States, 356 U. S. 590, 592 (1958) (emphasis added). As the District of Columbia Circuit pointed out, the reach of § 3729(a)(2) would then be “almost boundless: for example, liability could attach for any false claim made to any college or university, so long as the institution has received some federal grants — as most of them do.” Totten, supra, at 496.
B
Defending the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of § 3729(a)(2), the Government contends that the phrase “paid ... by the Government” does not mean that the Government must literally pay the bill. The Government maintains that it is customary to say that the Government pays a bill when a person who has received Government funds uses those funds to pay a bill. The Government provides this example: “‘[W]hen a student says his college living expenses are “paid by” his parents, he typically does not mean that his parents send checks directly to his creditors. Rather, he means that his parents are the ultimate source of the funds he uses to pay those expenses.’ ” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9 (quoting Totten, supra, at 506 (Garland, J., dissenting)).
This example is unpersuasive because it involves a colloquial usage of the phrase “paid by” — a usage that is not customarily employed in more formal contexts. For example, if a federal employee who receives all of his income from the Government were asked in a formal inquiry to reveal who paid for, say, his new car or a vacation, the employee would not say that the Federal Government had footed the bill. In statutory drafting, where precision is both important and expected, the sort of colloquial usage on which the Government relies is not customary.
The Government is also wrong in arguing that the definition of the term “claim” in § 3729(c) means that § 3729(a)(2)’s use of the phrase “paid ... by the Government” should not be read literally. Under this definition, a request for money or property need not be made directly to the Government in order to constitute a “claim.” Instead, a “claim” may include a request or demand that is made to “a contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the United States Government provides any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded, or if the Government will reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded.” § 3729(c). This definition of the word “claim” does not support the Government’s argument because it does not alter the meaning of the phrase “by the Government” in § 3729(a)(2). Under §3729(c)’s definition of “claim,” a request or demand may constitute a “claim” even if the request is not made directly to the Government, but under § 3729(a)(2) it is still necessary for the defendant to intend that a claim be “paid ... by the Government” and not by another entity.
c
This does not mean, however, as petitioners suggest, see Reply Brief 1, that 13729(a)(2) requires proof that a defendant’s false record or statement was submitted to the Government. While § 3729(a)(1) requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant “presented] ” a false or fraudulent claim to the Government, the concept of presentment is not mentioned in § 3729(a)(2). The inclusion of an express presentment requirement in subsection (a)(1), combined with the absence of anything similar in subsection (a)(2), suggests that Congress did not intend to include a presentment requirement in subsection (a)(2). “[W]hen Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act; it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U. S. 438,452 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
What § 3729(a)(2) demands is not proof that the defendant caused a false record or statement to be presented or submitted to the Government but that the defendant made a false record or statement for the purpose of getting “a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government.” Therefore, a subcontractor violates § 3729(a)(2) if the subcontractor submits a false statement to the prime contractor intending for the statement to be used by the prime contractor to get the Government to pay its claim. If a subcontractor or another defendant makes a false statement to a private entity and does not intend the Government to rely on that false statement as a condition of payment, the statement is not made with the purpose of inducing payment of a false claim “by the Government.” In such a situation, the direct link between the false statement and the Government’s decision to pay or approve a false claim is too attenuated to establish liability. Recognizing a cause of action under the FCA for fraud directed at private entities would threaten to transform the FCA into an all-purpose antifraud statute. Our reading of § 3729(a)(2), based on the language of the statute, gives effect to Congress’ efforts to protect the Government from loss due to fraud but also ensures that “a defendant is not answerable for anything beyond the natural, ordinary and reasonable consequences of his conduct.” Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U. S. 451, 470 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ill
Respondents also brought suit under § 3729(a)(3), which makes liable any person who “conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid.” Our interpretation of this language is similar to our interpretation of the language of § 3729(a)(2). Under § 3729(a)(3), it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that the alleged conspirators agreed upon a fraud scheme that had the effect of causing a private entity to make payments using money obtained from the Government. Instead, it must be shown that the conspirators intended “to defraud the Government.” Where the conduct that the conspirators are alleged to have agreed upon involved the making of a false record or statement, it must be shown that the conspirators had the purpose of “getting” the false record or statement to bring about the Government’s payment of a false or fraudulent claim. It is not necessary to show that the conspirators intended the false record or statement to be presented directly to the Government, but it must be established that they agreed that the false record or statement would have a material effect on the Government’s decision to pay the false or fraudulent claim.
This reading of subsection (a)(3) is in accord with our decision in Tanner v. United States, 483 U. S. 107 (1987), where we held that a conspiracy to defraud a federally funded private entity does not constitute a “conspiracy to defraud the United States” under 18 U. S. C. § 371. 483 U. S., at 129. In Tanner, the Government argued that a recipient of federal financial assistance and the subject of federal supervision may itself be treated as “the United States.” We rejected this reading of § 371 as having “not even an arguable basis in the plain language of § 371.” Id., at 131. Indeed, we concluded that such an interpretation “would have, in effect, substituted ‘anyone receiving federal financial assistance and supervision’ for the phrase ‘the United States.’ ” Id., at 132. Likewise, the interpretation urged on us by respondents would in effect substitute “paid by Government funds” for the phrase “paid or approved by the Government.” Had Congress intended subsection (a)(3) to apply to anyone who conspired to defraud a recipient of Government funds, it would have so provided.
* * *
Because the decision of the Court of Appeals was based on an incorrect interpretation of §§ 3729(a)(2) and (3), we vacate its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
This interpretation of § 3729(a)(2) does not render superfluous the portion of § 3729(e) providing that a “claim” may be made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient of Government funding. This language makes it clear that there can be liability under §§ 3729(a)(1) and (2) where the request or demand for money or property that a defendant presents to a federal officer for payment or approval, § 3729(a)(1), or that a defendant intends “to get . . . paid or approved by the Government,” § 3729(a)(2), may be a request or demand that was originally “made to” a contractor, grantee, or other recipient of federal funds and then forwarded to the Government.
Section 3729(b) provides that the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” “mean that a person, with respect to information — (1) has actual knowledge of the information; (2) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (3) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information, and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.” The statutory definition of these terms is easily reconcilable with our holding in this case for two reasons. First, the intent requirement we discern in § 3729(a)(2) derives not from the term “knowingly,” but rather from the infinitive phrase “to get.” Second, § 3729(b) refers to specific intent with regard to the truth or falsity of the “information,” while our holding refers to a defendant’s purpose in making or using a false record or statement.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the District Court’s August 7, 1981, orders enjoining the Boston Police and Fire Departments from laying off policemen and firefighters in a manner that would reduce the percentage of minority officers below the level obtaining at the commencement of layoffs in July 1981. 679 F. 2d 965 (1982). These orders had the effect of partially superseding the operation of the State’s statutory last-hired, first-fired scheme for civil service layoffs, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 31, § 39 (West 1979). Following the Court of Appeals’ decision, Massachusetts enacted legislation providing the city of Boston with new revenues, requiring reinstatement of all police and firefighters laid off during the reductions in force, securing these personnel against future layoffs for fiscal reasons, and requiring the maintenance of minimum staffing levels in the Police and Fire Departments through June 30, 1983. See 1982 Mass. Acts, ch. 190, § 25. In light of these changed circumstances, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for consideration of mootness in light of 1982 Mass. Acts, ch. 190, § 25.
It is so ordered.
Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Blackmun join, and in which Justice Kennedy joins as to Parts I and IV.
In a common-law action for slander of title, respondents obtained a judgment against petitioner for $19,000 in actual damages and $10 million in punitive damages. The question we granted certiorari to decide is whether that punitive damages award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, either because its amount is excessive or because it is the product of an unfair procedure.
I
On August 23, 1985, TXO Production Corp. (TXO) commenced this litigation by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, for a declaratory judgment removing a cloud on title to an interest in oil and gas development rights. Respondents, including Alliance Resources Corp. (Alliance), filed a counterclaim for slander of title that went to trial before a jury in June 1990. The jury verdict in respondents’ favor, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, makes it appropriate to accept respondents’ version of disputed issues of fact.
In 1984, geologists employed by TXO concluded that the recovery of oil and gas under the surface of a 1,002.74-acre tract of land known as the “Blevins Tract” would be extremely profitable. They strongly recommended that TXO — a large company that was engaged in oil and gas production in 25 States — obtain the rights to develop the oil and gas resources on the Blevins Tract.
Those rights were then controlled by Alliance. Prodded by its geologists, TXO approached Alliance with what Alliance considered to be a “‘phenomenal offer.’” 187 W. Va. 457, 462, 419 S. E. 2d 870, 875 (1992). TXO would pay Alliance $20 per acre in cash, pay 22 percent of the oil and gas revenues in royalties, and pay all of the development costs. On April 2, 1985, Alliance accepted TXO’s offer, agreeing to assign its interest in the Tract to TXO. With respect to title to the property, Alliance agreed to return the consideration paid to it if TXO’s attorney determined that “title had failed.”
Shortly after the agreement was signed, TXO’s attorneys discovered a 1958 deed conveying certain mineral rights in the Tract from respondent Tug Fork Land Company, a predecessor in interest of Alliance, to a coal operator named Leo J. Signaigo, Jr., who had later conveyed those rights to the Hawley Coal Mines Company, which had, in turn, reconveyed them to the Virginia Crews Coal Company (Virginia Crews). Interviews with Signaigo, and with representatives of Hawley and Virginia Crews, established that the parties all understood that only the right to mine coal had been involved in those transactions; none of them claimed any interest in oil or gas development rights. Moreover, the text of the 1958 deed made it “perfectly clear” that the grantor had reserved “all the oil and gas underlying” the Blevins Tract.
TXO first advised Alliance of the “distinct possibility or probability” that its “leasehold title fails” in July 1985. In the meantime, despite its knowledge that any claim that the 1958 deed created a cloud on title to the oil and gas development rights would have been “frivolous,” TXO made two attempts to lend substance to such a claim. First, after unsuccessfully trying to convince Virginia Crews that it had an interest in the oil and gas, TXO paid the company $6,000 for a quitclaim deed conveying whatever interest it might have to TXO. TXO recorded the deed without advising Alliance. Second, TXO unsuccessfully attempted to induce Mr. Signaigo to execute a false affidavit indicating that the 1958 deed might have included oil and gas rights.
On July 12, after having recorded the quitclaim deed, TXO wrote to Alliance asserting that there was a title objection and implying that TXO might well have acquired the oil and gas rights from Virginia Crews. It then arranged a meeting in August and attempted to renegotiate the royalty arrangement. When the negotiations were unsuccessful, TXO commenced this litigation. According to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, TXO “knowingly and intentionally brought a frivolous declaratory judgment action” when its “real intent” was “to reduce the royalty payments under a 1,002.74 acre oil and gas lease,” and thereby “increas[e] its interest in the oil and gas rights.”
TXO’s declaratory judgment action was decided on the basis of the parties’ written submissions. The court granted respondents’ motion to prohibit TXO from introducing expert and extrinsic evidence concerning the meaning of the 1958 deed to Signaigo because the deed itself was unambiguous. On the basis of the written record, the court found that TXO had asserted a claim to title to the oil aftd gas Uhder the Blevins Tract by virtue of the quitclaim deed from Virginia Crews, App. 15, but that the deed was a “nullity.”
The counterclaim for slander of title was subsequently tried to a jury. In addition to the evidence that TXO knew that Alliance had good title to the oil and gas and that TXO had acted in bad faith when it advanced a claim on the basis of the worthless quitclaim deed in an effort to renegotiate its royalty arrangement, Alliance introduced evidence showing that TXO was a large company in its own right and a wholly owned subsidiary of an even larger company; that the anticipated gross revenues from oil and gas development — and therefore the amount of royalties that TXO sought to renegotiate — were substantial; and that TXO had engaged in similar nefarious activities in its business dealings in other parts of the country. 187 W. Va., at 468-470, 419 S. E. 2d, at 881-883.
The jury’s verdict of $19,000 in actual damages was based on Alliance’s cost of defending the declaratory judgment action. It is fair to infer that the punitive damages award of $10 million was based on other evidence.
In support of motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for remittitur, TXO argued that the punitive damages award violated the Due Process Clause. Counsel contended that under the “general punitive damage instruction given in this case, the jury was left to their own devices without any yardstick as to what was a reasonable punitive damage award. And for that reason, a vagueness, lack of guideline and the lack of any requirement of a reasonable relationship between the actual injury and the punitive damage award, in essence, would cause the Court or should cause the Court to set it aside on Constitutional grounds.” In response, counsel for Alliance argued that the constitutional objection had been waived, that the misconduct was particularly egregious, and that the award was not excessive. The trial court denied the motions without opinion and TXO appealed.
On appeal, TXO assigned three primary errors: (1) that no cause of action for slander of title existed in West Virginia or had been established by the evidence; (2) that the West Virginia Rules of Evidence were violated by the admission of testimony of lawyers involved in litigation against TXO in other States to show TXO’s wrongful intent; and (3) that the award of punitive damages violated the Due Process Clause as interpreted in our opinion in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1 (1991), and in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Garnes v. Fleming Landfill, Inc., 186 W. Va. 656, 413 S. E. 2d 897 (1991). The State Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
The court first disposed of the state-law issues. It introduced its discussion of the federal issue by describing the kinds of defendants against whom punitive damages had been awarded after our decision in Haslip. Turning to the facts of this case, the court stated that the application of its “reasonable relationship” test required it to consider these three factors:
“(1) the potential harm that TXO’s actions could have caused; (2) the maliciousness of TXO’s actions; and (3) the penalty necessary to discourage TXO from undertaking such endeavors in the future.” 187 W. Va., at 476, 419 S. E. 2d, at 889.
It held that each of those factors supported the award in this case, stating:
“The type of fraudulent action intentionally undertaken by TXO in this case could potentially cause millions of dollars in damages to other victims. As for the reprehensibility of TXO’s conduct, we can say no more than we have already said, and we believe the jury’s verdict says more than we could say in an opinion twice this length. Just as important, an award of this magnitude is necessary to discourage TXO from continuing its pattern and practice of fraud, trickery and deceit.” Ibid, (emphasis in original).
We granted certiorari, 506 U. S. 997 (1992), and now affirm.
II
TXO first argues that a $10 million punitive damages award — an award 526 times greater than the actual damages awarded by the jury — is so excessive that it must be deemed an arbitrary deprivation of property without due process of law.
TXO correctly points out that several of our opinions have stated that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes substantive limits “beyond which penalties may not go.” Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73, 78 (1907). See also St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Williams, 251 U. S. 63, 66-67 (1919); Standard Oil Co. of Ind. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, 286 (1912). Moreover, in Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Danaher, 238 U. S. 482 (1915), the Court actually set aside a penalty imposed on a telephone company on the ground that it was so “plainly arbitrary and oppressive” as to violate the Due Process Clause. Id., at 491. In an earlier case the Court had stated that it would not review state action fixing the penalties for unlawful conduct unless “the fines imposed are so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.” Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), 212 U. S. 86, 111 (1909).
While respondents “unabashedly” denigrate those cases as “Lochner-era precedents,” they overlook the fact that the Justices who had dissented in the Lochner case itself joined those opinions. More importantly, respondents do not dispute the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a substantive limit on the amount of a punitive damages award. Brief for Respondents 17. They contend, however, that the standard of review should be the same standard of rational-basis scrutiny that is appropriate for reviewing state economic legislation.
TXO, on the other hand, argues that punitive damages awards should be scrutinized more strictly than legislative penalties because they are typically assessed without any legislative guidance expressing the considered judgment of the elected representatives of the community. TXO urges that we apply a form of heightened scrutiny, the first step of which is to apply certain “objective” criteria to determine whether a punitive award presumptively violates those notions of “fundamental fairness” inherent in the concept of due process of law. Relying heavily on the plurality opinion in Schad v. Arizona, 501 U. S. 624 (1991), petitioner argues that “ ‘history and widely shared practice [are] concrete indicators of what fundamental fairness and rationality require,’ ” Brief for Petitioner 15-16 (quoting Schad, 501 U. S., at 640 (plurality opinion), and that therefore we should examine, as “objective” criteria of fairness, (1) awards of punitive damages upheld against other defendants in the same jurisdiction, (2) awards upheld for similar conduct in other jurisdictions, (3) legislative penalty decisions with respect to similar conduct, and (4) the relationship of prior punitive awards to the associated compensatory awards, Brief for Petitioner 16. Under petitioner’s proposed framework, when this inquiry demonstrates that an award “exceeds the bounds of contemporary and historical practice by orders of magnitude,” id., at 21 (emphasis in original), that award must be struck down as arbitrary and excessive unless there is a “compelling and particularized justification” for an award of such size.
The parties’ desire to formulate a “test” for determining whether a particular punitive award is “grossly excessive” is understandable. Nonetheless, we find neither formulation satisfactory. Under respondents’ rational-basis standard, apparently any award that would serve the legitimate state interest in deterring or punishing wrongful conduct, no matter how large, would be acceptable. On the other hand, we reject the premise underlying TXO’s invocation of heightened scrutiny. The review of a jury’s award for arbitrariness and the review of legislation surely are significantly different. Still, it is not correct to assume that the safeguards in the legislative process have no counterpart in the judicial process. The members of the jury were determined to be impartial before they were allowed to sit, their assessment of damages was the product of collective deliberation based on evidence and the arguments of adversaries, their award was reviewed and upheld by the trial judge who also heard the testimony, and it was affirmed by a unanimous decision of the State Supreme Court of Appeals. Assuming that fair procedures were followed, a judgment that is a product of that process is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. Indeed, there are persuasive reasons for suggesting that the presumption should be irrebuttable, see Haslip, 499 U. S., at 24-40 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), or virtually so, id., at 40-42 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
Nor are we persuaded that reliance on petitioner’s “objective” criteria is the proper course to follow. We have, of course, relied on history and “widely shared practice” as a guide to determining whether a particular state practice so departs from an accepted norm as to be presumptively violative of due process, see Schad, 501 U. S., at 637-643 (plurality opinion), and whether a term of imprisonment under certain circumstances is cruel and unusual punishment, see Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 290-292 (1983). We question, however, the utility of such a comparative approach as a test for assessing whether a particular punitive award is presumptively unconstitutional.
It is a relatively straightforward task to draw intrajurisdictional and interjurisdictional comparisons on such matters as the definition of first-degree murder (Schad) or the penalty imposed on nonviolent repeat offenders (Solem). The same cannot be said of the task of drawing such comparisons with regard to punitive damages awards by juries. Such awards are the product of numerous, and sometimes intangible, factors; a jury imposing a punitive damages award must make a qualitative assessment based on a host of facts and circumstances unique to the particular case before it. Because no two cases are truly identical, meaningful comparisons of such awards are difficult to make. Cf. Haslip, supra, at 41-42 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). Such analysis might be useful in considering whether a state practice of permitting juries to rely on a particular factor, such as the defendant’s out-of-state status, would violate due process. As an analytical approach to assessing a particular award, however, we are skeptical. Thus, while we do not rule out the possibility that the fact that an award is significantly larger than those in apparently similar circumstances might, in a given case, be one of many relevant considerations, we are not prepared to enshrine petitioner’s comparative approach in a “test” for assessing the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.
In the end, then, in determining whether a particular award is so “grossly excessive” as to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Waters-Pierce Oil Co., 212 U. S., at 111, we return to what we said two Terms ago in Haslip: “We need not, and indeed we cannot, draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable that would fit every case. We can say, however, that [a] general concer[n] of reasonableness... properly enter[s] into the constitutional calculus.” 499 U. S., at 18. And, to echo Haslip once again, it is with this concern for reasonableness in mind that we turn to petitioner’s argument that the punitive award in this case was so “grossly excessive" as to violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause.
Ill
In support of its submission that this award is “grossly excessive,” TXO places its primary emphasis on the fact that it is over 526 times as large as the actual damages award. TXO correctly notes that state courts have long held that “exemplary damages allowed should bear some proportion to the real damage sustained.” Moreover, in our recent decision in Haslip, supra, in which we upheld a punitive damages award of four times the amount of compensatory damages, we noted that that award “may be close to the line” of constitutional permissibility. Id., at 23. Following that decision, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals had also observed that as “a matter of fundamental fairness, punitive damages should bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages.” Garnes v. Fleming Landfill, Inc., 186 W. Va., at 668, 413 S. E. 2d, at 909.
That relationship, however, was only one of several factors that the state court mentioned in its Garnes opinion. Earlier in its opinion it gave this example:
“For instance, a man wildly fires a gun into a crowd. By sheer chance, no one is injured and the only damage is to a $10 pair of glasses. A jury reasonably could find only $10 in compensatory damages, but thousands of dollars in punitive damages to teach a duty of care. We would allow a jury to impose substantial punitive damages in order to discourage future bad acts.” Id., at 661,413 S. E. 2d, at 902 (citing C. Morris, Punitive Damages in Tort Cases, 44 Harv. L. Rev. 1173, 1181 (1931)).
When the court identified the several factors that should be mentioned in instructions to the jury, the first one that it mentioned reflected that example. It said:
“Punitive damages should bear a reasonable relationship to the harm that is likely to occur from the defendant’s conduct as well as to the harm that actually has occurred. If the defendant’s actions caused or would likely cause in a similar situation only slight harm, the damages should be relatively small. If the harm is grievous, the damages should be much greater.” 186 W. Va., at 668, 413 S. E. 2d, at 909 (emphasis added).
Taking account of the potential harm that might result from the defendant’s conduct in calculating punitive damages was consistent with the views we expressed in Haslip, supra. In that case we endorsed the standards that the Alabama Supreme Court had previously announced, one of which was “whether there is a reasonable relationship between the punitive damages award and the harm likely to result from the defendant’s conduct as well as the harm that actually has occurred,” id., at 21 (emphasis added).
Thus, both State Supreme Courts and this Court have eschewed an approach that concentrates entirely on the relationship between actual and punitive damages. It is appropriate to consider the magnitude of the potential harm that the defendant’s conduct would have caused to its intended victim if the wrongful plan had succeeded, as well as the possible harm to other victims that might have resulted if similar future behavior were not deterred. In this case the State Supreme Court of Appeals concluded that TXO’s pattern of behavior “could potentially cause millions of dollars in damages to other victims.” Moreover, respondents argue that the record evidence would support a finding that Alliance’s 22 percent share of the projected revenues from the full development of the oil and gas rights amounted to between $5 million and $8.3 million, depending on how many wells were developed. Even if these figures are exaggerated — as TXO persuasively argues, see Reply Brief for Petitioner 9-12 — the jury could well have believed that TXO was seeking a multimillion dollar reduction in its potential royalty obligation. In fact, in making their closing arguments to the jury, counsel for respondents stressed, in addition to TXO’s vast wealth, the tremendous financial gains that TXO hoped to achieve through its “elaborate scheme.” Counsel for Alliance argued:
“They wouldn’t have gone to this elaborate scheme — No, they wouldn’t now, because they thought this was a huge, gonna be a huge money-making lease. Gonna puts lots of wells on it. That’s why it was worth the scheme. And the punishment should fit it, and fit the wealth.” App. to Brief for Petitioner 23a.
Echoing the same theme, counsel for respondent Tug Fork Land Company argued:
“You have to go on what TXO thought when they were going into this well. They thought it was going to be a better well than it was. But, see, it got caught up in this litigation and now, I submit to you, they are saying that it is not as good a well as it was. And that’s a fact that is in some contention here. But regardless of how good it was, when they went in and did their operation back in May, June, July and August of 1985, they had projected that this would be a 20 year well and would produce a lot of money.” Tr. 748-749.
While petitioner stresses the shocking disparity between the punitive award and the compensatory award, that shock dissipates when one considers the potential loss to respondents, in terms of reduced or eliminated royalties payments, had petitioner succeeded in its illicit scheme. Thus, even if the actual value of the “potential harm” to respondents is not between $5 million and $8.3 million, but is closer to $4 million, or $2 million, or even $1 million, the disparity between the punitive award and the potential harm does not, in our view, “jar one’s constitutional sensibilities.” Haslip, 499 U. S., at 18.
In sum, we do not consider the dramatic disparity between the actual damages and the punitive award controlling in a case of this character. On this record, the jury may reasonably have determined that petitioner set out on a malicious and fraudulent course to win back, either in whole or in part, the lucrative stream of royalties that it had ceded to Alliance. The punitive damages award in this case is certainly large, but in light of the amount of money potentially at stake, the bad faith of petitioner, the fact that the scheme employed in this case was part of a larger pattern of fraud, trickery and deceit, and petitioner’s wealth, we are not persuaded that the award was so “grossly excessive” as to be beyond the power of the State to allow.
IV
TXO also argues that the punitive damages award is the result of a fundamentally unfair procedure because the jury was not adequately instructed, because its award was not adequately reviewed by the trial or the appellate court, and because TXO had no advance notice that the jury might be allowed to return such a large award or to rely on potential harm as a basis for its calculation. We decline to address the first argument as it was not argued or passed on below. We find the remaining arguments meritless.
The instruction to the jury on punitive damages differed from that found adequate in Haslip, see 499 U. S., at 6, n. 1, in two significant respects. It authorized the jury to take account of “the wealth of the perpetrator” in recognition of the fact that effective deterrence of wrongful conduct “may require a larger fine upon one of large means than it would upon one of ordinary means under the same or similar circumstances.” It also stated that one of the purposes of punitive damages is “to provide additional compensation for the conduct to which the injured parties have been subjected.” See n. 29, supra.
We agree with TXO that the emphasis on the wealth of the wrongdoer increased the risk that the award may have been influenced by prejudice against large corporations, a risk that is of special concern when the defendant is a nonresident. We also do not understand the reference in the instruction to “additional compensation.” We note, however, that in Haslip we referred to the “financial position” of the defendant as one factor that could be taken into account in assessing punitive damages, see n. 28, supra. We also note that TXO did not squarely argue in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals that these aspects of the jury instruction violated the Due Process Clause, see Brief for Appellant in No. 20281 (W. Va. Sup. Ct.), pp. 44-48, possibly because many States permit the jury to take account of the defendant’s wealth. Because TXO’s constitutional attack on the jury instructions was not properly presented to the highest court of the State, Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U. S. 71, 77-80 (1988), we do not pass on it.
The only basis for criticizing the trial judge’s review of the punitive damages award is that he did not articulate his reasons for upholding it. He did, however, give counsel an adequate hearing on TXO’s postverdict motions, and during one colloquy indicated his agreement with the jury’s appraisal of the egregious character of the conduct of TXO’s executives. See n. 12, supra. While it is always helpful for trial judges to explain the basis for their rulings as thoroughly as is consistent with the efficient dispatch of their duties, we certainly are not prepared to characterize the trial judge’s failure to articulate the basis for his denial of the motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for remittitur as a constitutional violation.
Petitioner’s criticism of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ opinion is based largely on the court’s colorful reference to classes of “really mean” and “really stupid” defendants. That those terms played little, if any, part in its actual evaluation of the propriety of the damages award is evident from the reasoning in its thorough opinion, succinctly summarized in passages we have already quoted. Moreover, two members of the court who wrote separately to disassociate themselves from the “really mean” and “really stupid” terminology shared the views of the rest of the members of the court on the merits. See 187 W. Va., at 484, 419 S. E., at 895 (McHugh, C. J., concurring). The opinion was unanimous and gave careful attention to the relevant precedents, including our decision in Haslip and their own prior decision in Games.
Finally, we find no merit in TXO’s argument that the procedure followed in this case “was unconstitutionally vague” because petitioner had no notice of the possibility that the award of punitive damages might be divorced from an award of compensatory damages. In Wells v. Smith, 171 W. Va. 97, 105, 297 S. E. 2d 872, 880 (1982), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that a defendant could be liable for punitive damages even if the jury did not award the plaintiff any compensatory damages. In any event, the notice component of the Due Process Clause is satisfied if prior law fairly indicated that a punitive damages award might be imposed in response to egregiously tortious conduct. Haslip, 499 U. S., at 24, n. 12. Prior law, in West Virginia and elsewhere, unquestionably did so.
The judgment of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Alliance was the assignee of a leasehold interest that respondents George King and Grover C. Goode, doing business as Georgia Fuels, had obtained from respondent Tug Fork Land Company. Georgia Fuels reserved an overriding royalty interest in the lease.
The agreement provided, in pertinent part:
“Assignor [Alliance] hereby warrants title to the extent that in the event of conducting title examination of the assigned acreage, Assignee’s examining attorney determines that title has failed to all or any part of the assigned acreage, Assignor will reimburse to Assignee the consideration paid to it for any such lands to which title is determined to have failed.” See 187 W. Va., at 463, n. 1, 419 S. E. 2d, at 876, n. 1.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals “unequivocally [found] that the deed was unambiguous,” id., at 464, 419 S. E. 2d, at 877, stating that “[although the deed does not demonstrate the most artful drafting, it does clearly reserve all of the oil and, gas under the Blevins Tract to Tug Fork Land Company,” id., at 463-464, 419 S. E. 2d, at 876-877 (emphasis in original). The entire deed is reprinted as Appendix A to the opinion of the State Supreme Court of Appeals. See id., at 467-471, 419 S. E. 2d, at 890-894.
See Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4, reprinted in App. to Reply Brief for Petitioner la.
In the words of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals: “In this case, TXO Production Corporation, a subsidiary of USX, knowingly and intentionally brought a frivolous declaratory judgment action against the appellees to clear a purported cloud on title.” 187 W. Va., at 462, 419 S. E. 2d, at 875.
According to an internal TXO memorandum, TXO viewed the quitclaim deed as offering “a chance of the court conferring TXO with 100% interest in the 0[il] & G[as] estate as opposed to having a 78% net lease if the court rules in favor of Tug Fork’s title.” Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 8 (TXO Production Corp. Inter-Office Memorandum (May 30, 1985)). The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals referred to TXO’s acquisition and recording of the quitclaim deed as nothing less than “an attempt to steal [Alliance’s] land.” 187 W. Va., at 468, 419 S. E. 2d, at 881.
1d., at 462, 464, 419 S. E. 2d, at 875, 877.
“The Court further finds, as a matter of law, that TXO Production Corp. obtained no interest or title to the oil and gas underlying the 1,002.74 acres in question from Virginia Crews Coal Company by reason of the quit claim deed in question. The quit claim deed of Virginia Crews Coal Company conveyed no title to TXO Production Corp. because Virginia Crews Coal Company obtained no title to the oil and gas from Hawley Coal Mining Corporation and said quit claim deed is, therefore, a nullity.” App. 18.
Because TXO had refused to disclose any financial records in response to Alliance’s discovery requests, Alliance employed an expert witness who analyzed public financial statements of TXO’s patent, USX Corporation; he estimated that the TXO division of USX had a net worth of between “$2.2 billion and $2.5 billion.” 187 W. Va., at 477, 419 S. E. 2d, at 890. Although TXO objected to the evidence as including assets of affiliates, it did not offer any rebuttal testimony on that issue. Ibid.
Respondents introduced expert testimony demonstrating that the Blevins Tract could support between 15 and 25 wells. Tr. 98-99. A TXO executive confirmed that TXO intended, when it acquired the rights to develop the Blevins Tract, to develop multiple wells. Id., at 873. Respondents also introduced an internal TXO memorandum, dated April 29, 1985, which showed that benchmark wells located near the Blevins Tract had reserves of 500,000 Mcf, and that the prevailing market rate was $3.00 Mcf. Trial testimony demonstrated that TXO was optimistic that the Blevins Tract would be quite profitable. See Tr. 672-673 (testimony of TXO official that the Blevins Tract was a good prospect, that it presented a “reasonably good opportunity,” and that it offered the potential for the development of numerous wells).
Putting these figures together, respondents contend that TXO anticipated revenues of as high as $1.5 million for each well developed on the Tract. Brief for Respondents 3. Further extrapolating, respondents contend that “the value of the total income stream that TXO would expect from the Blevins Tract was somewhere between $22.5 million (with 15 wells) and $37.5 million (with 25 wells).” Id., at 4.
App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a.
In response to TXO’s attempt to distinguish cases involving roughly comparable awards on the ground that they involved “egregious” conduct, the trial judge had interjected: “What could be more egregious than the vice president of a company saying, well, testifying and saying that he knew all along that this property belonged to Tug Fork?” Id., at 66a.
Id., at 71a-72a.
“Slander of title,” the court noted, “long has been recognized as a common law cause of action.” 187 W. Va., at 465, 419 S. E. 2d, at 878. The court found that respondents had demonstrated all the elements of the tort: that TXO, by recording the frivolous quitclaim deed, had published a false statement derogatory to respondents’ title, had done so with “malice,” and had caused special damages, here the attorney’s fees, as a result of its attack on respondents’ interest in the oil and gas development rights. See id., at 466-468, 419 S. E. 2d, at 879-881.
“We have examined all of the punitive damages opinions issued since Haslip was decided in an attempt to find some pattern in what courts find reasonable. Generally, the cases fall into three categories: (1) really stupid defendants; (2) really mean defendants; and, (3) really stupid defendants who could have caused a great deal of harm by their actions but who actually caused minimal harm.” Id., at 474-475, 419 S. E. 2d, at 887-888. In a concurring opinion two justices criticized that categorization and stated that West Virginia’s traditional rule summarizing the type of conduct that would give rise to punitive damages was better stated in the following syllabus:
“ ‘In actions of tort, where gross fraud, malice, oppression, or wanton, willful, or reckless conduct or criminal indifference to civil obligations affecting the rights of others appear, or where legislative enactment authorizes, it, the jury may assess exemplary, punitive, or vindictive damages... Id., at 484, 419 S. E. 2d, at 895.
In each of those cases, the Court actually found no constitutional violation. Thus, in the Seaboard Air Line R. Co. case, the Court concluded: “We know there are limits beyond which penalties may not go — even in cases where classification is legitimate — but we are not prepared to hold that the amount of penalty imposed is so great or the length of time within which the adjustment and payment are to be made is so short that the act imposing the penalty and fixing the time is beyond the power of the State.” 207 U. S., at 78-79.
In doing so, however, 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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Illinois Election Code, new political parties and independent candidates must obtain the signatures of 25,000 qualified voters in order to appear on the ballot in statewide elections. However, a different standard applies in elections for offices of political subdivisions of the State. The minimum number of signatures required for those elections is 5% of the number of persons who voted at the previous election for offices of the particular subdivision. In the city of Chicago, application of this standard has produced the incongruous result that a new party or an independent candidate needs substantially more signatures to gain access to the ballot than a similarly situated party or candidate for statewide office. The question before us is whether this discrepancy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
In January 1977, the Chicago City Council ordered a special mayoral election to be held on June 7, 1977, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Mayor Richard J. Daley. Pursuant to that order, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners (Chicago Board) issued an election calendar that listed the filing dates and signature requirements applicable to independent candidates and new political parties. Independent candidates had to obtain 35,947 valid signatures by February 19, and new political parties were required to file petitions with 63,373 valid signatures by April 4. Subsequently, the Chicago Board and the State Board of Elections (State Board) agreed for purposes of the special election to bring into conformity the requirements for independent candidates and new parties. The filing deadline for independents was extended to April 4, and the signature requirement for new parties was reduced to 35,947.
Because they had received less than 5% of the votes cast in the last mayoral election, the Socialist Workers Party and United States Labor Party were new political parties as defined in the Illinois statute. See n. 1, supra. Along with Gerald Rose, a candidate unaffiliated with any party, they were therefore subject to the signature requirements and filing deadlines specified in the election calendar. On January 24, 1977, the Socialist Workers Party and two voters who supported its candidate for Mayor brought this action against the Chicago Board and the State Board to enjoin enforcement of the signature requirements and filing deadlines for new parties. One week later, Gerald Rose, the United States Labor Party, and four voters sued the Chicago Board, challenging the restrictions on new parties and independent candidates. The State Board intervened as a defendant pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403, and the District Court consolidated the two cases for trial.
Plaintiff-appellees contended at trial that the discrepancy between the requirements for state and city elections violated the Equal Protection Clause. They argued further that the restrictions on independent candidates and new parties were unconstitutionally burdensome in the context of a special election because of the short time for collection of signatures between notice of the election and the filing deadline. The Chicago Board's primary response was that the decision in Jackson v. Ogilvie, 325 F. Supp. 864 (ND Ill.), summarily aff'd, 403 U. S. 925 (1971), upholding Illinois' 5% signature requirement, foreclosed the constitutional challenge in this case.
In an opinion issued on March 14, 1977, the District Court determined that Jackson addressed neither the circumstances of a special election nor the disparity between state and city signature requirements at issue here. Socialist Workers Party v. Chicago Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 433 F. Supp. 11, 16-17, 19. On the merits of appellees' equal protection challenge, the court found
“ [no] rational reason why a petition with identical signatures can satisfy the legitimate state interests for restricting ballot access in state elections, and yet fail to do the same in a lesser unit. Lendall v. Jernigan, 424 F. Supp. 951 (ED Ark. 1977). Any greater requirement than 25,000 signatures cannot be said to be the least drastic means of accomplishing the state’s goals, and must be found to unduly impinge [on] the constitutional rights of independents, new political parties, and their adherents.” Id., at 20 (footnote omitted).
Accordingly, the District Court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the 5% provision insofar as it mandated more than 25,000 signatures, the number required for statewide elections. The court also declined to dismiss appellees' claim that the April 4 filing deadline coupled with the signature requirement impermissibly burdened First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but it postponed a decision on this issue pending submission of additional evidence to justify the selection of that date.
On March 17, 1977, the Chicago Board and the appellees concluded a settlement agreement with respect to the unresolved issues. The agreement was incorporated into an order entered the same day which provided that “solely as applied to the Special Mayoral Election to be held in Chicago on June 7, 1977,” the signature requirement would be reduced to 20,000 and the filing deadline extended to April 18. App. 74. The District Court denied the State Board's subsequent motion to vacate both orders.
The State Board, but not the Chicago Board, appealed from both the March 14 order and the March 17 order. In a per curiam decision rendered six months after the election, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit adopted the opinion of the District Court. 566 F. 2d 586, 587 (1977). Also, with respect to the March 17 order, the Court of Appeals dismissed as moot the State Board’s contention that the Chicago Board lacked authority to conclude a settlement agreement without prior state approval. In so ruling, the court noted that the settlement order applied only to the June 7 election, which had long passed, and held that the question of the Chicago Board’s authority for its actions was not “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” id., at 588, quoting DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 318-319 (1974).
We noted probable jurisdiction, 435 U. S. 994 (1978), and we now affirm.
II
Appellant argues here, as it did below, that this Court’s summary affirmance of Jackson v. Ogilvie, supra, is dispositive of the equal protection challenge here. In analyzing this contention, we note at the outset that summary affirmances have considerably less precedential value than an opinion on the merits. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 671 (1974). As Mr. Chief Justice Burger observed in Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379, 392 (1975) (concurring opinion), “upon fuller consideration of an issue under plenary review, the Court has not hesitated to discard a rule which a line of summary affirmances may appear to have established.” See Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1, 14 (1976).
Moreover, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Jackson does not govern the issues currently before us. In that case, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, an independent candidate for Mayor of Chicago, attacked the 5% signature requirement for -independent candidates as an impermissible burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights. He contended as well that the discrepancy between the 5% rule and the less stringent requirements for candidates of established political parties violated the Equal Protection Clause. A three-judge District Court rejected both claims, finding the 5% requirement reasonable and the burdens imposed on independent and established party candidates roughly equivalent. Appellees mount a different challenge. They do not attack the lines drawn between independent and established party candidates. Rather, their equal protection claim rests on the discrimination between those independent candidates and new parties seeking access to the ballot in statewide elections and those similarly situated candidates and parties seeking access in city elections.
Appellant urges, however, that even though the District Court in Jackson did not explicitly mention the equal protection issue presented here, the issue was raised in a memorandum supporting Jackson filed with the District Court by the State. In the course of arguing that the election law discriminated against independent candidates, the memorandum stated:
“It must also be remembered that it is even more difficult for an independent candidate to obtain signatures than it would be for an independent party. Yet a whole new State political party needs only 25,000 signatures throughout the entire State for state officers, (Section 10-2), while a single independent candidate for only the office of Mayor of Chicago, needs almost 60,000 signatures. This also is an invidious discrimination against one seeking the office of Mayor of Chicago.” Memorandum of Law, App. to Juris. Statement in Jackson v. Ogilvie, O. T. 1970, No. 70-1341, p. B-23.
In view of the District Court's ultimate decision, appellant contends, this issue was necessarily resolved against Jackson, and therefore was resolved by this Court as well in its summary affirmance.
The District Court in Jackson, however, framed the equal protection issue before it as “whether [the 5% signature] requirement operates to discriminate against the plaintiff by depriving him of a right granted to candidates of established political parties.” 325 F. Supp., at 868. The jurisdictional statement posed the question in similar terms. Juris. Statement in Jackson v. Ogilvie, O. T. 1970, No. 70-1341, pp. 14-15. Although the jurisdictional statement alluded to the State’s memorandum, id., at 15, and incorporated it as a separate appendix, id., at B-21 — B-24, at no point did it directly address the question now before us.
This omission disposes of appellant’s argument. As we stated in Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U. S. 173, 176 (1977), the precedential effect of a summary affirmance can extend no farther than “the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” A summary disposition affirms only the judgment of the court below, ibid., quoting Fusari v. Steinberg, supra, at 391-392 (Burger, C. J., concurring), and no more may be read into our action than was essential to sustain that judgment. See Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., supra, at 14; McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Comm’n, 424 U. S. 645, 646 (1976) (per curiam). Questions which “merely lurk in the record,” Webster v. Fall, 266 U. S. 507, 511 (1925), are not resolved, and no resolution of them may be inferred. Assuming that the State's memorandum in Jackson can be read as advancing the issue presented here, see n. 7, supra, the issue was by no means adequately presented to and necessarily decided by this Court. Jackson therefore has no effect on the constitutional claim advanced by appellees.
III
In determining whether the Illinois signature requirements for new parties and independent candidates as applied in the city of Chicago violate the Equal Protection Clause, we must examine the character of the classification in question, the importance of the individual interests at stake, and the state interests asserted in support of the classification. See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250, 253-254 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 335 (1972); Kramer v. Union School Dist., 395 U. S. 621, 626 (1969); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30 (1968).
The provisions of the Illinois Election Code at issue incorporate a geographic classification. For purposes of setting the minimum-signature requirements, the Code distinguishes state candidates, political parties, and the voters supporting each, from city candidates, parties, and voters. In 1977, an independent candidate or a new political party in Chicago, a city with approximately 718,937 voters eligible to sign nominating petitions for the mayoral election in 1977, had to secure over 10,000 more signatures on nominating petitions than an independent candidate or new party in state elections, who had a pool of approximately 4.5 million eligible voters from which to obtain signatures. That the distinction between state and city elections undoubtedly is valid for some purposes does not resolve whether it is valid as applied here.
Restrictions on access to the ballot burden two distinct and fundamental rights, “the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively.” Williams v. Rhodes, supra, at 30. The freedom to associate as a political party, a right we have recognized as fundamental, see 393 U. S., at 30-31, has diminished practical value if the party can be kept off the ballot. Access restrictions also implicate the right to vote because, absent recourse to referendums, “voters can assert their preferences only through candidates or parties or both.” Lubin v. Panish, 415 U. S. 709, 716 (1974). By limiting the choices available to voters, the State impairs the voters' ability to express their political preferences. And for reasons too self-evident to warrant amplification here, we have often reiterated that voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 17 (1964); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964); Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, at 336.
When such vital individual rights are at stake, a State must establish that its classification is necessary to serve a compelling interest. American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U. S. 767, 780-781 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 736 (1974); Williams v. Rhodes, supra, at 31. To be sure, the Court has previously acknowledged that States have a legitimate interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot. In Lubin v. Panish, supra, at 715, we observed:
"A procedure inviting or permitting every citizen to present himself to the voters on the ballot without some means of measuring the seriousness of the candidate’s desire and motivation would make rational voter choices more difficult because of the size of the ballot and hence would tend to impede the electoral process. . . . The means of testing the seriousness of a given candidacy may be open to debate; the fundamental importance of ballots of reasonable size limited to serious candidates with some prospects of public support is not.”
Similarly, in Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134, 145 (1972) (footnote omitted), the Court expressed concern for the States’ need to assure that the winner of an election “is the choice of a majority, or at least a strong plurality, of those voting, without the expense and burden of runoff elections.” Consequently, we have upheld properly drawn statutes that require a preliminary showing of a “significant modicum of support” before a candidate or party may appear on the ballot. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S. 431, 442 (1971); see, e. g., American Party of Texas v. White, supra.
However, our previous opinions have also emphasized that “even when pursuing a legitimate interest, a State may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty,” Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S. 51, 58-59 (1973), and we have required that States adopt the least drastic means to achieve their ends. Lubin v. Panish, supra, at 716; Williams v. Rhodes, supra, at 31-33. This requirement is particularly important where restrictions on access to the ballot are involved. The States’ interest in screening out frivolous candidates must be considered in light of the significant role that third parties have played in the political development of the Nation. Abolitionists, Progressives, and Populists have undeniably had influence, if not always electoral success. As the records of such parties demonstrate, an election campaign is a means of disseminating ideas as well as attaining political office. See A. Bickel, Reform and Continuity 79-80 (1971); W. Binkley, American Political Parties 181-205 (3d ed. 1959); H. Penniman, Sait’s American Political Parties and Elections 223-239 (5th ed. 1952). Overbroad restrictions on ballot access jeopardize this form of political expression.
The signature requirements for independent candidates and new political parties seeking offices in Chicago are plainly not the least restrictive means of protecting the State’s objectives. The Illinois Legislature has determined that its interest in avoiding overloaded ballots in statewide elections is served by the 25,000-signature requirement. Yet appellant has advanced no reason, much less a compelling one, why the State needs a more stringent requirement for Chicago. At oral argument, appellant explained that the signature provisions for statewide elections originally reflected a different approach than those for elections in political subdivisions. Tr. of Oral Arg. 35-37. Not only were independent candidates and new political parties in state elections required to obtain 25,000 signatures, but those signatures also had to meet standards pertaining to geographic distribution. By comparison, candidates and parties in city elections had only to obtain signatures from a flat percentage of the qualified voters. In Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969), this Court struck down on equal protection grounds Illinois’ requirement that the nominating petition of a candidate for statewide office include the signatures of at least 200 qualified voters from at least 50 counties. Following Moore, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit invalidated a provision in the amended statute which specified that no more than 13,000 signatures on a new party’s petition for statewide elections could come from any one county. Communist Party of Illinois v. State Board of Elections, 518 F. 2d 517, cert. denied, 423 U. S. 986 (1975). Thus, appellant noted, the invalidation of the geographic constraints has tied the requirements for both city and state candidates solely to a population standard, giving rise to the anomaly at issue here.
Although this account may explain the anomaly, appellant still has suggested no reasons that justify its continuation. Historical accident, without more, cannot constitute a compelling state interest. We therefore hold that the Illinois Election Code is unconstitutional insofar as it requires independent candidates and new political parties to obtain more than 25,000 signatures in Chicago.
IV
Appellant finally challenges the Court of Appeals’ disposition of its appeal from the March 17 settlement order. The court dismissed as moot appellant’s claim that the Chicago Board lacked authority to conclude a settlement agreement without the State’s consent. In appellant’s view, the court erred in not placing this claim within the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).
In Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147, 149 (1975), we elaborated on this exception, holding that 'a case is not moot when:
“(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.”
Although the first branch of the test is satisfied here, appellant has presented no evidence creating a reasonable expectation that the Chicago Board will repeat its purportedly unauthorized actions in subsequent elections. Appellant’s conclusory assertions that the actions are capable of repetition are not sufficient to satisfy the Weinstein test, particularly since appellant does not contend that the Chicago Board has ever attempted previously to conclude litigation without its approval. The Chicago Board’s entry into a settlement agreement reflected neither a policy it had determined to continue, cf. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U. S. 159, 165 n. 6 (1977), nor even a consistent pattern of behavior, cf. SEC v. Sloan, 436 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1978). And the Chicago Board’s action patently was not a matter of statutory prescription, as was the case in other election decisions on which appellant relies, e. g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S., at 737 n. 8; Moore v. Ogilvie, supra, at 816. We therefore find that appellant’s challenge was properly dismissed as moot.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.
Under Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 46, § 10-2 (Supp. 1978):
“A political party which, at the last general election for State and county officers, polled for its candidate for Governor more than 5% of the entire vote cast for Governor, is hereby declared to be an 'established political party’ as to the State and as to any district or political subdivision thereof.
“A political party which, at the last election in any congressional district, legislative district, county, township, school district, park district, municipality or other district or political subdivision of the State, polled more than 5% of the entire vote cast within such congressional district, legislative district, county, township, school district, park district, municipality, or political subdivision of the State, where such district, political subdivision or municipality, as the case may be, has voted as a unit for the election of officers to serve the respective territorial area of such district, political subdivision or municipality, is hereby declared to be an 'established political party’ within the meaning of this Article as to such district, political subdivision or municipality.”
A new political party is one that has not met these requirements.
Individuals desiring to form a new political party throughout the State must file with the State Board of Elections a petition that, inter alia, is “signed by not less than 25,000 qualified voters.” In Communist Party of Illinois v. State Board of Elections, 518 F. 2d 517 (CA7), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 986 (1975), the Court of Appeals held unconstitutional the proviso in this section requiring “that no more than 13,000 signatures from the same county may be counted toward the required total of 25,000 signatures.” Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 46, § 10-2 (Supp. 1978).
A party that files a completed petition becomes entitled to place “upon the ballot at such next ensuing election such list of . . . candidates for offices to be voted for throughout the State . . . under the name of and as the candidates of such new political party.” Ibid.
With respect to independent candidates, § 10-3 (Supp. 1978) provides in pertinent part:
"Nomination of independent candidates (not candidates of any political party), for any office to be filled by the voters of the State at large may also be made by nomination papers signed in the aggregate for each candidate by not less than 25,000 qualified voters of the State; Provided, however, that no more than 13,000 signatures from the same county may be counted toward the required total of 25,000 signatures.”
The record does not reveal whether the State enforces the proviso.
Section 10-2 provides:
“If such new political party shall be formed for any district or political subdivision less than the entire State, such petition shall be signed by qualified voters equaling in number not less than 5% of the number of voters who voted at the next preceding general election in such district or political subdivision in which such district or political subdivision voted as a unit for the election of officers to serve its respective territorial area.”
Under § 10-3:
“Nominations of independent candidates for public office within any district or political subdivision less than the State, may be made by nomination papers signed in the aggregate for each candidate by qualified voters of such district, or political division, equaling not less than 5%, nor more than 8% (or 50 more than the minimum, whichever is greater) of the number of persons, who voted at the next preceding general election in such district or political sub-division in which such district or political sub-division voted as a unit for the election of officers to serve its respective territorial area.”
Candidates and new parties in Cook County, Ill., which is more populous than Chicago, would also have to obtain more than 25,000 signatures. In all political subdivisions of the State other than Chicago and Cook County, the 5% standard requires fewer than 25,000 signatures. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20.
This disparity in the signature requirements arose because the State and Chicago Boards used voting figures from the April 1, 1975, elections in computing the requirements for independents, but used figures from the November 2, 1976, general election in their calculations for new parties. The pertinent statutory language regarding signature requirements for independent candidates, however, is identical to that for new parties. Compare Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 46, §10-3 (Supp. 1978), with §10-2.
Section 10-6 of the Election Code provides that nominating petitions for independents and new parties must be filed at least 64 days prior to the election, here, by April 4. The record does not reflect what caused the discrepancy in filing dates in this case.
The Chicago Board is responsible for accepting nominating petitions for candidates and preparing the ballots for special elections. Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 46, §§7-60, 7-62, 10-6 (Supp. 1978). It also has “charge of and make[s] provisions for all elections, general, special, local, municipal, state and county, and all others of every description to be held in such city or any part thereof, at any time.” § 6-26 (Supp. 1978). The State Board exercises “general supervision over the administration of the registration and election laws throughout the State.” § 1A-1 (Supp. 1978); Ill. Const., Art. 3, § 5.
Although the State Board was afforded notice and an opportunity to participate in the District Court proceedings, only the Chicago Board appeared for argument on plaintiff-appellees’ motion for a permanent injunction. After the court entered the injunction, the State Board moved to vacate the decision, advancing many of the grounds previously asserted by the Chicago Board.
Only the State Board has appealed to this Court. The Chicago Board, defending its settlement agreement, see infra, at 180, appears as an appellee. Subsequent references to the "appellees” in this opinion, however, will include only the plaintiff-appellees.
Appellees Rose and the United States Labor Party argue that even this statement does not present the issue now before the Court. In their view, it refers to the purported disparity between the treatment of independent candidates and that of new political parties. In fact, appellees argue, there is and was no such disparity. Compare Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 46, § 10-2 (Supp. 1978), with § 10-3.
Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, Municipal Election Results (Apr. 1, 1975).
U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 505 (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: | 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.
Respondents Hodges and Lewis were convicted of committing murder in the perpetration of a rape in Memphis, Tenn., and sentenced to death by electrocution. On July 31, 1972, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments of conviction but reversed and remanded the record to the trial court on the issue of punishment, declaring that “[t]he Supreme Court of the United States has decreed that the death sentence is contrary to the Eighth Amendment . . . Hodges v. State, 491 S. W. 2d 624, 628 (1972).
On August 7, 1972, the Governor of Tennessee commuted respondents’ death sentences to 99 years’ imprisonment. On August 8, 1972, the State (represented by petitioner here) filed a timely petition for rehearing in the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-451 (Supp. 1974), which provides that such a petition must be filed within 15 days of the entry of the judgment.
The Court of Criminal Appeals then found the commutations by the Governor to be “valid and a proper exercise of executive authority,” citing Bowen v. State, 488 S. W. 2d 373 (Tenn. 1972), and held its remand “for naught,” thus affirming the convictions and the sentences, as modified, in full, 491 S. W. 2d, at 629. On March 5, 1973, the Supreme Court of Tennessee denied certiorari.
Respondents Hodges and Lewis then petitioned for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court asserting, inter alia, that their Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the illegal commutation of their sentences. The case was transferred to the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, which dismissed as to this issue for failure to exhaust state remedies. Respondents appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In a brief order, that court held that since the death sentences had been vacated at the time of the Governor’s commutation order, “there were ... no viable death sentences to commute” and therefore declared the commutations invalid.
Upon reconsideration, the court noted that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals vacating the death penalties had been timely modified by that court to comply with the commutation order. However, it did not alter its earlier decision, except to note that respondents had exhausted their state remedies as to this point.
A necessary predicate for the granting of federal habeas relief to respondents is a determination by the federal court that their custody violates thé Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U. S. C. § 2241 ; Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 312 (1963). The one sentence in the opinion of the Court of Appeals dealing with the invalidity of the Governor’s commutations contains no reference to any provision of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States or to any decision of this Court or any other court. Whether or not the sentences imposed upon respondents were subject to commutation by the Governor, and the extent of his authority under the circumstances of this case, are questions of Tennessee law which were resolved in favor of sustaining the action of the Governor by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in Hodges v. State, supra. It was not the province of a federal habeas court to re-examine these questions.
Respondents urge, in support of the° result reached by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, that their Fourteenth and Sixth Amendment rights to jury trial have been infringed by the Tennessee proceedings. We reject these contentions. A jury had already determined their guilt and sentenced them to death.. The Governor commuted these sentences to a term of 99 years after this Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). Neither Furman nor any other holding of this Court requires that following such a commutation the defendant shall be entitled to have his sentence determined anew by a jury. If Tennessee chooses to allow the Governor to reduce a death penalty to a term of years without resort to further judicial proceedings, the United States Constitution affords no impediment to that choice. Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71 (1902). Cf. Schick v. Reed, 419 U. S. 256 (1974).
The motion of the respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas would deny certiorari.
This order would have returned respondents to the trial court for resentencing to between 20 years and life as a jury might determine. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-2405 (1956).
The dissent would have us probe beneath the surface of the opinions below in search of a logical foundation. In cases where the holding of the court below is unclear, such a technique may be required. Here, however, that court clearly “hold[s] the purported commutation . . . invalid.” In its second opinion it reversed the District Court on the exhaustion question and otherwise specifically reaffirmed the earlier order. We are forced to take the Court of Appeals at its word.
Two other panels of the same court have correctly recognized, in cases virtually identical to this one, that no federal constitutional question was presented by such a commutation. Smith v. Rose, No. 74-1753 (Nov. 15, 1974); Bowen v. Rose, No. 74-1087 (Mar. 19, 1974).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to review a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declining to enforce a forum-selection clause governing disputes arising under an international towage contract between petitioners and respondent. The circuits have differed in their approach to such clauses. For the reasons stated hereafter, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
In November 1967, respondent Zapata, a Houston-based American corporation, contracted with petitioner Unterweser, a German corporation, to tow Zapata's ocean-going, self-elevating drilling rig Chaparral from Louisiana to a point off Ravenna, Italy, in the Adriatic Sea, where Zapata had agreed to drill certain wells.
Zapata had solicited bids for'the towage, and several companies including Unterweser had responded. Unter-weser was the low bidder and Zapata requested it to submit a contract, which it did. The contract submitted by Unterweser contained the following provision, which is at issue in this case:
“Any dispute arising must be treated before the London Court of Justice.”
In addition the contract contained two clauses purporting to exculpate Unterweser from liability for damages to the towed barge.
After reviewing the contract and making several changes, but without any alteration in the forum-selection or exculpatory clauses, a. Zapata vice president executed the contract and forwarded it to Unter-weser in Germany, where Unterweser accepted the changes, and the contract became effective.
On January 5, 1968, Unterweser’s deep sea tug Bremen departed Venice, Louisiana, with the Chaparral in tow bound for Italy. On January 9, while the flotilla was in international waters in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, a severe storm arose. The sharp roll of the Chaparral in Gulf waters caused its elevator legs, which had been raised for the voyage, to break off and fall into the sea, seriously damaging the Chaparral. In this emergency situation Zapata instructed the Bremen to tow its damaged rig to Tampa, Florida, the nearest port of refuge.
On January 12, Zapata, ignoring its contract promise to litigate “any dispute arising” in the English courts, commenced a suit in admiralty in the United States District Court at Tampa, seeking $3,500,000 damages against Unterweser in personam and the Bizmen in rem, alleging negligent towage and breach of contract. Un-terweser responded by invoking the forum clause of the towage contract, and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or on jorum non conveniens grounds, or in the alternative to stay the action pending submission of the dispute to the “London Court of Justice.” Shortly thereafter, in February, before the District Court had ruled on its motion to stay or dismiss the United States action, Unterweser commenced an action against Zapata seeking damages for breach of the towage contract in the High Court of Justice in London, as the contract provided. Zapata appeared in that court to contest jurisdiction, but its challenge was rejected, the English courts holding- that- the contractual forum provision conferred jurisdiction.
In the meantime, Unterweser was faced with a dilemma in the pending action in the United States court at Tampa. The six-month period for filing action to limit its liability to Zapata and other potential claimants was about to expire, but the United States. District-Court in Tampa had not yet ruled on UnterweserV motion, to dismiss or stay Zapata’s action. On July 2, -1968, confronted with difficult alternatives, Unterweser filed an action to limit its liability in the District Court in Tampa. That court entered the cústomary injunction against proceedings outside the limitation court, and Zapata refiled its. initial claim in the limitation action.
It wás only at this juncture, on July 29, after the six-month: period for filing the limitation action had. run, that the District Court denied Unterweser’s January motion to dismiss or stay Zapata’s initial action. In denying the motion, that court relied on the prior decision of the Court of Appeals in. Carbon Black Export, Inc. v. The Monrosa, 254 F. 2d 297 (CA5 1958), cert. dismissed, 359 U. S. 180 (1959). In that case the Court of Appeals had held a forum-selection clause unenforceable, reiterating the traditional view of many American courts that “agreements in advance of controversy whose object is to oust the jurisdiction of the courts are contrary to public policy and will not be enforced.” 254 F. 2d, at 300-301. Apparently concluding that it was bound by the Carbon Black case, the District Court gave the forum-selection clause little, if any, weight. Instead, the court treated the motion to dismiss under normal jorum non conveniens doctrine applicable in the absence of such a clause, citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501 (1947). Under that doctrine “unless the balance is.strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” Id., at 508. The District Court concluded: “The balance of conveniences here is not strongly in favor of [Unterweser] and [Zapata’s] choice of forum should not be disturbed.”
Thereafter, on January 21, 1969, the District Court.. denied, another motion by Unterweser to stay the limitation action pending determination of the controversy in the High Court of Justice in London and granted Zapata’s motion to restrain Unterweser from litigating further in the London court. The District Judge ruled that, having taken jurisdiction in the limitation proceeding, he had jurisdiction to determine all matters relating to the controversy. He ruled that Unterweser should ■ be required to “do equity” by refraining from also litigating the controversy in the London court, not only for the reasons he had previously stated for denying Unterweser’s first motion to stay Zapata’s action, but also because Unterweser had invoked the United States court’s jurisdiction to obtain the benefit of the Limitation Act.
On appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, and on rehearing en banc the panel opinion was adopted, with six of the 14 en baric judges dissenting. As had the District Court, the majority rested on the Carbon Black decision, concluding that “ ‘at the very least”’ that case stood for the proposition that a forum-selection clause “ ‘will not bé enforced unless the selected state would provide a more convenient forum than the state in which, suit is brought.’ ” From that premise the Court of Appeals proceeded to conclude that, apart from the forum-selection clause, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to decline jurisdiction on the basis of forum non con-veniens. It noted that (1) the flotilla never “escaped the Fifth Circuit’s mare nostrum, and the casualty occurred in close proximity to the district court”; (2) a considerable number of potential witnesses, including Zapata crewmen, resided in the Gulf Coast area; (3) preparation for the voyage and inspection and repair work had been performed in the Gulf area; (4) the testimony of the Bremen crew was available by way of deposition; (5) England had no interest in or contact with the controversy other than the forum-selection clause. The Court of Appeals majority further noted that Zapata was a United States citizen and “[t]he discretion of the district court to remand the cáse to a foreign forum was consequently limited” — especially since it appeared likely that the English courts would enforce the exculpatory, clauses. In the Court of Appeals’ view, enforcement of such clauses would be contrary to public policy in American courts under Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U. S. 85 (1955), and Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 372 U. S. 697 (1963). Therefore, “[t]he district court was. entitled to consider that remanding Zapata to a foreign forum, with no practical contact with the controversy, could raise a bar to recovery by a United States citizen which its own convenient courts would not countenance.”
We hold, with the six dissenting members of the Court of Appeals, that far top little weight and effect were given to the forum clause in resolving this controversy. For at least two decades we have witnessed an expansion of overseas commercial activities by business enterprises based in the United States. The barrier of distance that once tended to confine a business concern to a modest territory no longer does so. Here we see an American company with special expertise contracting with a foreign company to tow a complex machine thousands of miles across seas and oceans. The expansion of American business and industry will hardly be encouraged if, notwithstanding solemn contracts, we insist on a parochial concept that all disputes must be resolved under our laws and in our courts. Absent a contract forum, the considerations relied on by the Court of Appeals would be persuasive reasons for holding an American forum convenient in the traditional sense, but in. an era of expanding world trade and commerce, the absolute aspects of the doctrine of the Carbon Black case have little place and would be a heavy hand indeed on the future development of international commercial dealings by Americans. We cannot have trade and cofnmerce in world markets and international waters exclusively on our terms, governed by our laws, and resolved in our courts.
Forum-selection clauses have historically not been favored by American courts. Many courts, federal and state, have declined to enforce such clauses on the ground that they were “contrary to public policy,” or that their effect was to “oust the jurisdiction” of the court. Although this view apparently still-has considerable acceptance, other courts are tending to adopt a more hospitable attitude toward forum-selection clauses. This view, advanced in the well-reasoned dissenting opinion in the instant case, is that such clauses are prima facie valid and. should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party- tó be “unreasonable” under the circumstances. We believe this is the correct doctrine to be followed by federal district courts sitting in admiralty. It is merely the' other side of the proposition recognized by this Courts in National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U. S. 311 (1964), holding that in federal courts a party may validly consent to be sued in a jurisdiction where he cannot be found for service of process through contractual designation of an “agent” for receipt of process in that, jurisdiction. In so holding, the Court stated:... • •
“[I]t is settled... that parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court, to permit notice to be served by the opposing party, or even to waive notice altogether.”
Id., at 316-316.
This approach is substantially that followed in other common-law countries including England.. It is the view advanced by noted scholars and that adopted by the Restatement of the Conflict of Laws. It accords with ancient concepts of freedom of contract and reflects an appreciation of the expanding horizons of American cbntractors who seek business in all parts of the world. Not surprisingly, foreign businessmen prefer, as do we, to have disputes resolved in their own courts, but if that choice is not available, then in a neutral forum with expertise in the subject matter. Plainly,- the courts of England meet the standards of neutrality and long experience in admiralty litigation. The choice of that forum was made in an arm’s-length negotiation by experienced and sophis- ■ ticated businessmen, and absent some compelling and countervailing reason' it should be honored by the parties and enforced by the courts.
The argument that such clauses are improper because they tend to “oust” a court of jurisdiction is hardly more than a vestigial legal fiction. It appears to rest at core on historical judicial resistance to any attempt to reduce the power and business of a particular court and has little place in an era when all courts are overloaded and when businesses once essentially local now operate in world markets. It reflects something of a provincial attitude regarding the fairness of other tribunals. No one seriously contends in this case that the forum-selection clause “ousted” the District Court of jurisdiction over Zapata’s action. The threshold question is whether that court should have exercised its jurisdiction to do more than give effect to the legitimate expectations of the parties, manifested in their freely negotiated agreement, by specifically enforcing the forum clause.
There are compelling reasons why a freely negotiated private international agreement, unaffected by fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power, such as that involved here, should be given full effect. In this case, for example, we are concerned with a far from routine transaction between companies of two different nations contemplating the tow of an extremely costly piece of equipment from Louisiana across the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, through the Mediterranean Sea to its final destination in the Adriatic Sea. In the course of its voyage, it was to traverse the waters of many jurisdictions. The Chaparral could have been damaged at any point along the route, and there were countless possible ports of refuge. That the accident occurred in the Gulf of Mexico and the barge was towed to Tampa in an emergency were mere fortuities. It cannot be doubted for a moment that the parties sought to provide for a neutral forum for the resolution of any disputes arising during the tow. Manifestly much uncertainty and possibly great inconvenience to both parties could arise if a suit could be maintained in any jurisdiction in which an accident might occur or if jurisdiction were left to any place where the Bremen or Unterweser might happen to be found. The elimination of all such uncertainties by agreeing in advance on a forum acceptable to both parties is an indispensable element in international trade, commerce, and contracting. There is strong evidence that the forum clause was a vital part of the agreement, and it would be unrealistic to- think that the parties did not conduct their negotiations, including fixing the monetary terms, with the consequences of the forum clause figuring prominently in their calculations. Under these circumstances, as Justice Karminski reasoned in sustaining jurisdiction over Zapata in the High Court of Justice, “[t]he force of an agreement for litigation in this country, freely entered into between two competent parties, seems to me to be very powerful.”
Thus, in the light of present-day commercial realities and expanding international trade we conclude that the forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside. Although their opinions are not altogether explicit, it seems reasonably clear that the District Court and the Court of Appeals placed the burden on Unterweser to show that London would be a more convenient forum than Tampa, although the contract expressly resolved that issue. The correct approach would have been to enforce the forum clause specifically unless Zapata could clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for reconsideration.
We note, however, that there is nothing in the record presently before us that would support a'refusal to enforce the forum clause. The Court of Appeals suggested that enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of the forum under Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U. S. 85 (1955), because of the prospect that the English courts would enforce the clauses of the towage contract purporting to exculpate Unterweser from liability for damages to the Chaparral. A contractual choice-of-forum clause should be held unenforceable if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial decision. See, e. g., Boyd v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 338 U. S. 263 (1949). It is clear, however, that whatever the proper scope of the policy expressed in Bisso, it does not reach this case. Bisso rested on considerations with respect to the towage business strictly in American waters, and those considerations are not controlling in an international commercial agreement. Speaking for the dissenting judges in the Court of Appeals, Judge Wisdom pointed out:
“[W]e should be careful not to over-emphasize the strength of the [Bisso] policy.... [T]wo concerns underlie the rejection of exculpatory agreements: that they may be produced by overweening bargaining power; and that they do not sufficiently discourage negligence.... Here the conduct in question is that of a foreign party occurring in international waters outside our jurisdiction. The i evidence disputes any notion of overreaching in' the contractual/ agreement. And for all we know, the uncertainties and dangers in the new field of transoceanic towage of oil rigs were so great that the tower was unwilling to take financial responsibility for the risks, and the parties thus allocated responsibility for the voyage to the tow. It is equally possible that the contract price took this factor into account. I conclude that we should not invalidate the forum selection clause here unless we are firmly convinced that we would thereby significantly encourage negligent conduct within the boundaries of the United States.” 428 F. 2d, at 907-908. (Footnotes omitted.)
Courts have also suggested that a forum clause, even though it is freely bargained for and contravenes no important public policy of the forum, may nevertheless be “unreasonable” and unenforceable if the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient for the trial of the action. Of course, where it can be said with reasonable assurance that at the time they entered the contract, the parties to a freely negotiated private international commercial agreement contemplated the claimed inconvenience, it is difficult to see why any such claim of inconvenience should be heard to render the forum clause unenforceable. We are not here dealing with an agreement between two Americans to resolve their essentially local disputes in a remote alien forum. In such a case, the serious inconvenience of the contractual forum to one or both of the parties might carry greater weight in determining the reasonableness of the forum clause. The remoteness of the forum might suggest that the agreement was an adhesive one, or that the parties did not have the particular controversy in mind when they made their agreement; yet even there the party claiming should bear a heavy burden of proof. Similarly, selection of a remote forum to apply differing foreign law to an essentially American controversy might contravene an' important public policy of the forum. For. example, so long'as Bisso governs Aftierican courts with respect to the towage business in American waters, it would quite arguably be improper to permit an American tower to avoid that policy by providing a foreign forum for resolution of his disputes with an American towee.
This case, however, involves a freely negotiated international commercial transaction between a German and an American corporation for towage of a vessel from the Gulf of Mexico to the Adriatic Sea. As noted, selection of a London forum was clearly a reasonable effort to bring vital certainty to this international transaction and to provide a neutral forum experienced and capable in the resolution of admiralty litigation. Whatever “inconvenience” Zapata would suffer by being forced to litigate in the contractual forum as it agreed to do was clearly foreseeable at the time of contracting. In such circumstances it should be incumbent on the party seeking to escape his contract to show that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court. Absent that, there is no basis for concluding that it would be unfair, unjust, or unreasonable to hold that, party to his bargain.
In the course of its ruling orí Unterweser’s second motion to stay the proceedings in Tampa, the District •Court did make a conclusory finding that the balance of convenience was “strongly” in favor of litigation in Tampa. However, as previously noted, in making that finding the court erroneously placed the burden of proof on Unterweser to show that the balance of convenience was strongly in its favor. Moreover, the finding falls far short of a conclusion that Zapata would be effectively deprived of its day in court should it be forced to litigate in London. Indeed, it cannot even be assumed that it would be, placed to the expense of transporting its witnesses to London. It is not unusual for important issues in international admiralty-cases to be dealt with by deposition. Both the District Court.and the Court of Appeals majority appeared satis-* fied that Unterweser could receive a fair hearing in Tampa by using deposition testimony of its witnesses from distant places, and there is no reason to conclude that Zapata could not use deposition testimony to equal advantage if forced to litigate in London as it bound itself to do. Nevertheless, to allow Zapata opportunity to carry its heavy burden of showing not only that the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of trial in Tampa (that is, that it will be far more ■ inconr venient for Zapata to litigate in- London than it will be for Unterweser to litigate in Tampa), but also that a London trial will be so manifestly and gravely inconvenient to Zapata that it will be effectively deprived of a meaningful day in court, we remand for further., proceedings.. •
Zapata’s remaining contentions do not require extended treatment. It is clear that Unterweser’s action in filing its limitation complaint in the District Court in Tampa was, so far as Zapata was concerned, solely a defensive measure made necessary as a response to Zapata's breach of the forum clause of the contract. When the six-month statutory period for filing an action to limit its liability had almost run without the District Court’s having ruled on Unterweser’s initial motion to dismiss or stay Zapata’s action pursuant to the forum clause, Unterweser had no other prudent alternative but to protect itself by filing for limitation of its liability. Its action in so doing was a direct consequence of Zapata’s failure to abide by the forum clause of the towage contract. There is no basis on which to conclude that this purely necessary defensive action by Unterweser should preclude it from relying on the forum clause it bargained for.
For the first time in this litigation, Zapata has suggested to this Court that the forum clause should not be construed to provide for an exclusive forum or to include in rent actions. However, the language of the clause is clearly mandatory and all-encompassing; the language of the clause in. the Carbon Black case was far different.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
Compare,, e. g., Central Contracting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 367 F. 2d 341 (CA3 1966), and Wm. H. Muller & Co. v. Swedish American Line Ltd., 224 F. 2d 806 (CA2), cert. denied, 350 U. S. 903 (1955), with Carbon Black Export, Inc. v. The Monrosa, 254 F. 2d 297 (CA5 1958), cert. dismissed, 359 U. S. 180 (1959).
The General Towage Conditions of the contract included the following:
“1.... [Unterweser and its] masters and crews are not responsible for defaults and/or errors in the navigation of the tow.
“2....
“b) Damages suffered by the towed object are in any case for account of its Owners.”
In addition, the contract provided that any insurance of the Chaparral was to be “for account of” Zapata. Unterweser’s initial telegraphic bid had also offered to “arrange insurance covering towage risk for rig if desired.” As Zapata had chosen to be self-insured on all its rigs, the loss in this case was not compensated' by insurance.
The Bremen was arrested by a United States marshal acting pursuant to Zapata's complaint immediately upon her arrival in Tampa. The tug was subsequently released when Unterweser furnished security in the amount of $3,500.000.
Zapata appeared specially and moved to set aside service of process outside the country. Justice Karminski of the High Court of Justice denied the motion on the ground the contractual choice-of-forum provision conferred jurisdiction and would be enforced, absent a factual showing it would not be “fair and right” to do so. He did not believe Zapata had made such a showing, and held that it should be required to “stick to [its] bargain.” App. 206, 211, 213. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal on the ground that Justice Karminski had properly applied the English rule. Lord Justice Willmer stated that rule as follows:
“The law on the subject, I think, is not open to doubt.... It is always open to parties to stipulate... that a particular Court shall have jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of their contract. Here the parties chose to stipulate that disputes were to be referred to the ‘London Court,’ which I take as meaning the High Court in this country. Prima facie it is the policy of. the Court to hold parties to the bargain into which they have entered.... But that is not an indexible rule, as was shown, for instance, by the case of The Fehmarn, [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511; (C. A.) [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 551....
“I approach the matter, therefore, in this way, that the Court has a discretion, but it is a discretion which, in the ordinary way and in'the absence of strong reason to the contrary, will be exercised in favour of holding parties to their bargain. The question is whether sufficient circumstances have been shown to exist in this case to make it desirable, on the grounds of balance of convenience, that proceedings should not take place in this country....” [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158, Í62-163.
46 U. S. C. §§ 183, 185. See generally G, Gilmore & C. Black, Admiralty §10-15 (1957).
In its limitation complaint, Unterweser stated it “reserve[d] all rights”, under its previous motion to dismiss or stay Zapata’s action, and reasserted that the High Court of Justice was the proper forum for determining the entire controversy, including its own right to limited liability, in accord with the contractual forum clause. Unterweser later counterclaimed, setting forth the same contractual cause' of action as in its English action and a further cause of action for salvage arising out of the Bremen’s services following the casualty. In its counterclaim, Unterweser again asserted that the High Court of Justice in London was the proper forum for determining all aspects • of the controversy, including its counterclaim. ■
The Carbon Black court went on to say that it was, in any event, unnecessary for it to reject the more liberal position taken in Wm. H. Muller & Co. v. Swedish American Line Ltd., 224 F. 2d 806 (CA2), cert. denied, 350 U. S. 903 (1955), because the case before it had a greater nexus with the United States than that in Muller.
The record contains an undisputed affidavit of a British solicitor stating an opinion that the exculpatory clauses of the contract would be held “prima facie valid and enforceable” against Zapata in any action maintained in England in which Zapata alleged that defaults or errors in Unterweser’s tow caused the casualty and damage to the Chaparral..
In addition, it is not disputed that while the limitation fund in the-District Court in Tampa amounts to $1,390,000, the limitation fund in England would be only slightly in excess of $80,000 under English law.
The Court of Appeals also indicated in passing that even if it took the view that choice-of-forum clauses were' enforceable unless “unreasonable” it was “doubtful” that enforcement would be proper here because the exculpatory clauses would deny Zapata relief to which it was “entitled” and because England was “seriously inconvenient” for-trial of the action.
Many decisions reflecting this view are collected in Annot., 56 A. L. R. 2d 300, 306-320 (1957), and Later Case Service (1967).
For leading early cases, see, e. g., Nute v. Hamilton Mutual Ins. Co., 72 Mass. (6 Gray) 174 (1856); Nashua River Paper Co. v. Hammermill Paper Co., 223 Mass. 8, 111 N. E. 678 (1916); Benson v. Eastern Bldg. & Loan Assn., 174 N. Y. 83, 66 N. E. 627 (1903).
The early admiralty cases were in accord. See, e. g., Wood & Selick, Inc. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 43 F. 2d 941 (CA2 1930); The Ciano, 58 F. Supp. 65 (ED Pa. 1944); Kuhnhold v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 251 F. 387 (SDNY 1918); Prince Steam-Shipping Co. v. Lehman, 39 F. 704 (SDNY 1889).
In Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 (1874), this Court broadly stated that “agreements in advance to oust the courts of the jurisdiction conferred by law are illegal and void.” Id., at 451. But the holding of that cáse was only that the State of Wisconsin could not by statute force a foreign corporation to “agree” to surrender its federal statutory' right to remove a state court action to' the federal courts as a condition of doing business in Wisconsin. Thus, the case is properly understood as one in which a state statutory requirement was viewed as imposing an unconstitutional condition on the exercise of the federal right of removal. See, e. g., Wisconsin v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal Co., 241 U. S. 329 (1916).
•As Judge Hand noted in Krenger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 174 F. 2d 556 (CA2 1949), even at that date there was in fact no “absolute taboo” against such clauses. See, e. g., Mittenthal v. Mascagni, 183 Mass. 19, 66 N. E. 425 (1903); Daley v. People’s Bldg., Loan & Sav. Assn., 178 Mass. 13, 59 N. E. 452 (1901) (Holmes, J.). See also Cerro de Pasco Copper Corp. v. Knut Knutsen, O. A. S., 187 F 2d 990 (CA2 1951). '
E. g., Central Contracting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 367 F. 2d 341 (CA3 1966); Anastasiadis v. S. S. Little John, 346 F. 2d 281 (CA5 1965) (by implication); Wm. H. Muller & Co. v. Swedish American Line Ltd., 224 F. 2d 806 (CA2), cert. denied, 350 U. S. 903 (1955); Cerro de Pasco Copper Corp. v. Knut Knutsen, O. A. S., 187 F. 2d 990. (CA2 1951); Central Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl & Co., 418 Pa. 122, 209 A. 2d 810 (1965).
The Muller case, was overruled in Indussa Corp. v. S. S. Ranborg, 377 F. 2d 200 (CA2 1967), insofar as it held that the forum clause-was.not inconsistent with the “lessening of liability” provision of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U. S. C. § 1303 (8), which was applicable to the transactions in Muller, Indussa, and Carbon Black.' That Act is not applicable in this case.
In addition to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the instant case, Unterweser Reederei G. m. b. H. V. Zapata Off-Shore Co. [The Chaparral], [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158 (C. A.), see' e. g., Mackender v. Feldia A. G., [1967] 2 Q. B. 590 (C. A.); The Fehmam, [1958] 1 W. L. R. 159 (C. A.); Law v. Garrett, [1878] 8 Ch. D. 26 (C. A.); The Eleftheria, [1970] P. 94. As indicated by the clear statements in The Eleftheria and of Lord Justice Wilkner in this case, supra, n. 4, the decision of the trial court calls for an exercise of discretion. See generally A. Dicey & J. Morris, The Conflict of Laws 979-980, 1087-1088 (8th éd. 1967); Cowen & Mendes da Costa, The Contractual Forum: Situation, in England and the British Commonwealth, 13 Am. J. Comp. Law 179 (1964) ; Reese, The Contractual Forum: Situation in the United States, id., at 187, 190 n. 13; Graupner, Contractual Stipulations Conferring Exclusive Jurisdiction Upon Foreign Courts in the Law of England and Scotland, 59 L. Q. Rev. 227 (1943).
Restatement (Second) of the Conflict of Laws §80 (1971); Reese, The Contractual Forum: Situation in the United States, 13 Am. J. Comp. Law 187 (1964); A. Ehrenzweig, Conflict of Laws § 41 (1962). See also Model Choice of Forum Act (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 1968).
The record, here refutes any notion of overweening bargaining power. Judge Wisdom, dissenting, in the Court of Appeals noted:
“Zapata has neither presented evidence of nor alleged fraud or undue bargaining power in the agreement. Unterweser was only one of several companies bidding on the project. No evidence contradicts its Managing Director’s affidavit that it specified English courts 'in an effort to meet Zapata Off-Shore Company half way.’ Zapata’s Vice President has declared by affidavit that no specific negotiations- concerning the forum clause took place. But this was not simply a form contract with boilerplate language that Zapata had no power to alter. The towing of an oil rig across the Atlantic was a new business. Zapata did make alterations to the contract submitted by Unterweser. The forum clause could hardly be ignored. It is the final sentence of the agreement, immediately preceding the date and the parties’ signatures....” 428 F.-2d 888, 907.
At the very least, the clause was an effort to eliminate all uncertainty as to the nature, location, and outlook of the forum in which these companies of differing nationalities might find themselves. Moreover, while the contract here did not specifically provide that the substantive law of England should be applied, it is the general rule in English courts that the parties are assumed, absent contrary indication, to have designated the forum with the view that it should apply its own law. See, e. g., Tzortzis v. Monark Line A/B, [1968] 1 W. L. R. 406
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question involved here is whether this treble damage action based on alleged violations of the restraint of trade and monopoly sections of the Sherman Law was rightly terminated by a summary judgment of dismissal. The petitioner, Lou Poller, is the assignee of the Midwest Broadcasting Company, a dissolved corporation. In 1954 Midwest was the owner and operator of WCAN, an ultra high frequency (UHF) broadcasting station located in Milwaukee. The station was affiliated with the Columbia Broadcasting System network and was of the alleged value of 12,000,000. Poller charged that the respondents in 1954 entered into an unlawful conspiracy to eliminate WCAN from the broadcast field in Milwaukee. It was a part of the conspiracy that respondent Holt was to secure in his name an option to purchase WOKY, a competing but inferior UHF broadcaster in Milwaukee. When and if the Federal Communications Commission amended its multiple ownership rules, then under consideration, so as to permit CBS to own UHF stations in addition to its YHF ones, Holt was to assign his option to CBS if it so elected. In that event, it was agreed CBS would cancel its affiliation agreement with WCAN pursuant to its option in that contract and in due course consummate its purchase of WOKY. This would place WCAN in the precarious position of competing with the two major national networks with stations in Milwaukee. Being unable to survive such competition, its only course would be to liquidate at distressed prices its valuable equipment and facilities only recently acquired. CBS might then acquire them at its own price for use in its new operation which was necessary because of the inferior quality of those of WOKY. CBS would then have Midwest’s superior facilities and equipment which with the WOKY license would enable it to start broadcasting at a minimum expense and the least possible delay. Poller further claimed that the overall purpose of CBS was tó destroy UHF broadcasting, which had only been permitted to enter the field in 1952, in order to protect its vast interest in VHF stations throughout the United States. Finally, he alleged the conspiracy was so successful that CBS not only acquired WCAN at a loss of $1,460,000 to Midwest but that the latter was obliged to buy the facilities and equipment of WOKY at exorbitant prices and to agree to continue broadcasting from the latter’s premises — which was done “in order to pretend that there was no restraint of trade or elimination of competition . . . .” However, WCAN continued in business only 10 days after CBS started its broadcasts on February 17, 1955. CBS discontinued UHF broadcasting in 1959 when it became affiliated with a Milwaukee VHF station.
At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment the trial judge held that the injury suffered was damnum absque injuria, stating that CBS had a right to purchase WOKY, subject to Federal Communications Commission approval, and to cancel its affiliation contract with WCAN. 174 F. Supp. 802. The Court of Appeals affirmed with Judge Washington dissenting, 109 U. S. App. D. C. 170, 284 F. 2d 599, and we granted certiorari, 365 U. S. 840. We now conclude that there was a genuine issue as to material facts and that summary judgment was not therefore in order.
I.
Summary judgment should be entered only when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and admissions filed in the case “show that [except as to the amount of damages] 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 (c), Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. This rule authorizes summary judgment “only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, where it is quite clear what the truth is, . . . [and where] no genuine issue remains for trial . . . [for] the purpose of the rule is not to cut litigants off from their right of trial by jury if they really have issues to try.” Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 321 U. S. 620, 627 (1944). We now examine the contentions of the parties to determine whether under the rule summary judgment was proper.
H.
The respondents in their motion for summary judgment depended upon the affidavits of four persons. The first is Richard Salant, Vice President of CBS; another, Jay Eliasberg, Director of its Research Division; a third, Lee Bartell, who made the sale of WOKY to CBS at a $50,000 profit; finally, Thad Holt, a codefendant who received $10,000 from the transaction. These were supplemented by material taken from petitioner’s depositions of Salant and CBS President Stanton. It is readily apparent that each of these persons was an interested party.
Respondents appear to place most reliance on the Salant testimony, and we shall, therefore, take it up in some detail. It projects three defenses, the first being that there was no conspiracy for the following reasons: CBS-TV was not a separate entity but only a division of CBS, and therefore there could be no conspiracy between the two; Holt, the cover man in securing the option and purchase of WOKY, “had been given the particular job” by CBS and therefore was not a conspirator; and Bartell never shared in any illegal purpose that would bring him into the conspiracy. Secondly, in any event, the only issue in the case is the legality of the cancellation of the affiliation agreement by CBS which was merely the legal exercise by CBS of “the normal right of a producer to select the outlet for its product.” And, finally, the monopoly charges are entirely “frivolous.” The trial judge accepted the second defense.
III.
It may be that CBS by independent action could have exercised its granted right to cancel WCAN’s affiliation upon six months’ notice and independently purchased its own outlet in Milwaukee. However, if such a cancellation and purchase were part and parcel of unlawful conduct or agreement with others or were conceived in a purpose to unreasonably restrain trade, control a market, or monopolize, then such conduct might well run afoul of the Sherman Law. See Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 624-625 (1953); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Materials Co., 273 U. S. 359, 375 (1927). Poller alleges and the affidavits, depositions, and exhibits indicate much more than the free exercise by CBS of the granted right of cancellation. A conspiracy is alleged to restrain trade in the Milwaukee television market; to eliminate WCAN from that market; to secure its facilities at depressed prices; and to occupy the UHF band in that market exclusively. The right of cancellation was merely one of the means used to effectuate this conspiracy. Moreover, “in its wider sense” Poller claims that a part of their conspiracy was “to wipe out the most outstanding UHF operator in the country [WCAN] and by wiping him out they destroyed the UHF industry, which was a threat to them, despite their protestations, because of the enormous economic investment they had in VHF.”
It is argued that CBS cannot conspire with itself. However, this begs the question for the allegation is that independent parties, i. e., Holt and Bartell, conspired with CBS and its officers. While respondents’ affidavits assert that Holt acted in good faith as a special agent or employee for CBS and that Bartell was completely free of any evil motives directed toward WCAN, the trial judge indicated a belief that Holt was “an independent actor” and would have submitted the question of his status to the jury had he not disposed of the case on other grounds. Furthermore, Poller submitted a deposition of Holt, an exhibit to which showed CBS had furnished Holt a complete analysis in writing of the Milwaukee market and the ownership and affiliation of the TV stations there, including WCAN. The deposition revealed that Holt had knowledge that the obvious purpose and necessary effect of the plan would be to eliminate independent UHF in Milwaukee and that he had a personal stake in its success. This included, inter alia, Holt’s statements that he met with top CBS officials in New York for a briefing on his role, that he was a close friend of these officials, and that he would have retained the option for himself if unused by CBS. The latter admissions, when coupled with the uncertainty at that time of a Federal Communications Commission rule permitting CBS to purchase WCAN, suggest that the alternative plan was to let Holt exercise the option and take the affiliation if CBS could not. Likewise, Bartell’s affidavit, barely a page and a half in the record, does not negative the allegations of conspiracy. Unquestionably, after knowing that Holt had in truth been acting for CBS and that the sale would prove disastrous to WCAN, he did file certain papers with the Federal Communications Commission requesting approval of the sale of WOKY. Poller had no opportunity to cross-examine him although he was a key witness to respondents’ theory of the case. And it is noted that even though the transfer was uncontested before the Federal Communications Commission it received approval by a vote of only three Commissioners with the remaining two strongly dissenting. It might be that on a trial Poller could substantiate his claims of conspiracy even against Bartell, although this would not be necessary to his case.
Respondents’ answer to the charge that one of the purposes of the alleged conspiracy was to exert a restraining effect upon the development of UHF is that this is a “fantastic assumption — for which there is not a shred of evidence.” An analysis of the record seems to indicate that in 1954 prior to the purchase of WOKY there were three UHF channels assigned to Milwaukee by the Federal Communications Commission, two of which (WCAN and WOKY) were operating; that since December 1953 CBS had been studying UHF markets preparatory to an expected change in Commission rules that would allow it to purchase two UHF stations in addition to its five VHF ones; that its staff rated Pittsburgh, St. Louis, New Haven-Hartford, and Milwaukee, in that order, as the most attractive; that CBS chose to enter the latter market and buy WOKY rather than to operate in Milwaukee on the third available channel; that WCAN’s profitable operation in 1954, even with lower rates and competition from WOKY, was “immediately converted to a losing” one, although in 1955 WOKY was out of business; and that this reported loss of about $130,000 under CBS operation in 1955 contrasted sharply with the 66% increase in its profits nationally. Furthermore, reports in the record from CBS itself show that it always had recognized “a VHF station . . . would be preferable to a UHF . . .” but that the latter had “specially good short-term prospects” (emphasis supplied) in Milwaukee because it had “the characteristic of being at present” (1954) a “single station” market. CBS further recognized that since its programing was “already working to build up UHF set population . . . [through WCAN] [t]here would be no short-term loss to the network in continuing to give the support of CBS programing to the buildup of a UHF population ... at least until more VHF stations come in.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The record indicates that Poller had built up a profitable UHF operation, which was recognized as “the most successful” in the United States. Even CBS officials pointed to it as an example of how “a vigorously and aggressively managed new UHF station in that community can do well.” In the short period of a year its public acceptance in Milwaukee was so great that 90% of the 260,000 TV sets in the area had been modified, at an expense of some $20 to each owner, so as to be able to receive UHF signals. While CBS had refused to enlarge the six-month cancellation clause, at no time prior to the alleged conspiracy did it indicate an intention to cancel the WCAN affiliation. It was, Poller claims, only pursuant to the conspiracy that CBS came into the Milwaukee market and eliminated both WCAN and WOKY. Since that time the total number of commercial UHF stations in the United States has steadily declined from 121 at the end of 1953 to 94 by midyear 1956. At the close of 1957 the number was only 88. In 1958 CBS itself abandoned a UHF station in Hartford, and in 1959 the very station in controversy here was likewise abandoned, leaving Milwaukee with no commercial UHF service. Instead, CBS has switched to YHF, affiliating with a Storer Broadcasting Company station which was authorized there the same year. It will be remembered that Mr. Storer is the same prospect who, Poller claims, indicated he would pay $2,000,000 for WCAN when the multiple rule was adopted but who cooled after a CBS warning. All of this may not be sufficient to warrant the finding that Poller contends for on this charge, but it does indicate more than fantasy, particularly in the light of the testimony of CBS Vice President Salant in his deposition that “it would be the kiss of death to UHF if either NBC or CBS abandoned a UHF station.”
It may be that upon all of the evidence a jury would be with the respondents. But we cannot say on this record that “it is quite clear what the truth is.” Certainly there is no conclusive evidence supporting the respondents' theory. We look at the record on summary judgment in the light most favorable to Poller, the party opposing the motion, and conclude here that it should not have been granted. We believe that summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation where motive and intent play leading roles, the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators, and hostile witnesses thicken the plot. It is only when the witnesses are present and subject to cross-examination that their credibility and the weight to be given their testimony can be appraised. Trial by affidavit is no substitute for trial by jury which so long has been the hallmark of “even handed justice.”
IV.
Other contentions of respondents are subject to ready disposition. They say that no restraint of trade resulted from CBS' termination of its affiliation with WCAN for this enabled it to support WOKY, the other UHF station in the Milwaukee area, which based upon Poller's own allegations was doomed without an affiliation. To the extent that this argument suggests that there is no violation of the antitrust laws because the public will still receive the same service, it has been foreclosed by this Court’s decision in Klor’s v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 U. S. 207 (1959). And if it is meant to say that there was no restraint because CBS in canceling its affiliation with WCAN was merely doing what it had a right to do and the resulting demise of WCAN followed from normal market conditions, it erroneously assumes that CBS had an absolute right despite violations of the antitrust laws to exercise its contractual privilege. See Part III, supra. A further answer to the respondents’ contention in this regard is that Poller has an additional claim that part of the conspiracy was the destruction of UHF broadcasting entirely. The sole answer of CBS to that is “there is not a shred of evidence” to support such a charge. However, there has been no trial as yet, and the issue remains a factual one disputed under the pleadings and still undetermined.
CBS contends that the monopolization charges are frivolous. We find the record unclear on these claims. In view of our remand for a trial on the merits, we forego any comment thereon. The complaint does not allege the relevant market involved. In the trial court it was argued that UHF broadcasting in Milwaukee was the market, but on the record here we are unable to determine that issue. It may well be that on a trial appropriate allegations and proof can be adduced showing violations of § 2. See generally International Boxing Club v. United States, 358 U. S. 242, 249-252 (1959); United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 648-654 (1957) (dissenting opinion). We believe it to be good judicial administration to withhold decision on these issues.
Reversed and remanded.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides that: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal . . . .” 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act provides that: “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 2.
The terms ultra high frequency (TJHF) and very high frequency (VHF) refer to the wave lengths of the electrical impulses which are projected by broadcasting stations to carry programs to receiving sets. Prior to 1952 only the VHF portion of the spectrum was authorized. Generally TV receivers are manufactured only to receive VHF signals and must be modified by an owner to receive UHF.
The conspirators were alleged to be Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.; CBS-TV; J. L. Van Volkenburg, President of CBS-TV; H. K. Akerberg, Vice President of CBS-TV; Bartell Broadcasters, Inc., owners of WOKY; and Thad Holt, a management consultant.
We do not pass upon the point urged by Poller that under the CBS corporate arrangement of divisions, with separate officers and autonomy in each, the divisions came within the rule as to corporate subsidiaries.
11 Pike and Fischer Radio Reg. 913, 914.
Indeed, such action would be unreasonable in light of the success of Midwest’s initial operation and its highly favorable prospects with the expanded facilities and new equipment.
Compare Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U. S. 249, 256-257 (1948); Arenas v. United States, 322 U. S. 419, 434 (1944).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The exceptions of the States of Florida and Texas to the Report of the Special Master, 429 U. S. 810 (1976), are overruled and the motion for leave to file a counterclaim is denied.
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 2005, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General for the State of New York, sent letters to several national banks making a request “in lieu of subpoena” that they provide certain nonpublic information about their lending practices. He sought this information to determine whether the banks had violated the State’s fair-lending laws. Spitzer’s successor in office, Andrew Cuomo, is the petitioner here. Respondents, the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Comptroller or OCC) and the Clearing House Association, a banking trade group, brought suit to enjoin the information request, claiming that the Comptroller’s regulation promulgated under the National Bank Act prohibits that form of state law enforcement against national banks.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an injunction in favor of respondents, prohibiting the Attorney General from enforcing state fair-lending laws through demands for records or judicial proceedings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 510 F. 3d 105 (2007). We granted certiorari. 555 U. S. 1130 (2009). The question presented is whether the Comptroller’s regulation purporting to preempt state law enforcement can be upheld as a reasonable interpretation of the National Bank Act.
I
Section 484(a) of Title 12 U. S. C., a provision of the National Bank Act, 13 Stat. 99, reads as follows:
“No national bank shall be subject to any visitorial powers except as authorized by Federal law, vested in the courts of justice or such as shall be, or have been exercised or directed by Congress or by either House thereof or by any committee of Congress or of either House duly authorized.”
The Comptroller, charged with administering the National Bank Act, adopted, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the regulation at issue here designed to implement the statutory provision. Its principal provisions read as follows:
Ҥ 7.4000 Visitorial powers.
“(a) General rule. (1) Only the OCC or an authorized representative of the OCC may exercise visitorial powers with respect to national banks, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. State officials may not exercise visitorial powers with respect to national banks, such as conducting examinations, inspecting or requiring the production of books or records of national banks, or prosecuting enforcement actions, except in limited circumstances authorized by federal law. However, production of a bank’s records (other than nonpublic OCC information under 12 CFR part 4, subpart C) may be required under normal judicial procedures.
“(2) For purposes of this section, visitorial powers include:
“(i) Examination of a bank;
“(ii) Inspection of a bank’s books and records;
“(iii) Regulation and supervision of activities authorized or permitted pursuant to federal banking law; and
“(iv) Enforcing compliance with any applicable federal or state laws concerning those activities.” 12 CFR §7.4000 (2009).
By its clear text, this regulation prohibits the States from “prosecuting enforcement actions” except in “limited circumstances authorized by federal law.”
Under the familiar Chevron framework, we defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering. Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). There is necessarily some ambiguity as to the meaning of the statutory term “visitorial powers,” especially since we are working in an era when the prerogative writs — through which visitorial powers were traditionally enforced — are not in vogue. The Comptroller can give authoritative meaning to the statute within the bounds of that uncertainty. But the presence of some uncertainty does not expand Chevron deference to cover virtually any interpretation of the National Bank Act. We can discern the outer limits of the term “visitorial powers” even through the clouded lens of history. They do not include, as the Comptroller’s expansive regulation would provide, ordinary enforcement of the law. Evidence from the time of the statute’s enactment, a long line of our own cases, and application of normal principles of construction to the National Bank Act make that clear.
A
Historically, the sovereign’s right of visitation over corporations paralleled the right of the church to supervise its institutions and the right of the founder of a charitable institution “to see that [his] property [was] rightly employed,” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 469 (1765). By extension of this principle, “[t]he king [was] by law the visitor of all civil corporations,” ibid. A visitor could inspect and control the visited institution at will.
When the National Bank Act was enacted in 1864, “visitation” was accordingly understood as “[t]he act of examining into the affairs of a corporation” by “the government itself.” 2 J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary 790 (15th ed. 1883). Lower courts understood “visitation” to mean “the act of a superior or superintending officer, who visits a corporation to examine into its manner of conducting business, and enforce an observance of its laws and regulations.” First Nat. Bank of Youngstown v. Hughes, 6 F. 737, 740 (CC ND Ohio 1881). A State was the “visitor” of all companies incorporated in the State, simply by virtue of the State’s role as sovereign: The “legislature is the visitor of all corporations founded by it.” Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U. S. 148, 157 (1905) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This relationship between sovereign and corporation was understood to allow the States to use prerogative writs— such as mandamus and quo warranto — to exercise control “whenever a corporation [wa]s abusing the power given it ... or acting adversely to the public, or creating a nuisance.” H. Wilgus, Private Corporations, in 8 American Law and Procedure § 157, pp. 224-225 (J. Hall ed. 1910). State visitorial commissions were authorized to “exercise a general supervision” over companies in the State. I. Wormser, Private Corporations § 80, pp. 100, 101, in 4 Modern American Law (1921).
B
Our cases have always understood “visitation” as this right to oversee corporate affairs, quite separate from the power to enforce the law. In the famous Dartmouth College case, Justice Story, describing visitation of a charitable corporation, wrote that Dartmouth was “subject to the controling authority of its legal visitor, who.. . . may amend and repeal its statutes, remove its officers, correct abuses, and generally superintend the management of [its] trusts,” and who is “liable to no supervision or control.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 676, 681 (1819) (concurring opinion). This power of “genera[l] superintend[ence]” stood in contrast to action by the court of chancery, which acted “not as itself possessing a visitorial power . . . but as possessing a general jurisdiction ... to redress grievances, and frauds.” Id., at 676.
In Guthrie, supra, we held that a shareholder acting in his role as a private individual was not exercising a “visitorial power” under the National Bank Act when he petitioned a court to force the production of corporate records, id., at 159. “[Cjontrol in the courts of justice,” we said, is not visitorial, and we drew a contrast between the nonvisitorial act of “su[ing] in the courts of the State” and the visitorial “supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency,” id., at 159, 157.
In First Nat. Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U. S. 640 (1924), we upheld the right of the Attorney General of Missouri to bring suit to enforce a state anti-bank-branching law against a national bank. We said that only the United States may perform visitorial administrative oversight, such as “inquiring] by quo warranto whether a national bank is acting in excess of its charter powers.” Id., at 660. But if a state statute of general applicability is not substantively pre-empted, then “the power of enforcement must rest with the [State] and not with” the National Government, ibid.
Our most recent decision, Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N. A., 550 U. S. 1 (2007), does not, as the dissent contends, post, at 552, “suppor[t] OCC’s construction of the statute.” To the contrary, it is fully in accord with the well established distinction between supervision and law enforcement. Watters held that a State may not exercise “ ‘general supervision and control’ ” over a subsidiary of a national bank, 550 U. S., at 8, because “multiple audits and surveillance under rival oversight regimes” would cause uncertainty, id., at 21. “[G]eneral supervision and control” and “oversight” are worlds apart from law enforcement. All parties to the case agreed that Michigan’s general oversight regime could not be imposed on national banks; the sole question was whether operating subsidiaries of national banks enjoyed the same immunity from state visitation. The opinion addresses and answers no other question.
The foregoing cases all involve enforcement of state law. But if the Comptroller’s exclusive exercise of visitorial powers precluded law enforcement by the States, it would also preclude law enforcement by federal agencies. Of course it does not. See, e. g., Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Assn. v. Douglas, 105 F. 2d 100, 105-106 (CADC 1939) (Securities Exchange Commission investigation of bank fraud is not an exercise of “visitorial powers”); Peoples Bank of Danville v. Williams, 449 F. Supp. 254, 260 (WD Va. 1978) (same).
In sum, the unmistakable and utterly consistent teaching of our jurisprudence, both before and after enactment of the National Bank Act, is that a sovereign’s “visitorial powers” and its power to enforce the law are two different things. There is not a credible argument to the contrary. And contrary to what the Comptroller’s regulation says, the National Bank Act pre-empts only the former.
C
The consequences of the regulation also cast doubt upon its validity. No one denies that the National Bank Act leaves in place some state substantive laws affecting banks. See Brief for Federal Respondent 20; Brief for Respondent Clearing House Association, L. L. C. 29; post, at 552. But the Comptroller’s rule says that the State may not enforce its valid, non-pre-empted laws against national banks. Post, at 552-553. The bark remains, but the bite does not.
The dissent admits, with considerable understatement, that such a result is “unusual,” post, at 556. “Bizarre” would be more apt. As the Court said in St. Louis:
“To demonstrate the binding quality of a statute but deny the power of enforcement involves a fallacy made apparent by the mere statement of the proposition, for such power is essentially inherent in the very conception of law.” 263 U. S., at 660.
In sharp contrast to the “unusual” reading propounded by the Comptroller’s regulation, reading “visitorial powers” as limiting only sovereign oversight and supervision would produce an entirely commonplace result — the precise result contemplated by our opinion in St. Louis, which said that if a state statute is valid as to national banks, “the corollary that it is obligatory and enforceable necessarily results.” Id., at 659-660 (emphasis added). Channeling state attorneys general into judicial law-enforcement proceedings (rather than allowing them to exercise “visitorial” oversight) would preserve a regime of exclusive administrative oversight by the Comptroller while honoring in fact rather than merely in theory Congress’s decision not to pre-empt substantive state law. This system echoes many other mixed state/federal regimes in which the Federal Government exercises general oversight while leaving state substantive law in place. See, e. g., Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U. S. 555 (2009).
This reading is also suggested by § 484(a)’s otherwise inexplicable reservation of state powers “vested in the courts of justice.” As described earlier, visitation was normally conducted through use of the prerogative writs of mandamus and quo warranto. The exception could not possibly exempt that manner of exercising visitation, or else the exception would swallow the rule. Its only conceivable purpose is to preserve normal civil and criminal lawsuits. To be sure, the reservation of powers “vested in the courts of justice” is phrased as an exception from the prohibition of visitorial powers. But as we have just discussed, it cannot possibly be that, and it is explicable only as an attempt to make clear that the courts’ ordinary powers of enforcing the law are not affected.
On a pragmatic level, the difference between visitation and law enforcement is clear. If a State chooses to pursue enforcement of 'its laws in court, then it is not exercising its power of visitation and will be treated like a litigant. An attorney general acting as a civil litigant must file a lawsuit, survive a motion to dismiss, endure the rules of procedure and discovery, and risk sanctions if his claim is frivolous or his discovery tactics abusive. Judges are trusted to prevent “fishing expeditions” or an undirected rummaging through bank books and records for evidence of some unknown wrongdoing. In New York, civil discovery is far more limited than the full range of “visitorial powers” that may be exercised by a sovereign. Courts may enter protective orders to prevent “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice,” N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 3103(a) (West 2005), and may supervise discovery sua sponte, § 3104(a). A visitor, by contrast, may inspect books and records at any time for any or no reason.
II
The Comptroller’s regulation, therefore, does not comport with the statute. Neither does the Comptroller’s interpretation of its regulation, which differs from the text and must be discussed separately.
Evidently realizing that exclusion of state enforcement of all state laws against national banks is too extreme to be contemplated, the Comptroller sought to limit the sweep of its regulation by the following passage set forth in the agency’s statement of basis and purpose in the Federal Register:
‘What the case law does recognize is that ‘states retain some power to regulate national banks in areas such as contracts, debt collection, acquisition and transfer of property, and taxation, zoning, criminal, and tort law.’ [citing a Ninth Circuit case.] Application of these laws to national banks and their implementation by state authorities typically does not affect the content or extent of the Federally-authorized business of banking ... but rather establishes the legal infrastructure that surrounds and supports the ability of national banks . . . to do business.” 69 Fed. Reg. 1896 (2004) (footnote omitted).
This cannot be reconciled with the regulation’s almost categorical prohibition in 12 CFR § 7.4000(a)(1) of “prosecuting enforcement actions.” Nor can it be justified by the provision in subsection (a)(2)(iv) which defines visitorial powers to include “[e]nforcing compliance with any applicable . . . state laws concerning” “activities authorized or permitted pursuant to federal banking law,” § 7.4000(a)(2)(iii). The latter phrase cannot be interpreted to include only distinctively banking activities (leaving the States free to enforce non-banking state laws), because if it were so interpreted subsection (a)(2)(iii), which uses the same terminology, would limit the Comptroller’s exclusive visitorial power of “[rjegulation and supervision” to distinctively banking activities — which no one thinks is the case. Anyway, the National Bank Act does specifically authorize and permit activities that fall within what the statement of basis and purpose calls “the legal infrastructure that surrounds and supports the ability of national banks ... to do business.” See, e. g., 12 U. S. C. § 24 Third (power to make contracts); § 24 Seventh (“all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking”). And of course a distinction between “implementation” of “infrastructure” and judicial enforcement of other laws can be found nowhere within the text of the statute. This passage in the statement of basis and purpose, resting upon neither the text of the regulation nor the text of the statute, attempts to do what Congress declined to do: exempt national banks from all state banking laws, or at least state enforcement of those laws.
Ill
The dissent fails to persuade us. Its fundamental contention — that the exclusive grant of visitorial powers can be interpreted to preclude state enforcement of state laws — rests upon a logical fallacy. The dissent establishes, post, at 541-543 (and we do not at all contest), that in the course of exercising visitation powers the sovereign can compel compliance with the law. But it concludes from that, post, at 545, that any sovereign attempt to compel compliance with the law can be deemed an exercise of the visitation power. That conclusion obviously does not follow. For example, in the course of exercising its visitation powers, the sovereign can assuredly compel a bank to honor obligations that are in default. Does that mean that the sovereign’s taking the same action in executing a civil judgment for payment of those obligations can be considered an exercise of the visitation power? Of course not. Many things can be compelled through the visitation power that can be compelled through, the exercise of other sovereign power as well. The critical question is not what is being compelled, but what sovereign power has been invoked to compel it. And the power to enforce the law exists separate and apart from the power of visitation.
The dissent argues that the Comptroller’s expansive reading of “visitorial powers” does not intrude upon “ ‘the historic police powers of the States/ ” post, at 554 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947)), because, like federal maritime law, federal involvement in this field dates to “ ‘the earliest days of the Republic/ ” post, at 555 (quoting United States v. Locke, 529 U. S. 89,108 (2000)). For that reason, the dissent concludes, this case does not raise the sort of federalism concerns that prompt a presumption against pre-emption. We have not invoked the presumption against pre-emption, and think it unnecessary to do so in giving force to the plain terms of the National Bank Act. Neither, however, should the incursion that the Comptroller’s regulation makes upon traditional state powers be minimized. Although the sovereign visitorial power of assuring national-bank compliance with all laws inhered in the Federal Government from the time of its creation of national banks, the Comptroller was not given authority to enforce non-pre-empted state laws until 1966. See Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966, Tit. III, 80 Stat. 1046-1055. A power first exercised during the lifetime of every current Justice is hardly involvement “from the earliest days of the Republic.”
States, on the other hand, have always enforced their general laws against national banks — and have enforced their banking-related laws against national banks for at least 85 years, as evidenced by St. Louis, in which we upheld enforcement of a state anti-bank-branching law, 263 U. S., at 656. See also Anderson Nat. Bank v. Luckett, 321 U. S. 233, 237, 248-249 (1944) (state commissioner of revenue may enforce abandoned-bank-deposit law against national bank through “judicial proceedings”); State ex rel. Lord v. First Nat. Bank of St. Paul, 313 N. W. 2d 390, 393 (Minn. 1981) (state treasurer may enforce general unclaimed-property law with “specific provisions directed toward” banks against national bank); Clovis Nat. Bank v. Callaway, 69 N. M. 119, 130-132, 364 P. 2d 748, 756 (1961) (state treasurer may enforce unclaimed-property law against national-bank deposits); State v. First Nat. Bank of Portland, 61 Ore. 551, 554-557, 123 P. 712, 714 (1912) (state attorney general may enforce bank-specific escheat law against national bank).
The dissent seeks to minimize the regulation’s incursion upon state powers by claiming that the regulation does not “declare the pre-emptive scope of the [National Bank Act]” but merely “interpret^] the term ‘visitorial powers.’ ” Post, at 555. That is much too kind. It is not without reason that the regulation is contained within a subpart of the Comptroller’s regulations on “Bank Activities and Operations” that is entitled “Preemption.” The purpose and function of the statutory term “visitorial powers” is to define and thereby limit, the category of action reserved to the Federal Government and forbidden to the States. Any interpretation of “visitorial powers” necessarily “declares the preemptive scope of the NBA,” ibid. What is clear from logic is also clear in application: The regulation declares that “[s]tate officials may not . . . proseeut[e] enforcement actions.” 12 CFR § 7.4000(a). If that is not pre-emption, nothing is.
IV
Applying the foregoing principles to this case is not difficult. “Visitorial powers” in the National Bank Act refers to a sovereign’s supervisory powers over corporations. They include any form of administrative oversight that allows a sovereign to inspect books and records on demand, even if the process is mediated by a court through prerogative writs or similar means. The Comptroller reasonably interpreted this statutory term to include “conducting examinations [and] inspecting or requiring the production of books or records of national banks,” §7.4000, when the State conducts those activities in its capacity as supervisor of corporations.
When, however, a state attorney general brings suit to enforce state law against a national bank, he is not acting in the role of sovereign-as-supervisor, but rather in the role of sovereign-as-law-enforcer. Such a lawsuit is not an exercise of “visitorial powers,” and thus the Comptroller erred by extending the definition of “visitorial powers” to include “prosecuting enforcement actions” in state courts, §7.4000.
The request for information in the present case was stated to be “in lieu of” other action; implicit was the threat that if the request was not voluntarily honored, that other action would be taken. All parties have assumed, and we agree, that if the threatened action would have been unlawful the request-cum-threat could be enjoined. Here the threatened action was not the bringing of a civil suit, or the obtaining of a judicial search warrant based on probable cause, but rather the Attorney General’s issuance of subpoena on his own authority under New York Executive Law, which permits such subpoenas in connection with his investigation of “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts ... in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.” See N. Y. Exec. Law Ann. §63(12) (West 2002). That is not the exercise of the power of law enforcement “vested in the courts of justice” which 12 U. S. C. § 484(a) exempts from the ban on exercise of supervisory power.
Accordingly, the injunction below is affirmed as applied to the threatened issuance of executive subpoenas by the Attorney General for the State of New York, but vacated insofar as it prohibits the Attorney General from bringing judicial enforcement actions.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas’s opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part (hereinafter the dissent) attempts to distinguish Dartmouth College on the ground that the college was a charitable corporation, whose visitors (unlike the State as visitor of for-profit corporations) had no law-enforcement power. See post, at 543, n. 1. We doubt that was so. As Justice Story’s opinion in Dartmouth College stated, visitors of charitable corporations had “power to . . . correct all irregularities and abuses,” 4 Wheat., at 673, which would surely include operations in violation of law. But whether or not visitors of charitable corporations had law-enforcement powers, the powers that they did possess demonstrate that visitation is different from ordinary law enforcement. Indeed, if those powers did not include the power to assure compliance with law that demonstration would be all the more forceful.
The dissent attempts to distinguish St. Louis by invoking the principle that an agency is free to depart from a court’s interpretation of the law. Post, at 550-551 (citing National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 983 (2005)). This again misses the point. St. Louis is relevant to proper interpretation of 12 U. S. C. § 484(a) not because it is authoritative on the question whether States can enforce their banking laws, but because it is one in a long and unbroken line of cases distinguishing visitation from law enforcement. Respondents contend that St. Louis holds only that States can enforce their law when federal law grants the national bank no authority to engage in the activity at issue. Even if that were true it would make no difference. The ease would still stand for the proposition that the exclusive federal power of visitation does not prevent States from enforcing their law.
We reject respondents’ contention that the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, § 102(f)(1)(B), 108 Stat. 2349, 12 U. S. C. § 36(f)(1)(B), establishes that the Comptroller’s visitorial power pre-empts state law enforcement. That provision states that some state laws respecting bank branching “shall be enforced” by the Comptroller. We need not decide here whether converting the Comptroller's visitorial power to assure compliance with all applicable laws, see infra, at 534, into an obligation to assure compliance with certain state laws preempts state enforcement of those particular laws. Even if it had that effect it would shed no light on the meaning of “visitorial powers” in the National Bank Act, a statute that it does not refer to and that was enacted more than a century earlier.
The prohibition is not entirely categorical only because it is subject to the phrase at the end of the sentence (applicable to all of the regulation’s enumerated “visitorial powers” forbidden to the States): “except in limited circumstances authorized by federal law.” This replicates a similar exception contained in 12 U. S. C. § 484(a) itself (“No national bank shall be subject to any visitorial powers except as authorized by Federal law”), and certainly does not refer to case law finding state action non-preempted. If it meant that, §484(a)’s apparent limitation of visitorial powers would be illusory — saying, in effect, that national banks are subject to only those visitorial powers that the courts say they are subject to. Cases that find state action non-pre-empted might perhaps be described as “permitting” the state action in question, but hardly as “authorizing” it. In both the statutory and regulation context, “federal law” obviously means federal statutes.
All of these eases were decided before Congress added to §484 its current subsection (b), which authorizes “State auditors and examiners” to review national-bank records to assure compliance with state unclaimed-property and escheat laws. See 96 Stat. 1521.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1968, the appellant, Mrs. Dorothy Lynch, a resident of New Haven, Connecticut, directed her employer to deposit $10 of her $69 weekly wage in a credit union savings account. In 1969, appellee Household Finance Corp. sued Mrs. Lynch for $525 in a state court, alleging nonpayment of a promissory note. Before she was served with process, the appellee corporation garnished her savings account under the provisions of Connecticut law that authorize summary pre-judicial garnishment at the behest of attorneys for alleged creditors.
The appellant then brought this class action in a federal district court against Connecticut sheriffs who levy on bank accounts and against creditors who invoke the garnishment statute. Mrs. Lynch alleged that she had no prior notice of the garnishment and no opportunity to be heard. She claimed that the state statutes were invalid under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3): A district court of three judges was convened to hear the claim under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284.
The District Court did not reach the merits of the cáse. It dismissed the complaint without an evidentiary-hearing on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction under § 1343 (3) and that relief was barred by the statute prohibiting injunctions against state court proceedings, 28 U. S. C. § 2283. 318 F. Supp. 1111. We noted probable jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, to consider the jurisdictional issues presented. 401 U. S. 935.
We hold, for the reasons that follow, that neither § 1343 (3) nor § 2283 warranted dismissal of the appellant’s complaint. Accordingly, we remand the case to the District Court for consideration of the remaining issues in this litigation.
I
In dismissing the appellant’s complaint, the District Court held that § 1343 (3) applies only if “personal” rights, as opposed to “property” rights, are allegedly impaired. The court relied on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F. 2d 560, 563, which rested, in turn, on Mr. Justice Stone’s well-known opinion a generation ago in Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 531. See also, e. g., Weddle v. Director, 436 F. 2d 342; Bussie v. Long, 383 F. 2d 766; Howard v. Higgins, 379 F. 2d 227.
This Court has never adopted the distinction between personal liberties and proprietary rights as a guide to the contours of § 1343 (3) jurisdiction. Today we expressly reject that distinction.
A
Neither the words of § 1343 (3) nor the legislative history of that provision distinguishes between personal and property rights. In fact, the Congress that enacted the predecessor of §§ 1983 and 1343 (3) seems clearly to have intended to provide a federal judicial forum for the redress of wrongful deprivations of property by persons acting under color of state law.
This Court has traced the origin of § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. Adickes v. Kress Co., 398 U. S. 144, 162-163; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 171, 183-185. That Act guaranteed “broad and sweeping... protection” to basic civil rights. Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229, 237. Acquisition, enjoyment, and alienation of property were among those rights. Jones v. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 432.
The Fourteenth Amendment vindicated for all persons the rights established by the Act of 1866. Monroe, supra, at 171; Hague, supra, at 509-510. “It cannot be doubted that among the civil rights intended to be protected from discriminatory state action by the Fourteenth Amendment are the rights to acquire, enjoy, own and dispose of property. Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers of that Amendment as an essential pre-condition to the realization of other basic civil rights and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee.” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 10. See also, Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 74-79; H. Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 75-78, 81, 90-97 (1908); J. tenBroek, The Antislavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment (1951).
The broad concept of civil rights embodied in the 1866 Act and in the Fourteenth Amendment is unmistakably evident in the legislative history of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, the direct lineal ancestor of §§ 1983 and 1343 (3). Not only was § 1 of the 1871 Act derived from § 2 of the 1866 Act, but the 1871 Act was passed for the express purpose of “enforcing] the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 17 Stat. 13. And the rights that Congress sought to protect in the Act of 1871 were described by the chairman of the House Select Committee that drafted the legislation as “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 69 (1871) (Rep. Shellabarger, quoting from Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 551-552 (No. 3230) (CCED Pa.)). That the protection of property as well as personal rights was intended is also confirmed by President Grant’s message to Congress urging passage of the legislation, and by the remarks of many members of Congress during the legislative debates.
B
In 1875, Congress granted the federal courts jurisdiction of “all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity... arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 18 Stat. 470. Unlike § 1343 (3), this general federal-question provision, the forerunner of 28 U. S. C. § 1331, required that a minimum amount in controversy be alleged and proved. Mr. Justice Stone’s opinion in Hague, supra, as well as the federal court decisions that followed it, e. g., Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F. 2d 560, reflect the view that there is an apparent conflict between §§ 1343 (3) and 1331, i. e., that a broad reading of § 1343 (3) to include all rights secured by the Constitution would render § 1331, and its amount-in-controversy requirement, superfluous. These opinions sought to harmonize the two jurisdictional provisions by construing § 1343 (3) as conferring federal jurisdiction of suits brought under § 1983 only when •the right asserted is personal, not proprietary.
The initial failure of this reasoning is that the supposed conflict between §§ 1343 (3) and 1331 simply does not exist. Section 1343 (3) applies only to alleged infringements of rights under “color of... State law,” whereas § 1331 contains no such requirement. Thus, for example, in suits against federal officials for alleged deprivations of constitutional rights, it is necessary to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction. See Oestereich v. Selective Service Board, 393 U. S. 233; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U. S. 388.
But the more fundamental point to be made is that any such contraction of § 1343 (3) jurisdiction is not supported by the legislative history of § 1331. The 1875 Act giving the federal courts power to hear suits arising under Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution was, like the Act of 1871, an expansion of national authority over matters that, before the Civil War, had been left to the States. F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 65 (1928); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 245-248; Chadbourn & Levin, Original Jurisdiction of Federal Questions, 90 U. Pa. L. Rev. 639, 645 (1942). The Act, therefore, is “clearly... part of, rather than an exception to, the trend of legislation which preceded it.” Chadbourn & Levin, supra, at 645; Zwickler, supra. There was very little discussion of the measure before its enactment, in contrast to the extensive congressional debate that attended the passage of the Act of 1871. And there is, as a result, no indication whatsoever that Congress, in a rather hastily passed measure, intended to narrow the scope of a provision passed four years earlier as part of major civil rights legislation.
The “cardinal rule... that repeals by implication are not favored," Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U. S. 497, 503; Jones v. Mayer Co., 392 U. S., at 437, thus counsels a refusal to pare down § 1343 (3) jurisdiction— and the substantive scope of § 1983 — by means of the distinction between personal liberties and property rights, or in any other way. The statutory descendants of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 must be given the meaning and sweep that their origins and their language dictate.
Moreover, although the purpose of the amount-in-controversy requirement is to reduce congestion in the federal courts, S. Rep. No. 1830, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958), Congress has substantially lessened its importance with respect to § 1331 by passing many statutes that confer federal-question jurisdiction without an amount-in-controversy requirement. So it was that when Congress increased the jurisdictional amount from $3,000 to $10,000, Act of July 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 415, it made clear that its primary concern was to reduce the federal judiciary’s workload with regard to cases arising under federal diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1332, not under § 1331.
A final, compelling reason for rejecting a “personal liberties” limitation upon § 1343 (3) is the virtual impossibility of applying it. The federal courts have been particularly bedeviled by “mixed” cases in which both personal and property rights are implicated, and the line between them has been difficult to draw with any consistency or principled objectivity. The case before us presents a good example of the conceptual difficulties created by the test.
Such difficulties indicate that the dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a “personal” right, whether the “property” in question be a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized. J. Locke, Of Civil Government 82-85 (1924); J. Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, in F. Coker, Democracy, Liberty, and Property 121-132 (1942); 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *138-140. Congress recognized these rights in 1871 when it enacted the predecessor of §§ 1983 and 1343 (3). We do no more than reaffirm the judgment of Congress -today.
II
Under 28 U. S. C. § 2283, a federal court 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 District Court relied upon this statute as an alternative ground for the dismissal of the appellant’s complaint. The appellant contends that § 2283 is inapplicable to this case because prejudgment garnishment under Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 52-329 is not a proceeding in state court. We agree.
In Connecticut, garnishment is instituted without judicial order. Ibid.; 1 E. Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure 151 (2d ed. 1970). The levy of garnishment — usually effected by a deputy sheriff — does not confer jurisdiction on state courts and may, in fact, occur prior to commencement of an alleged creditor’s suit. Young v. Margiotta, 136 Conn. 429, 433, 71 A. 2d 924, 926. Despite the state court’s control over the plaintiff’s docketed case, garnishment is “distinct from and independent of that action.” Potter v. Appleby, 136 Conn. 641, 643, 73 A. 2d 819, 820. The garnished property is secured, not under authority of the court, but merely in the hands of the garnishee. Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 52-329. Prejudgment garnishment is thus levied and maintained without the participation of the state courts.
In this case, the appellant sought to enjoin garnishment proceedings, not the finance company’s suit on the promissory note. The District Court noted that “garnishment may be separated from the underlying in personam action,” but held that § 2283 was a bar because the interference with existing creditors’ suits caused by such an injunction “probably would be substantial.” 318 P. Supp., at 1115. According to the appellees, interference would occur because garnishment is necessary to make any eventual judgment in the pending state suit effective. Hill v. Martin, 296 U. S. 393, 403.
This argument is not persuasive in the context of the Connecticut prejudgment garnishment scheme. Garnishment might serve to make a subsequent judgment effective. Cf. Hill, supra; Manufacturers Record Publishing Co. v. Lauer, 268 F. 2d 187, cert. denied, 361 U. S. 913; Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners of California, 257 F. 2d 520, cert denied, 358 U. S. 882. But the garnishment was, in this case, an action taken by private parties who were not proceeding under a court’s supervision and who were using, as agents, state officials who were themselves not acting pursuant to a court order or under a court's authority.
In Hill, supra, we said that the “proceeding” that a federal court is forbidden to enjoin “includes all steps taken or which may be taken in the state court or by its officers from the institution to the close of the final process.” Id., at 403 (emphasis supplied). In this case, the garnishment occurred before the appellee corporation had served the appellant with process.
More important, the state court and its officers are insulated from control over the garnishment. Connecticut appears to be one of the few States authorizing an attorney for an alleged creditor to garnish or attach property without any participation by a judge or clerk of the court. Stephenson, supra, at 230. A person whose account has been seized can get only minimal relief at best. The state courts have held that they cannot enjoin a garnishment on the ground that it was levied unconstitutionally. Michael’s Jewelers v. Handy, 6 Conn. Cir. 103, 266 A. 2d 904; Harris v. Barone, 147 Conn. 233, 158 A. 2d 855. One assumption underlying § 2283 is that state courts will vindicate constitutional claims as fairly and efficiently as federal courts. But this assumption cannot obtain when the doors of the state courts are effectively closed to a person seeking to enjoin a garnishment on constitutional grounds.
Because of the extrajudicial nature of Connecticut garnishment, an injunction against its maintenance is not, therefore, barred by the terms of § 2283. In light of this conclusion, we need not decide whether § 1983 is an exception to § 2283 “expressly authorized by Act of Congress.” We have explicitly left that question open in other decisions. And we may put it to one side in this case because the state act that the federal court was asked to enjoin was not a proceeding “in a State court” within the meaning of § 2283.
We conclude, therefore, that the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s suit for an injunction under § 1983. Accordingly, the judgment before us is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The garnishment was levied pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 52-329. For a further description of Connecticut’s statutory garnishment scheme, see Part II of this opinion, infra.
The second named appellant, Norma Toro, had her cheeking account garnished by her former landlord, one Eugene Composano. Subsequently Composano released the garnishment. An issue of mootnesss — which was not resolved by the District Court — is thus presented. We do not, however, reach this issue. Appellant Lynch had a savings account garnished, appellant Toro a checking account. The considerations applicable to one type of account seem identical to those applicable to the other. In this opinion, therefore, v?e shall only refer to the case of appellant Lynch.
An issue is also raised as to the propriety of the classes purported to be represented by the appellants and appellees. In view of our disposition of the case, we leave this issue for consideration by the District Court upon remand.
The statute provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
The statute states in relevant part:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
“(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States....”
The appellees argue that we have no jurisdiction to consider this ease on direct appeal from the three-judge District Court, 28 U. S. C. § 1253, because the court did not reach the merits of the appellant’s claim for an injunction but dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
But whether a direct appeal will lie depends on “whether the three-judge [court was] properly convened.” Moody v. Flowers, 387 U. S. 97, 99. This action challenges the constitutionality of a state statute and seeks to enjoin its enforcement. The questions it raises are substantial. It, therefore, meets the requirements for convening a three-judge court. 28 U. S. C. § 2281; Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 715. This case may, therefore, be distinguished from Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, upon which the appellees rely. In that case, we had no power to consider the merits of an appeal because the ordinance in question was neither a state statute nor of statewide application. Perez, supra, at 89 (concurring opinion). When a state statute is challenged and injunctive relief sought, we have granted direct review pursuant to § 1253 although three-judge courts dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, Abernathy v. Carpenter, 373 U. S. 241, Doud v. Hodge, 350 U. S. 485, Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73, or because relief was thought to be barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2283, Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611.
The appellees also note that § 1253 permits appeals to this Court only from orders “granting or denying... an interlocutory or permanent injunction... They argue that since the three-judge court never considered whether an injunction should be granted an appeal should lie to the Court of Appeals. The three-judge court, however, entered a judgment “denying all relief sought by plaintiffs.” We therefore have jurisdiction to consider the claims presented.
The appellees cite three cases decided by this Court before Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, that, they say, support the limitation of § 1343 (3) jurisdiction to claims of deprivation of personal liberties. Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 317; Pleasants v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 323; Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 U. S. 68. The appellees also rely on two recent affirmances, without opinion, of decisions by three-judge district courts dismissing § 1343 (3) suits on the ground that the rights allegedly infringed were proprietary. Hornbeak v. Hamm, 393 U. S. 9, aff’g 283 F. Supp. 549 (MD Ala. 1968); Abernathy v. Carpenter, 373 U. S. 241, aff’g 208 F. Supp. 793 (WD Mo. 1962).
All of these cases involved constitutional challenges to the collection of state taxes. Congress has treated judicial interference with the enforcement of state tax laws as a subject governed by unique considerations and has restricted federal jurisdiction accordingly:
"The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U. S. C. § 1341.
We have repeatedly barred anticipatory federal adjudication of the validity of state tax laws. Dows v. City of Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U. S. 521; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293; see also Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S., at 126-127, n. 17 (opinion of BrenNan, J.). The decisions cited by appellees may, therefore, be seen as consistent with congressional restriction of federal jurisdiction in this special class of cases, and with longstanding judicial policy.
Section 2 of the 1866 Act was the model for § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13. See n. 9, infra. Sections 1983 and 1343 (3) are direct descendants of § 1 of the Act of 1871. In 1874, Congress consolidated the various federal statutes at large under separate titles in the Revised Statutes in order to codify existing law. In the process, the substantive provision of § 1 of the 1871 Act became separated from its jurisdictional counterpart. Rev. Stat. § 1979. Although the original substantive provision had protected rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, the provision in the Revised Statutes was enlarged to provide protection for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law as well.
Originally, suits under § 1 of the 1871 Act could be brought in either circuit or district court. After codification in 1874, the jurisdictional grant to the district courts was identical in scope with the expanded substantive provision, Rev. Stat. § 563 (12). Circuit court jurisdiction was limited to claimed deprivations of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or by any Act of Congress “providing for equal rights.” Rev. Stat. § 629 (16). In 1911, when Congress abolished the circuit courts’ original jurisdiction and merged the two jurisdictional sections into what is now § 1343 (3), the “equal rights” limitation was retained in the revised jurisdictional grant. Act of Mar. 3, 1911, 36 Stat. 1087. Despite the different wording of the substantive and jurisdictional provisions, when the § 1983 claim alleges constitutional violations, § 1343 (3) provides jurisdiction and both sections are construed identically. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 161.
See generally Report of C. Shurz, S. Exec. Doc. No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1865); Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 3034r-3035 and App. 219 (1866); J. tenBroek, The Antislavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment (1951); Frank & Munro, The Original Understanding of “Equal Protection of the Laws,” 50 Col. L. Rev. 131, 144-145 (1950).
Section 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27, currently codified in slightly different form as 18 U. S. C. § 242, read in pertinent part:
“[A]ny person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State... 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... shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor....” (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 2 provided criminal penalties for any violation of § 1 of the 1866 Act. Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 98-100. The latter section enumerated the rights the Act protected, including, inter alia, the right “to make and enforce contracts, to sue... to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property....”
Representative Shellabarger, chairman of the House Select Committee which drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1871, stated that
“The model for [§ 1 of the 1871 Act] will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.’ That section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871).
The President, in a message dated March 23, 1871, stated:
“A condition of affairs now exists in some States of the Union rendering life and property insecure.... I urgently recommend such legislation as in the judgment of Congress shall effectually secure life, liberty, and property, and the enforcement of law in all parts of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 244.
See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 332-334 (Rep. Hoar); 369-370 (Rep. Monroe); 375-376 (Rep. Lowe); 429 (Rep. Beatty); 448 (Rep. Butler); 459-461 (Rep. Coburn); 475-476 (Rep. Dawes); 501 (Sen. Frelinghuysen); 568 (Sen. Edmunds); 577 (Sen. Carpenter); 607 (Sen. Pool); 650-651 (Sen. Sumner) ; 653 (Sen. Osborn); 666 (Sen. Spencer).
See also S. Rep. No. 1, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. (1871). Several months before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, a Senate Committee was formed to investigate conditions in the Southern States. One purpose of the investigation was to “ascertain... whether persons and property are secure....” Id., at II.
The jurisdictional amount was increased from $500 to $2,000 by the Act of Mar. 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552; to $3,000 by the Act of Mar. 3, 1911, 36 Stat. 1091; and to $10,000 by the Act of July 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 415.
The plaintiffs in Hague brought suit in a federal district court to enjoin enforcement of city ordinances prohibiting the distribution of printed matter and the holding of public meetings without a permit. They alleged that the ordinances violated the union members’ right of free speech and assembly. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found jurisdiction under §§1331 and 1343 (3). This Court reversed as to jurisdiction under § 1331, since the plaintiffs had failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy. Although no opinion commanded a majority, jurisdiction under § 1343 (3) was upheld. Mr. Justice Roberts, writing the lead opinion, expressed the view that the reference in § 1343 to “any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution” should be interpreted to cover only alleged violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 170-171, we rejected such a narrow reading of similar language in § 1983.
“[A] study of the history of the bill as revealed by the Congressional Record yields no reason for its enactment at that time; and may even be said to raise a strong presumption that it was ‘sneak’ legislation. It was originally introduced in the House of Representatives in the form of a bill to amend the removal statute.” Chadbourn & Levin, Original Jurisdiction of Federal Questions, 90 U. Pa. L. Rev. 639, 642-643 (1942). Nonetheless, the passage of the Act, despite the lack of debate, has been regarded as the “culmination of a movement... to strengthen the Federal Government against the states.” F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 65 n. 34 (1928). See also Maury, The Late Civil War, Its Effect on Jurisdiction, and on Civil Remedies Generally, 23 Am. L. Reg. 129 (1875).
As noted, Congress in 1875 also enlarged the scope of § 1983’s predecessor to protect rights secured by federal law as well as rights secured by the Constitution. See n. 7, supra. Moreover, when Congress increased the amount-in-controversy requirement to $3,000 in 1911, 36 Stat. 1091, there was no indication that jurisdiction under what- is now § 1343 (3) was to be reduced. In fact, the legislation explicitly preserved the exemption of action brought under § 1343 (3)’s predecessor from the amount-imcontroversy requirement.
In United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 797, we interpreted the phrase “rights, privileges, or immunities secured... by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” contained in 18 U. S. C. § 242, to embrace "all of the Constitution and laws of the United States.” The similar language in §§ 1983 and 1343 (3) was originally modeled on § 242’s predecessor, § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. See n. 9, supra. In Price, supra, we said that “[w]e are not at liberty to seek ingenious analytical instruments” to avoid giving a congressional enactment the scope that its language and origins require. Id., at 801.
A series of particular statutes grant jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy, in virtually all areas that otherwise would fall under the general federal-question statute. Such special statutes cover: admiralty, maritime, and prize cases, 28 U. S. C. § 1333; bankruptcy matters and proceedings, 28 U. S. C. § 1334; review of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 28 U. S. C. § 1336; cases arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce, 28 U. S. C. § 1337; patent, copyright, and trademark cases, 28 U. S. C. § 1338; postal matters, 28 U. S. C. § 1339; internal revenue and custom duties actions, 28 U. S. C. § 1340; election disputes, 28 U. S. C. § 1344; cases in which the United States is a party, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1358, and 1361; certain tort actions by aliens, 28 U. S. C. § 1350; actions on bonds executed under federal law, 28 U. S. C. § 1352; cases involving Indian allotments, 28 U. S. C. § 1353; and injuries under federal law, 28 U. S. C. § 1357.
“While this bill applies the $10,000 minimum limitation to cases involving Federal questions, its effect will be greater on diversity cases since many of the so-called Federal question cases will be exempt from its provisions.” S. Rep. No. 1830, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1958). The Senate report was echoing the finding of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Jurisdiction and Venue that raising the jurisdictional-amount would “have significant effect mainly upon diversity cases.” Id., at 22.
Recent studies have demonstrated that the amount-in-controversy requirement still has “relatively little impact on the volume of federal question litigation.” American Law Institute, Study of the Division of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts 172, 489-492 (1969). See also, Warren, Address to the American Law Institute, 1960, 25 F. R. D. 213; C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 107 (2d ed. 1970). Information from the Administrative Oifice of the United States Courts shows that a majority of private federal-question cases involve less than $10,000
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Temporary road signs with warnings like “Road Work Ahead” or “Left Shoulder Closed” must withstand strong gusts of wind. An inventor named Robert Sarkisian obtained two utility patents for a mechanism built upon two springs (the dual-spring design) to keep these and other outdoor signs upright despite adverse wind conditions. The holder of the now-expired Sarkisian patents, respondent Marketing Displays, Inc. (MDI), established a successful business in the manufacture and sale of sign stands incorporating the patented feature. MDI’s stands for road signs were recognizable to buyers and users (it says) because the dual-spring design was visible near the base of the sign.
This litigation followed after the patents expired and a competitor, TrafFix Devices, Inc., sold sign stands with a visible spring mechanism that looked like MDI’s. MDI and TrafFix products looked alike because they were. When TrafFix started in business, it sent an MDI product abroad to have it reverse engineered, that is to say copied. Complicating matters, TrafFix marketed its sign stands under a name similar to MDI’s. MDI used the name “WindMaster,” while TrafFix, its new competitor, used “WindBuster.”
MDI brought suit under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 60 Stat. 427, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1051 et seq., against TrafFix for trademark infringement (based on the similar names), trade dress infringement (based on the copied dual-spring design), and unfair competition. TrafFix counterclaimed on antitrust theories. After the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan considered cross-motions for summary judgment, MDI prevailed on its trademark claim for the confusing similarity of names and was held not liable on the antitrust counterclaim; and those two rulings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are not before us.
I
We are concerned with the trade dress question. The District Court ruled against MDI on its trade dress claim. 971 F. Supp. 262 (ED Mich. 1997). After determining that the one element of MDI’s trade dress at issue was the dual-spring design, id., at 265, it held that “no reasonable trier of fact could determine that MDI has established secondary meaning” in its alleged trade dress, id., at 269. In other words, consumers did not associate the look of the dual-spring design with MDI. As a second, independent reason to grant summary judgment in favor of TrafFix, the District Court determined the dual-spring design was functional. On this rationale secondary meaning is irrelevant because there can be no trade dress protection in any event. In ruling on the functional aspect of the design, the District Court noted that Sixth Circuit precedent indicated that the burden was on MDI to prove that its trade dress was nonfunctional, and not on TrafFix to show that it was functional (a rule since adopted by Congress, see 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. V)), and then went on to consider MDFs arguments that the dual-spring design was subject to trade dress protection. Finding none of MDFs contentions persuasive, the District Court concluded MDI had not “proffered sufficient evidence which would enable a reasonable trier of fact to find that MDFs vertical dual-spring design is wow-functional.” 971 F. Supp., at 276. Summary judgment was entered against MDI on its trade dress claims.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trade dress ruling. 200 F. 3d 929 (1999). The Court of Appeals held the District Court had erred in ruling MDI failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it had secondary meaning in its alleged trade dress, id., at 938, and had erred further in determining that MDI could not prevail in any event because the alleged trade dress was in fact a functional product configuration, id., at 940. The Court of Appeals suggested the District Court committed legal error by looking only to the dual-spring design when evaluating MDFs trade dress. Basic to its reasoning was the Court of Appeals’ observation that it took “little imagination to conceive of a hidden dual-spring mechanism or a tri or quad-spring mechanism that might avoid infringing [MDFs] trade dress.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals explained that “[i]f TrafFix or another competitor chooses to use [MDFs] dual-spring design, then it will have to find some other way to set its sign apart to avoid infringing [MDFs] trade dress.” Ibid. It was not sufficient, according to the Court of Appeals, that allowing exclusive use of a particular feature such as the dual-spring design in the guise of trade dress would “hinde[r] competition somewhat.” Rather, “[exclusive use of a feature must ‘put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage’ before trade dress protection is denied on functionality grounds.” Ibid. (quoting Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U. S. 159, 165 (1995)). In its criticism of the District Court’s ruling on the trade dress question, the Court of Appeals took note of a split among Courts of Appeals in various other Circuits on the issue whether the existence of an expired utility patent forecloses the possibility of the patentee’s claiming trade dress protection in the product’s design. 200 F. 3d, at 939. Compare Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. West Bend Co., 123 F. 3d 246 (CA5 1997) (holding that trade dress protection is not foreclosed), Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F. 3d 277 (CA7 1998) (same), and Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F. 3d 1356 (CA Fed 1999) (same), with Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp., 58 F. 3d 1498, 1500 (CA10 1995) (“Where a product configuration is a significant inventive component of an invention covered by a utility patent... it cannot receive trade dress protection”). To resolve the conflict, we granted cer-tiorari. 530 U. S. 1260 (2000).
H-t H-i
It is well established that trade dress can be protected under federal law. The design or packaging of a product may acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the product with its manufacturer or source; and a design or package which acquires this secondary meaning, assuming other requisites are met, is a trade dress which may not be used in a manner likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the goods. In these respects protection for trade dress exists to promote competition. As we explained just last Term, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U. S. 205 (2000), various Courts of Appeals have allowed claims of trade dress infringement relying on the general provision of the Lanharn Act which provides a cause of action to one who is injured when a person uses “any word, term name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof... which is likely to cause confusion... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods.” 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). Congress confirmed this statutory protection for trade dress by amending the Lanham Act to recognize the concept. Title 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. V) provides: “In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.” This burden of proof gives force to the well-established rule that trade dress protection may not be claimed for product features that are functional. Qualitex, supra, at 164-165; Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 775 (1992). And in Wal-Mart, supra, we were careful to caution against misuse or overextension of trade dress. We noted that “product design almost invariably serves purposes other than source identification.” Id., at 213.
Trade dress protection must subsist with the recognition that in many instances there is no prohibition against copying goods and products. In general, unless an intellectual property right sueh as a patent or copyright protects an item, it will be subject to copying. As the Court has explained, copying is not always discouraged or disfavored by the laws which preserve our competitive economy. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U. S. 141, 160 (1989). Allowing competitors to copy will have salutary effects in many instances. “Reverse engineering of chemical and mechanical articles in the public domain often leads to significant advances in technology.” Ibid.
The principal question in this case is the effect of an expired patent on a claim of trade dress infringement. A prior patent, we conclude, has vital significance in resolving the trade dress claim. A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. If trade dress protection is sought for those features the strong evidence of functionality based on the previous patent adds great weight to the statutory presumption that features are deemed functional until proved otherwise by the party seeking trade dress protection. Where the expired patent claimed the features in question, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional, for instance by showing that it is merely an ornamental, incidental, or arbitrary aspect of the device.
In the case before us, the central advance claimed in the expired utility patents (the Sarkisian patents) is the dual-spring design; and the dual-spring design is the essential feature of the trade dress MDI now seeks to establish and to protect. The rule we have explained bars the trade dress claim, for MDI did not, and cannot, cany the burden of overcoming the strong evidentiary inference of functionality based on the disclosure of the dual-spring design in the claims of the expired patents.
The dual springs shown in the Sarkisian patents were well apart (at either end of a frame for holding a rectangular sign when one full side is the base) while the dual springs at issue here are close together (in a frame designed to hold a sign by one of its corners). As the District Court recognized, this makes little difference. The point is that the springs are necessary to the operation of the device. The fact that the springs in this very different-looking device fall within the claims of the patents is illustrated by MDFs own position in earlier litigation. In the late 1970’s, MDI engaged in a long-running intellectual property battle with a company known as Winn-Proof. Although the precise claims of the Sarkisian patents cover sign stands with springs “spaced apart,” U. S. Patent No. 8,646,696, col. 4; U. S. Patent No. 3,662,482, col. 4, the Winn-Proof sign stands (with springs much like the sign stands at issue here) were found to infringe the patents by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Sarkisian v. Winn-Proof Corp., 697 F. 2d 1313 (1983). Although the Winn-Proof traffic sign stand (with dual springs close together) did not appear, then, to infringe the literal terms of the patent claims (which called for “spaced apart” springs), the Winn-Proof sign stand was found to infringe the patents under the doctrine of equivalents, which allows a finding of patent infringement even when the accused product does not fall within the literal terms of the claims. Id., at 1321-1322; see generally Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 620 U. S. 17 (1997). In light of this past ruling — a ruling procured at MDFs own insistence — it must be concluded the products here at issue would have been covered by the claims of the expired patents.
The rationale for the rule that the disclosure of a feature in the claims of a utility patent constitutes strong evidence of functionality is well illustrated in this case. The dual-spring design serves the important purpose of keeping the sign upright even in heavy wind conditions; and, as confirmed by the statements in the expired patents, it does so in a unique and useful manner. As the specification of one of the patents recites, prior art “devices, in practice, will topple under the force of a strong wind.” U. S. Patent No. 3,662,482, col. 1. The dual-spring design allows sign stands to resist toppling in strong winds. Using a dual-spring design rather than a single spring achieves important operational advantages. For example, the specifications of the patents note that the “use of a pair of springs ... as opposed to the use of a single spring to support the frame structure prevents canting or twisting of the sign around a vertical axis,” and that, if not prevented, twisting “may cause damage to the spring structure and may result in tipping of the device.” U. S. Patent No. 3,646,696, col. 3. In the course of patent prosecution, it was said that “[t]he use of a pair of spring connections as opposed to a single spring connection . . . forms an important part of this combination” because it “forc[es] the sign frame to tip along the longitudinal axis of the elongated ground-engaging members.” App. 218. The dual-spring design affects the cost of the device as well; it was acknowledged that the device “could use three springs but this would unnecessarily increase the cost of the device.” Id., at 217. These statements made in the patent applications and in the course of procuring the patents demonstrate the functionality of the design. MDI does not assert that any of these representations are mistaken or inaccurate, and this is further strong evidence of the functionality of the dual-spring design.
Ill
In finding for MDI on the trade dress issue the Court of Appeals gave insufficient recognition to the importance of the expired utility patents, and their evidentiary significance, in establishing the functionality of the device. The error likely was caused by its misinterpretation of trade dress principles in other respects. As we have noted, even if there has been no previous utility patent the party asserting trade dress has the burden to establish the nonfunctionality of alleged trade dress features. MDI could not meet this burden. Discussing trademarks, we have said “ ‘[i]n general terms, a product feature is functional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U. S., at 165 (quoting Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 850, n. 10 (1982)). Expanding upon the meaning of this phrase, we have observed that a functional feature is one the “exclusive use of [which] would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.” 514 U. S., at 165. The Court of Appeals in the instant case seemed to interpret this language to mean that a necessary test for functionality is “whether the particular product configuration is a competitive necessity.” 200 F. 3d, at 940. See also Vomado, 58 F. 3d, at 1507 (“Functionality, by contrast, has been defined both by our circuit, and more recently by the Supreme Court, in terms of competitive need”). This was incorrect as a comprehensive definition. As explained in Qualitex, supra, and Inwood, supra, a feature is also functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device. The Qualitex decision did not purport to displace this traditional rule. Instead, it quoted the rule as Inwood had set it forth. It is proper to inquire into a “significant non-reputation-related disadvantage” in cases of esthetic functionality, the question involved in Qual-itex. Where the design is ftmetional under the Inwood formulation there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature. In Quali-tex, by contrast, esthetic functionality was the central question, there having been no indication that the green-gold color of the laundry press pad had any bearing on the use or purpose of the product or its cost or quality.
The Court has allowed trade dress protection to certain product features that are inherently distinctive. Two Pesos, 505 U. S,, at 774. In Two Pesos, however, the Court at the outset made the explicit analytic assumption that the trade dress features in question (decorations and other features to evoke a Mexican theme in a restaurant) were not functional. Id., at 767, n. 6. The trade dress in those eases did not bar competitors from copying functional product design features. In the instant case, beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by MDI (assuming it does so), the dual-spring design provides a unique and useful mechanism to resist the force of the wind. Functionality having been established, whether MDI’s dual-spring design has acquired secondary meaning need not be considered.
There is no need, furthermore, to engage, as did the Court of Appeals, in speculation about other design possibilities, such as using three or four springs which might serve the same purpose. 200 F. 3d, at 940. Here, the functionality of the spring design means that competitors need not explore whether other spring juxtapositions might be used. The dual-spring design is not an arbitrary flourish in the configuration of MBFs product; it is the reason the device works. Other designs need not be attempted.
Because the dual-spring design is functional, it is unnecessary for competitors to explore designs to hide the springs, say, by using a box or framework to cover them, as suggested by the Court of Appeals. Ibid. The dual-spring design assures the user the device will work. If buyers are assured the product serves its purpose by seeing the operative mechanism that in itself serves an important market need. It would be at cross-purposes to those objectives, and something of a paradox, were we to require the manufacturer to conceal the very item the user seeks.
In a case where a manufacturer seeks to protect arbitrary, incidental, or ornamental aspects of features of a product found in the patent claims, such as arbitrary curves in the legs or an ornamental pattern painted on the springs, a different result might obtain. There the manufacturer could perhaps prove that those aspects do not serve a purpose within the terms of the utility patent. The inquiry into whether such features, asserted to be trade dress, are functional by reason of their inclusion in the claims of an expired utility patent could be aided by going beyond the claims and examining the patent and its prosecution history to see if the feature in question is shown as a useful part of the invention. No such claim is made here, however. MDI in essence seeks protection for the dual-spring design alone. The asserted trade dress consists simply of the dual-spring design, four legs, a base, an upright, and a sign. MDI has pointed to nothing arbitrary about the components of its device or the way they are assembled. The Lanham Act does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device; that is the purpose of the patent law and its period of exclusivity. The Lanham Act, furthermore, does not protect trade dress in a functional design simply because an investment has been made to encourage the public to associate a particular functional feature with a single manufacturer or seller. The Court of Appeals erred in viewing MDI as possessing the right to exclude competitors from using a design .identical to MDPs and to require those competitors to adopt a different design simply to avoid copying it. MDI cannot gain the exclusive right to produce sign stands using the dual-spring design by asserting that consumers associate it with the look of the invention itself. Whether a utility patent has expired or there has been no utility patent at all, a product design which has a particular appearance may be functional because it is “essential to the use or purpose of the article” or “affects the cost or quality of the article.” Inwood, 456 U.S., at 850, n. 10.
TrafFix and some of its amici argue that the Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §8, cl. 8, of its own force, prohibits the holder of an expired utility patent from claiming trade dress protection. Brief for Petitioner 38-36; Brief for Panduit Corp. as Amicus Curiae 3; Brief for Malla Pollack as Amicus Curiae 2. We need not resolve this question. If, despite the rule that functional features may not be the subject of trade dress protection, a case arises in which trade dress becomes the practical equivalent of an expired utility patent, that will be time enough to consider the matter. 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.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An ordinance of the City of Ladue prohibits homeowners from displaying any signs on their property except “residence identification” signs, “for sale” signs, and signs warning of safety hazards. The ordinance permits commercial establishments, churches, and nonprofit organizations to erect certain signs that are not allowed at residences. The question presented is whether the ordinance violates a Ladue resident’s right to free speech.
I
Respondent Margaret P. Gilleo owns one of the 57 single-family homes in the Willow Hill subdivision of Ladue. On December 8, 1990, she placed on her front lawn a 24- by 36-inch sign printed with the words, “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now.” After that sign disappeared, Gilleo put up another but it was knocked to the ground. When Gilleo reported these incidents to the police, they advised her that such signs were prohibited in Ladue. The city council denied her petition for a variance. Gilleo then filed this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the City, the mayor, and members, of the city council, alleging that Ladue’s sign ordinance violated her First Amendment right of free speech.
The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance. 774 F. Supp. 1559 (ED Mo. 1991). Gilleo then placed an 8.5- by 11-inch sign in the second story window of her home stating, “For Peace in the Gulf.” The Ladue City Council responded to the injunction by repealing its ordinance and enacting a replacement. Like its predecessor, the new ordinance contains a general prohibition of “signs” and defines that term broadly. The ordinance prohibits all signs except those that fall within 1 of 10 exemptions. Thus, “residential identification signs” no larger than one square foot are allowed, as are signs advertising “that the property is for sale, lease or exchange” and identifying the owner or agent. §35-10, App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a. Also exempted are signs “for churches, religious institutions, and schools,” §35-5, id., at 41a, “[commercial signs in commercially zoned or industrial zoned districts,” §35-4, ibid., and on-site signs advertising “gasoline filling stations,” §35-6, id., at 42a. Unlike its predecessor, the new ordinance contains a lengthy “Declaration of Findings, Policies, Interests, and Purposes,” part of which recites that the
“proliferation of an unlimited number of signs in private, residential, commercial, industrial, and public areas of the City of Ladue would create ugliness, visual blight and clutter, tarnish the natural beauty of the landscape as well as the residential and commercial architecture, impair property values, substantially impinge upon the privacy and special ambience of the community, and may cause safety and traffic hazards to motorists, pedestrians, and children.” Id., at 36a.
Gilleo amended her complaint to challenge the new ordinance, which explicitly prohibits window signs like hers. The District Court held the ordinance unconstitutional, 774 F. Supp. 1559 (ED Mo. 1991), and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 986 F. 2d 1180 (CA8 1993). Relying on the plurality opinion in Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U. S. 490 (1981), the Court of Appeals held the ordinance invalid as a “content based” regulation because the City treated commercial speech more favorably than noncommercial speech and favored some kinds of noncommercial speech over others. 986 F. 2d, at 1182. Acknowledging that “Ladue’s interests in enacting its ordinance are substantial,” the Court of Appeals nevertheless concluded that those interests were “not sufficiently ‘compelling’ to support a content-based restriction.” Id., at 1183-1184 (citing Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 118 (1991)).
We granted the City of Ladue’s petition for certiorari, 510 U. S. 809 (1993), and now affirm.
II
While signs are a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause, they pose distinctive problems that are subject to municipalities’ police powers. Unlike oral speech, signs take up space and may obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs — just as they can, within reasonable bounds and absent censorial purpose, regulate audible expression in its capacity as noise. See, e. g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781 (1989); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949). However, because regulation of a medium inevitably affects communication itself, it is not surprising that we have had occasion to review the constitutionality of municipal ordinances prohibiting the display of certain outdoor signs.
In Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977), we addressed an ordinance that sought to maintain stable, integrated neighborhoods by prohibiting homeowners from placing “For Sale” or “Sold” signs on their property. Although we recognized the importance of Willingboro’s objective, we held that the First Amendment prevented the township from “achieving its goal by restricting the free flow of truthful information.” Id., at 95. In some respects Linmark is the mirror image of this case. For instead of prohibiting “For Sale” signs without banning any other signs, Ladue has exempted such signs from an otherwise virtually complete ban. Moreover, whereas in Linmark we noted that the ordinance was not concerned with the promotion of esthetic values unrelated to the content of the prohibited speech, id., at 93-94, here Ladue relies squarely on that content-neutral justification for its ordinance.
In Metromedia, we reviewed an ordinance imposing substantial prohibitions on outdoor advertising displays within the city of San Diego in the interest of traffic safety and esthetics. The ordinance generally banned all except those advertising “on-site” activities. The Court concluded that the city’s interest in traffic safety and its esthetic interest in preventing “visual clutter” could justify a prohibition of off-site commercial billboards even though similar on-site signs were allowed. 453 U. S., at 511-512. Nevertheless, the Court’s judgment in Metromedia, supported by two different lines of reasoning, invalidated the San Diego ordinance in its entirety. According to Justice White’s plurality opinion, the ordinance impermissibly discriminated on the basis of content by permitting on-site commercial speech while broadly prohibiting noncommercial messages. Id., at 514-515. On the other hand, Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Black-mun, concluded that “the practical effect of the San Diego ordinance [was] to eliminate the billboard as an effective medium of communication” for noncommercial messages, and that the city had failed to make the strong showing needed to justify such “content-neutral prohibitions of particular media of communication.” Id., at 525-527. The three dissenters also viewed San Diego’s ordinance as tantamount to a blanket prohibition of billboards, but would have upheld it because they did not perceive “even a hint of bias or censorship in the city’s actions” nor “any reason to believe that the overall communications market in San Diego is inadequate.” Id., at 552-553 (Stevens, J., dissenting in part). See also id., at 563, 566 (Burger, C. J., dissenting); id., at 569-570 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
In Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789 (1984), we upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that prohibited the posting of signs on public property. Noting the conclusion shared by seven Justices in Metromedia that San Diego’s “interest in avoiding visual clutter” was sufficient to justify a prohibition of commercial billboards, 466 U. S., at 806-807, in Vincent we upheld the Los Angeles ordinance, which was justified on the same grounds. We rejected the argument that the validity of the city’s esthetic interest had been compromised by failing to extend the ban to private property, reasoning that the “private citizen’s interest in controlling the use of his own property justifies the disparate treatment.” Id., at 811. We also rejected as “misplaced” respondents’ reliance on public forum principles, for they had “fail[ed] to demonstrate the existence of a traditional right of access respecting such items as utility poles . . . comparable to that recognized for public streets and parks.” Id., at 814.
These decisions identify two analytically distinct grounds for challenging the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance regulating the display of signs. One is that the measure in effect restricts too little speech because its exemptions discriminate on the basis of the signs’ messages. See Metro-media, 453 U. S., at 512-517 (opinion of White, J.). Alternatively, such provisions are subject to attack on the ground that they simply prohibit too much protected speech. See id., at 525-534 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). The City of Ladue contends, first, that the Court of Appeals’ reliance on the former rationale was misplaced because the City’s regulatory purposes are content neutral, and, second, that those purposes justify the comprehensiveness of the sign prohibition. A comment on the former contention will help explain why we ultimately base our decision on a rejection of the latter.
Ill
While surprising at first glance, the notion that a regulation of speech may be impermissibly underinclusive is firmly grounded in basic First Amendment principles. Thus, an exemption from an otherwise permissible regulation of speech may represent a governmental “attempt to give one side of a debatable public question an advantage in expressing its views to the people.” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 785-786 (1978). Alternatively, through the combined operation of. a general speech restriction and its exemptions, the government might seek to select the “permissible subjects for public debate” and thereby to “control . . . the search for political truth.” Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530, 538 (1980).
The City argues that its sign ordinance implicates neither of these concerns, and that the Court of Appeals therefore erred in demanding a “compelling” justification for the exemptions. The mix of prohibitions and exemptions in the ordinance, Ladue maintains, reflects legitimate differences among the side effects of various kinds of signs. These differences are only adventitiously connected with content, and supply a sufficient justification, unrelated to the City’s approval or disapproval of specific messages, for carving out the specified categories from the general ban. See Brief for Petitioners 18-23. Thus, according to the Declaration of Findings, Policies, Interests, and Purposes supporting the ordinance, the permitted signs, unlike the prohibited signs, are unlikely to contribute to the dangers of “unlimited proliferation” associated with categories of signs that are not inherently limited in number. App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a. Because only a few residents will need to display “for sale” or “for rent” signs at any given time, permitting one such sign per marketed house does not threaten visual clutter. Ibid. Because the City has only a few businesses, churches, and schools, the same rationale explains the exemption for on-site commercial and organizational signs. Ibid. Moreover, some of the exempted categories (e. g., danger signs) respond to unique public needs to permit certain kinds of speech. Ibid. Even if we assume the validity of these arguments, the exemptions in Ladue’s ordinance nevertheless shed light on the separate question whether the ordinance prohibits too much speech.
Exemptions from an otherwise legitimate regulation of a medium of speech may be noteworthy for a reason quite apart from the risks of viewpoint and content discrimination: They may diminish the credibility of the government’s rationale for restricting speech in the first place. See, e. g., Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U. S. 410, 424-426 (1993). In this case, at the very least, the exemptions from Ladue’s ordinance demonstrate that Ladue has concluded that the interest in allowing certain messages to be conveyed by means of residential signs outweighs the City’s esthetic interest in eliminating outdoor signs. Ladue has not imposed a flat ban on signs because it has determined that at least some of them are too vital to be banned.
Under the Court of Appeals’ content discrimination rationale, the City might theoretically remove the defects in its ordinance by simply repealing all of the exemptions. If, however, the ordinance is also vulnerable because it prohibits too much speech, that solution would not save it. Moreover, if the prohibitions in Ladue’s ordinance are impermissible, resting our decision on its exemptions would afford scant relief for respondent Gilleo. She is primarily concerned not with the scope of the exemptions available in other locations, such as commercial areas and on church property; she asserts a constitutional right to display an antiwar sign at her own home. Therefore, we first ask whether Ladue may properly prohibit Gilleo from displaying her sign, and then, only if necessary, consider the separate question whether it was improper for the City simultaneously to permit certain other signs. In examining the propriety of Ladue’s near-total prohibition of residential signs, we will assume, arguendo, the validity of the City’s submission that the various exemptions are free of impermissible content or viewpoint discrimination.
IV
In Linmark we held that the city’s interest in maintaining a stable, racially integrated neighborhood was not sufficient to support a prohibition of residential “For Sale” signs. We recognized that even such a narrow sign prohibition would have a deleterious effect on residents’ ability to convey important information because alternatives were “far from satisfactory.” 431 U. S., at 93. Ladue’s sign ordinance is supported principally by the City’s interest in minimizing the visual clutter associated with signs, an interest that is concededly valid but certainly no more compelling than the interests at stake in Linmark. Moreover, whereas the ordinance in Linmark applied only to a form of commercial speech, Ladue’s ordinance covers even such absolutely pivotal speech as a sign protesting an imminent governmental decision to go to war.
The impact on free communication of Ladue’s broad sign prohibition, moreover, is manifestly greater than in Lin-mark. Gilleo and other residents of Ladue are forbidden to display virtually any “sign” on their property. The ordinance defines that term sweepingly. A prohibition is not always invalid merely because it applies to a sizeable category of speech; the sign ban we upheld in Vincent, for example, was quite broad. But in Vincent we specifically noted that the category of speech in question — signs placed on public property — was not a “uniquely valuable or important mode of communication,” and that there was no evidence that “appellees’ ability to communicate effectively is threatened by ever-increasing restrictions on expression.” 466 U. S., at 812.
Here, in contrast, Ladue has almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important. It has totally foreclosed that medium to political, religious, or personal messages. Signs that react to a local happening or express a view on a controversial issue both reflect and animate change in the life of a community. Often placed on lawns or in windows, residential signs play an important part in political campaigns, during which they are displayed to signal the resident’s support for particular candidates, parties, or causes. They may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media, but residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression.
Our prior decisions have voiced particular concern with laws that foreclose an entire medium of expression. Thus, we have held invalid ordinances that completely banned the distribution of pamphlets within the municipality, Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 451-452 (1938); handbills on the public streets, Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413, 416 (1943); the door-to-door distribution of literature, Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 145-149 (1943); Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 164-165 (1939), and live entertainment, Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U. S. 61, 75-76 (1981). See also Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 486 (1988) (picketing focused upon individual residence is “fundamentally different from more generally directed means of communication that may not be completely banned in residential areas”). Although prohibitions foreclosing entire media may be completely free of content or viewpoint discrimination, the danger they pose to the freedom of speech is readily apparent — by eliminating a common means of speaking, such measures can suppress too much speech.
Ladue contends, however, that its ordinance is a mere regulation of the “time, place, or manner” of speech because residents remain free to convey their desired messages by other means, such as hand-held signs, “letters, handbills, flyers, telephone calls, newspaper advertisements, bumper stickers, speeches, and neighborhood or community meetings.” Brief for Petitioners 41. However, even regulations that do not foreclose an entire medium of expression, but merely shift the time, place, or manner of its use, must “leave open ample alternative channels for communication.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984). , In this case, we are not persuaded that adequate substitutes exist for the important medium of speech that Ladue has closed off.
Displaying a sign from one’s own residence often carries a message quite distinct from placing the same sign someplace else, or conveying the same text or picture by other means. Precisely because of their location, such signs provide information about the identity of the “speaker.” As an early and eminent student of rhetoric observed, the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade. A sign advocating “Peace in the Gulf” in the front lawn of a retired general or decorated war veteran may provoke a different reaction than the same sign in a 10-year-old child’s bedroom window or the same message on a bumper sticker of a passing automobile. An espousal of socialism may carry different implications when displayed on the grounds of a stately mansion than when pasted on a factory wall or an ambulatory sandwich board.
Residential signs are an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Especially for persons of modest means or limited mobility, a yard or window sign may have no practical substitute. Cf. Vincent, 466 U. S., at 812-813, n. 30; Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 793-794 (1983); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S., at 146; Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 312 U. S. 287, 293 (1941). Even for the affluent, the added costs in money or time of taking out a newspaper advertisement, handing out leaflets on the street, or standing in front of one’s house with a hand-held sign may make the difference between participating and not participating in some public debate. Furthermore, a person who puts up a sign at her residence often intends to reach neighbors, an audience that could not be reached nearly as well by other means.
A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of our culture and our law, see, e. g., Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 596-597, and nn. 44-45 (1980); that principle has special resonance when the government seeks to constrain a person’s ability to speak there. See Spence v. Washington, 418 U. S. 405, 406, 409, 411 (1974) (per curiam). Most Americans would be understandably dismayed, given that tradition, to learn that it was illegal to display from their window an 8- by 11-inch sign expressing their political views. Whereas the government’s need to mediate among various competing uses, including expressive ones, for public streets and facilities is constant and unavoidable, see Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 574, 576 (1941); see also Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 278 (1981) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), its need to regulate temperate speech from the home is surely much less pressing, see Spence, 418 U. S., at 409.
Our decision that Ladue’s ban on almost all residential signs violates the First Amendment by no means leaves the City powerless to address the ills that may be associated with residential signs. It bears mentioning that individual residents themselves have strong incentives to keep their own property values up and to prevent “visual clutter” in their own yards and neighborhoods — incentives markedly different from those of persons who erect signs on others’ land, in others’ neighborhoods, or on public property. Residents’ self-interest diminishes the danger of the “unlimited” proliferation of residential signs that concerns the City of Ladue. We are confident that more temperate measures could in large part satisfy Ladue’s stated regulatory needs without harm to the First Amendment rights of its citizens. As currently framed, however, the ordinance abridges those rights.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .” The Fourteenth Amendment makes this limitation applicable to the States, see Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652 (1925), and to their political subdivisions, see Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938).
Ladue is a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri. It has a population of almost 9,000, and an area of about 8.5 square miles, of which only 3% is zoned for commercial or industrial use.
The ordinance then in effect gave the city council the authority to “permit a variation in the strict application of the provisions and requirements of this chapter... where the public interest will be best served by permitting such variation.” App. 72.
The new ordinance eliminates the provision allowing for variances and contains a grandfather clause exempting signs already lawfully in place.
Section 35-2 of the ordinance declares that “No sign shall be erected [or] maintained” in the City except in conformity with the ordinance; §35-3 authorizes the City to remove nonconforming signs. App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. Section 35-1 defines “sign” as:
“A name, word, letter, writing, identification, description, or illustration which is erected, placed upon, affixed to, painted or represented upon a building or structure, or any part thereof, or in any manner upon a parcel of land or lot, and which publicizes an object, product, place, activity, opinion, person, institution, organization or place of business, or which is used to advertise or promote the interests of any person. The word ‘sign’ shall also include ‘banners’, ‘pennants’, ‘insignia’, ‘bulletin boards’, ‘ground signs’, ‘billboard’, ‘poster billboards’, ‘illuminated signs’, ‘projecting signs’, ‘temporary signs’, ‘marquees’, ‘roof signs’, ‘yard signs’, ‘electric signs’, ‘wall signs’, and ‘window signs’, wherever placed out of doors in view of the general public or wherever placed indoors as a window sign.” Id., at 39a.
The full catalog of exceptions, each subject to special size limitations, is as follows: “[Mjunicipal signs”; “[sjubdivision and residence identification” signs; “[rjoad signs and driveway signs for danger, direction, or identification”; “[hjealth inspection signs”; “[sjigns for churches, religious institutions, and schools” (subject to regulations set forth in §35-5); “identification signs” for other not-for-profit organizations; signs “identifying the location of public transportation stops”; “[gjround signs advertising the sale or rental of real property,” subject to the conditions, set forth in §35-10, that such signs may “not be attached to any tree, fence or utility pole” and may contain only the fact of proposed sale or rental and the seller or agent’s name and address or telephone number; “[cjommercial signs in commercially zoned or industrial zoned districts,” subject to restrictions set out elsewhere in the ordinance; and signs that “identify] safety hazards.” §35-4, id, at 41a, 45a.
The San Diego ordinance defined “on-site signs” as “those ‘designating the name of the owner or occupant of the premises upon which such signs are placed, or identifying such premises; or signs advertising goods manufactured or produced or services rendered on the premises upon which such signs are placed.’ ” Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U. S., at 494. The plurality read the “on-site” exemption of the San Diego ordinance as inapplicable to noncommercial messages. See id., at 513. Cf. id., at 535-536 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). The ordinance also exempted 12 categories of displays, including religious signs; for sale signs; signs on public and commercial vehicles; and “‘[t]emporary political campaign signs.’ ” Id., at 495, n. 3.
Five Members of the Court joined Part IV of Justice White’s opinion, which approved of the city’s decision to prohibit off-site commercial billboards while permitting on-site billboards. None of the three dissenters disagreed with Part IV. See id., at 541 (Stevens, J., dissenting in part) (joining Part IV); id., at 564-565 (Burger, C. J., dissenting); id., at 570 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
Like other classifications, regulatory distinctions among different kinds of speech may fell afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. See, e. g., Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 459-471 (1980) (ordinance that forbade certain kinds of picketing but exempted labor picketing violated Clause); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 98-102 (1972) (same).
Of course, not every law that turns on the content of speech is invalid. See generally Stone, Restrictions of Speech Because of its Content: The Peculiar Case of Subject-Matter Restrictions, 46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 79 (1978). See also Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S., at 545, and n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).
“Because we set to one side the content discrimination question, we need not address the City’s argument that the ordinance, although speaking in subject-matter terms, merely targets the “undesirable secondary effects” associated with certain kinds of signs. See Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, 49 (1986). The inquiry we undertake below into the adequacy of alternative channels of communication would also apply to a provision justified on those grounds. See id, at 50.
“[SJmall [political campaign] posters have maximum effect when they go up in the windows of homes, for this demonstrates that citizens of the district are supporting your candidate — an impact that money can’t buy.” D. Simpson, Winning Elections: A Handbook in Participatory Politics 87 (rev. ed. 1981).
See Stone, Content-Neutral Restrictions, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 46, 57-58 (1987):
“[T]he Court long has recognized that by limiting the availability of particular means of communication, content-neutral restrictions can significantly impair the ability of individuals to communicate their views to others.... To ensure ‘the widest possible dissemination of information[,]’ [Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 20 (1945),] and the ‘unfettered interchange of ideas,’ [Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 484 (1957),] the first amendment prohibits not only content-based restrictions that censor particular points of view, but also content-neutrál restrictions that unduly constrict the opportunities for free expression.”
See Aristotle 2, Rhetoric, Book 1, ch. 2, in 8 Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopedia Brittanica 595 (M. Adler ed., 2d ed. 1990) (“We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided”).
The precise location of many other kinds of signs (aside from “on-site” signs) is of lesser communicative importance. For example, assuming the audience is similar, a commercial advertiser or campaign publicist is likely to be relatively indifferent between one sign site and another. The elimination of a cheap and handy medium of expression is especially apt to deter individuals from communicating their views to the public, for unlike businesses (and even political organizations) individuals generally realize few tangible benefits from such communication. Cf. Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 772, n. 24 (1976) (“Since advertising is the sine qua non of commercial profits, there is little likelihood of its being chilled by proper regulation and forgone entirely”).
Counsel for Ladue has also cited flags as a viable alternative to signs. Counsel observed that the ordinance does not restrict flags of any stripe, including flags bearing written messages. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 16, 21 (noting that rectangular flags, unlike “pennants” and “banners,” are not prohibited by the ordinance). Even assuming that flags are nearly as affordable and legible as signs, we do not think the mere possibility that another medium could be used in an unconventional manner to carry the same messages alters the fact that Ladue has banned a distinct and traditionally important medium of expression. See, e. g., Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 163 (1939).
Nor do we hold that every kind of sign must be permitted in residential areas. Different considerations might well apply, for example, in the case of signs (whether political or otherwise) displayed by residents for a fee, or in the case of off-site commercial advertisements on residential property. We also are not confronted here with mere regulations short of a ban.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioners, Melvin-. A. Hays, Sterling E. Duncan, and Leonard L. Sullivan, were injured in the course of their employment with the United States while aboard vessels operated by the Government and engaged in merchant service. Petitioner Patterson is the administrator of the estate of Edgar A. Doody, Jr., who died as the result of injuries sustained by him while he was similarly employed. Each- of the petitioners filed a libel in personam against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty, Act, 41 Stat. 525 et seq., 46 U. S. C. § 741 et seq. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the libels on the ground that petitioners’ exclusive remedy was under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 39 Stat. 742 et seq., 5 U. S. C. § 751 et seq., 258 F. 2d 702. We granted certiorari, 358 U. S. 898, to resolve a conflict between the decision below and that of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Inland Waterways Corp. v. Doyle, 204 F. 2d 874.
In Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427, 441, the Coúrt held “that the Federal Employees Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for civilian . . .” employees of the United States on government vessels engaged in public servile and that the United States was therefore not liable to such employees under the Public Vessels Act. 43 Stat. 1112 et seq., 46 U. S. C. § 781 et seq. The considerations which led to that conclusion are equally applicable to cases where the government vessel is engaged in merchant service. The United States “has established by the Compensation Act a method of redress for its employees. There is no reason to have two systems of redress.” 343 U. S., at 439.
The major portion of petitioners’ argument, however, is addressed to the proposition that Johansen was incorrectly decided and that we should avail ourselves of this opportunity to reconsider it. We decline to do so. No arguments are presented by petitioners which were not fully considered in Johansen and rejected. “[W]hen the questions are of statutory construction, not of constitutional import, Congress can rectify our mistake, if such it was, or change its policy at any time, and in these circumstances reversal is not readily to be made.” United States v. South Buffalo R. Co., 333 U. S. 771, 774-775. If civilian seamen employed by the Government are to be accorded rights different from or greater than those which they enjoy under the Compensation Act, it is for Congress to provide them.
Accordingly,, the judgments of dismissal entered against petitioners Hays, Duncan, Sullivan, and Patterson are affirmed. We also affirm dismissal of the libel filed by petitioner Vallebupna, who has conceded that he . could prevail only if Johansen were overruled.
Affirmed.
Mr. JtrsTiCE Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent.
It is worthy of note that in Johansen -the Court expressly disapproved the decision in United States v. Marine, 155 F. 2d 456, in which a civilian employee of the Government was awarded damages under the Suits in Admiralty Act for injuries sustained by him while aboard a vessel operated by the United States in the merchant service.
The Clarification Act of' 1943, 57 Stat. 45, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291, indicates that Congress has chosen with care the remedies which it has made available to civilian. seamen employed by the United States. That legislation provided that “offieérs and members of crews . . . employed on United States or foreign flag vessels as employees of the United States .through the War Shipping Administration, . . .'because of the temporary wartime character of their employment by the War Shipping Administration, shall not be considered as .officers or employees of the United States for the purposes of the United States Employees Compensation Act, as amended _
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner was indicted for the unlawful acquisition of marihuana in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 2593 (a). The indictment, found in September 1953, was based on evidence obtained by a search warrant issued by a United States Commissioner, as authorized by Rule 41 (a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in August 1953. Petitioner moved under Rule 41 (e) to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search warrant was improperly issued under Rule 41 (c) in that it was insufficient on its face, no probable cause existed, and the affidavit was based on unsworn statements. The District Court granted the motion to suppress and, on the Government’s later motion, dismissed the indictment. No motion for return of the evidence was made. The evidence seized was indeed contraband. Since the crime charged was a violation of a provision of the Internal Revenue Code, 28 U. S. C. § 2463 was applicable. That section provides against the return of the property in the following words:
“All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.” And see 26 U. S. C. § 2598.
After the District Court suppressed the evidence, a federal narcotics agent swore to a complaint before a New Mexico judge and caused a warrant for petitioner’s arrest to issue. -Petitioner has now been charged with being in possession of marihuana in violation of New Mexico law and awaits trial in the state court. The case against petitioner in the state court will be made by testimony of the federal agent based on the illegal search and on the evidence seized under the illegal federal warrant.
That at least is the basis of the motion in the District Court to enjoin the federal narcotics agent from testifying in the state case with respect to the narcotics obtained in the illegal search and, if the evidence seized is out of the custody of the United States, to direct the agent to reacquire the evidence and destroy it or transfer it to other agents. The District Court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 218 F. 2d 237. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted because of the importance in federal law enforcement of the question presented. 348 U. S. 958.
The briefs and oral argument have been largely devoted to constitutional questions. It is said, for example, that while the Fourth Amendment, as judicially construed, would bar the use of this evidence in a federal prosecution (Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383), our decision in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, would permit New Mexico to use the evidence in its prosecution of petitioner. Moreover, it is said that to suppress the use of the evidence in the state criminal proceedings would run counter to our decision in Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117.
We put all the constitutional questions to one side. We have here no problem concerning the interplay of the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments nor the use which New Mexico might make of the evidence. The District Court is not asked to enjoin state officials nor in any way to interfere with state agencies in enforcement of state law. Cf. Boske v. Comingore, 177 U. S. 459. The only relief asked is against a federal agent, who obtained the property as a result of the abuse of process issued by a United States Commissioner. The property seized is contraband which Congress has made “subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof,” as provided in 28 U. S. C. § 2463, already quoted. In this posture we have then a case that raises not a constitutional question but one concerning our supervisory powers over federal law enforcement agencies. Cf. McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332.
A federal agent has violated the federal Rules governing searches and seizures — Rules prescribed by this Court and made effective after submission to the Congress. See 327 U. S. 821 et seg. The power of the federal courts extends to policing those requirements and making certain that they are observed. As stated in Wise v. Henkel, 220 U. S. 556, 558, which involved an order directing the district attorney to return certain books and papers unlawfully seized:
“. . . it was within the power of the court to take jurisdiction of the subject of the return and pass upon it as the result of its inherent authority to consider and decide questions arising before it concerning an alleged unreasonable exertion of authority in connection with the execution of the process of the court.”
No injunction is sought against a state official. The only remedy asked is against a federal agent who, we are told, plans to use his illegal search and seizure as the basis of testimony in the state court. To enjoin the federal agent from testifying is merely to enforce the federal Rules against those owing obedience to them.
The command of the federal Rules is in no way affected by anything that happens in a state court. They are designed as standards for federal agents. The fact that their violation may be condoned by state practice has no relevancy to our problem. Federal courts sit to enforce federal law; and federal law extends to the process issuing from those courts. The obligation of the federal agent is to obey the Rules. They are drawn for innocent and guilty alike. They prescribe standards for law enforcement. They are designed to protect the privacy of the citizen, unless the strict standards set for searches and seizures are satisfied. That policy is defeated if the federal agent can flout them and use the fruits of his unlawful act either in federal or state proceedings.
Reversed.
Rule 41 (c) provides in relevant part as follows:
“A warrant shall issue only on affidavit sworn to before the judge or commissioner and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant. If the judge or commissioner is satisfied that grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue a warrant identifying the property and naming or describing the person or place to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to a civil officer of the United States authorized to enforce or assist in enforcing any law thereof or to a person so authorized by the President of the United States. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and the names of the persons whose affidavits have been taken in support thereof.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Southern Construction Company, one of the petitioners here, was the prime contractor on contracts with the United States for the rehabilitation of certain barracks at Fort Campbell, Tennessee, and Fort Benning, Georgia. There were three contracts covering the Georgia project and one covering the Tennessee project. Pursuant to the provisions of the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, as amended, 40 U. S. C. §§ 270a-270d, Southern furnished performance and payment bonds, with Continental Casualty Company, co-petitioner here, as surety. The plumbing and heating subcontractor on both projects was the respondent Samuel J. Pickard, doing business as Pickard Engineering Company. Pickard’s primary supplier on both projects was the Atlas Supply Company.
In December 1955, Pickard’s men left the Tennessee job before it was fully completed, and shortly thereafter left the Georgia project. Atlas, Pickard’s supplier, claimed that $34,520 was due it for materials furnished on the Tennessee job and $104,000 for materials furnished on the Georgia project. Following a conference in August 1956 between Southern officials and representatives of Atlas, Southern paid Atlas $35,000 in exchange for a complete release of all liability of Southern on Pickard’s accounts with respect to both the Georgia and Tennessee projects.
In December 1956, acting under the provisions of the Miller Act, Pickard brought suit, in the name of the United States, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against Southern and Continental for recovery of amounts allegedly owing on both the Georgia and Tennessee jobs. In January 1957, Southern filed an answer and a counterclaim in which it alleged that Southern had paid out more than the contract price on both jobs and in which recovery of the excess was sought. The $35,000 payment to Atlas was at that time included in the counterclaim.
The Miller Act, however, requires that suits instituted under its provisions “shall be brought ... in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed and not elsewhere . . . .” 40 U. S. C. § 270b (b). Since this statute appeared- to prohibit an action in the Georgia District Court on the Tennessee project, Pickard in April 1957 filed the present action against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee relating to the Tennessee project only, and by amendment eliminated this part of his claim from the Georgia action.
The Georgia action proceeded to trial in 1959, and according to the findings of the District Court in the present case the $35,000 payment to Atlas was “dropped” prior to trial from the counterclaim originally asserted in that action. The Georgia suit has not yet proceeded to final judgment, the Georgia District Court in September 1961 having granted Southern’s motion for a new trial on its counterclaim.
In the Tennessee action here involved Southern included the $35,000 payment as part of its counterclaim for affirmative relief, and Pickard answered that the counterclaim was barred by “res judicata.” Southern later waived any claim to affirmative relief in this action and sought only a credit of $34,520 against Pickard’s contract claim on the Tennessee project. This figure was the precise amount that had been claimed by Atlas to be due it for materials supplied on this job.
The District Court, in deciding that Pickard was not entitled to any recovery, allowed this $34,520 item as a credit against Pickard’s claim, but on this point the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. 293 F. 2d 493. It held that since there had been no allocation of the $35,000 payment as between the Georgia and Tennessee projects the item, under Rule 13 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was a “potential compulsory counterclaim” in either of the two suits; that when the responsive pleading in the Georgia suit was filed the counterclaim was not the subject of any other pending action and was therefore “compulsory” in that suit; and, accordingly, that such counterclaim could not later be asserted in the present action. We granted certiorari to consider the applicability of Rule 13 (a) in these unusual circumstances. 368 U. S. 975.
We accept for present purposes the ruling below that the $35,000 payment had not been allocated as between the Tennessee and Georgia projects and that it therefore could have been asserted in either action. Nevertheless, we do not believe that Rule 13 (a) operates to prohibit its use in the later Tennessee action. The requirement that counterclaims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim “shall” be stated in the pleadings was designed to prevent multiplicity of actions and to achieve resolution in a single lawsuit of all disputes arising out of common matters. The Rule was particularly directed against one who failed to assert a counterclaim in one action and then instituted a second action in which that counterclaim became the basis of the complaint. See, e. g., United States v. Eastport S. S. Corp., 255 F. 2d 795, 801-802.
It is readily apparent that this policy has no application here. In this instance, the plaintiff-respondent, who originally sought to combine all his claims in a single suit, correctly concluded that he was required by statute to split those claims and to bring two separate actions in two different districts. The fragmentation of these claims, therefore, was compelled by federal law, and the primary defendant in both actions was thus for the first time confronted with the choice of which of the two pending suits should be resorted to for the assertion of a counterclaim common to both. Under these circumstances, we hold that Rule 13 (a) did not compel this counterclaim to be made in whichever of the two suits the first responsive pleading was filed. Its assertion in the later suit, to which Southern, not without reason, considered it more appurtenant (pp. 58-59, supra), by no means involved the circuity of action that Rule 13 (a) was aimed at preventing. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it related to this counterclaim is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Under the Miller Act, 40 U. S. C. § 270b, Southern as a prime contractor was secondarily liable to suppliers of the subcontractor.
Rule 13 (a) provides:
“(a) Compulsory Counterclaims. A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, except that such a claim need not be so stated if at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action.”
We are informed that after certiorari was granted in the present case, Southern filed an amended counterclaim in the Georgia action which included the $35,000 item involved here. Further proceedings in the Georgia action, however, are awaiting our decision in this case. Of course once this counterclaim has been adjudicated in one of the actions it cannot be reasserted in the other.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department obtained a valid warrant to search a house, but they were unaware that the suspects being sought had moved out three months earlier. When the deputies searched the house, they found in a bedroom two residents who were of a different race than the suspects. The deputies ordered these innocent residents, who had been sleeping unclothed, out of bed. The deputies required them to stand for a few minutes before allowing them to dress.
The residents brought suit under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, naming the deputies and other parties and accusing them of violating the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The District Court granted summary judgment to all named defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding both that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment and that they were not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable deputy would have stopped the search upon discovering that respondents were of a different race than the suspects and because a reasonable deputy would not have ordered respondents from their bed. We grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals by this summary disposition.
I
From September to December 2001, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Dennis Watters investigated a fraud and identity-theft crime ring. There were four suspects of the investigation. One had registered a 9-millimeter dock handgun. The four suspects were known to be African-Americans.
On December 11, Watters obtained a search warrant for two houses in Lancaster, California, where he believed he could find the suspects. The warrant authorized him to search the homes and three of the suspects for documents and computer files. In support of the search warrant an affidavit cited various sources showing the suspects resided at respondents’ home. The sources included Department of Motor Vehicles reports, mailing address listings, an outstanding warrant, and an Internet telephone directory. In this Court respondents do not dispute the validity of the warrant or the means by which it was obtained.
What Watters did not know was that one of the houses (the first to be searched) had been sold in September to a Max Rettele. He had purchased the home and moved into it three months earlier with his girlfriend Judy Sadler and Sadler’s 17-year-old son Chase Hall. All three, respondents here, are Caucasians.
On the morning of December 19, Watters briefed six other deputies in preparation for the search of the houses. Watters informed them they would be searching for three African-American suspects, one of whom owned a registered handgun. The possibility a suspect would be armed caused the deputies concern for their own safety. Watters had not obtained special permission for a night search, so he could not execute the warrant until 7 a.m. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1533 (West 2000). Around 7:15 Watters and six other deputies knocked on the door and announced their presence. Chase Hall answered. The deputies entered the house after ordering Hall to lie face down on the ground.
The deputies’ announcement awoke Rettele and Sadler. The deputies entered their bedroom with guns drawn and ordered them to get out of their bed and to show their hands. They protested that they were not wearing clothes. Rettele stood up and attempted to put on a pair of sweatpants, but deputies told him not to move. Sadler also stood up and attempted, without success, to cover herself with a sheet. Rettele and Sadler were held at gunpoint for one to two minutes before Rettele was allowed to retrieve a robe for Sadler. He was then permitted to dress. Rettele and Sadler left the bedroom within three to four minutes to sit on the couch in the living room.
By that time the deputies realized they had made a mistake. They apologized to Rettele and Sadler, thanked them for not becoming upset, and left within five minutes. They proceeded to the other house the warrant authorized them to search, where they found three suspects. Those suspects were arrested and convicted.
Rettele and Sadler, individually and as guardians ad litem for Hall, filed this §1983 suit against Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Deputy Watters, and other members of the sheriff’s department. Respondents alleged petitioners violated their Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining a warrant in reckless fashion and conducting an unreasonable search and detention. The District Court held that the warrant was obtained by proper procedures and the search was reasonable. It concluded in the alternative that any Fourth Amendment rights the deputies violated were not clearly established and that, as a result, the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity.
On appeal respondents did not challenge the validity of the warrant; they did argue that the deputies had conducted the search in an unreasonable manner. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in an unpublished opinion. 186 Fed. Appx. 765 (2006). The majority held that
“because (1) no African-Americans lived in [respondents’] home; (2) [respondents], a Caucasian couple, purchased the residence several months before the search and the deputies did not conduct an ownership inquiry; (3) the African-American suspects were not accused of a crime that required an emergency search; and (4) [respondents] were ordered out of bed naked and held at gunpoint while the deputies searched their bedroom for the suspects and a gun, we find that a reasonable jury could conclude that the search and detention were ‘unnecessarily painful, degrading, or prolonged,’ and involved ‘an undue invasion of privacy,’ Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F. 3d 873, 876 (9th Cir. 1994).” Id., at 766.
Turning to whether respondents’ Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established, the majority held that a reasonable deputy should have known the search and detention were unlawful.
Judge Cowen dissented. In his view the deputies had authority to detain respondents for the duration of the search and were justified in ordering respondents from their bed because weapons could have been concealed under the bed-covers. He also concluded that, assuming a constitutional violation, the law was not clearly established.
The Court of Appeals denied rehearing and rehearing en banc.
II
Because respondents were of a different race than the suspects the deputies were seeking, the Court of Appeals held that “[a]fter taking one look at [respondents], the deputies should have realized that [respondents] were not the subjects of the search warrant and did not pose a threat to the deputies’ safety.” Ibid. We need not pause long in rejecting this unsound proposition. When the deputies ordered respondents from their bed, they had no way of knowing whether the African-American suspects were elsewhere in the house. The presence of some Caucasians in the residence did not eliminate the possibility that the suspects lived there as well. As the deputies stated in their affidavits, it is not uncommon in our society for people of different races to live together. Just as people of different races live and work together, so too might they engage in joint criminal activity. The deputies, who were searching a house where they believed a suspect might be armed, possessed authority to secure the premises before deciding whether to continue with the search.
In Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692 (1981), this Court held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband may “detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” Id., at 705. In weighing whether the search in Summers was reasonable the Court first found that “detention represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of a home has been authorized by a valid warrant.” Id., at 703. Against that interest, it balanced “preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found”; “minimizing the risk of harm to the officers”; and facilitating “the orderly completion of the search.” Id., at 702-703; see Muehler v. Mena, 544 U. S. 93 (2005).
In executing a search warrant officers may take reasonable action to secure the premises and to ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search. Id., at 98-100; see also id., at 103 (Kennedy, J., concurring); Summers, supra, at 704-705. The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is an objective one. Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 397 (1989) (addressing the reasonableness of a seizure of the person). Unreasonable actions include the use of excessive force or restraints that cause unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged and unnecessary period of time. Mena, supra, at 100; Graham, supra, at 396-399.
The orders by the police to the occupants, in the context of this lawful search, were permissible, and perhaps necessary, to protect the safety of the deputies. Blankets and bedding can conceal a weapon, and one of the suspects was known to own a firearm, factors which underscore this point. The Constitution does not require an officer to ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may sleep with a weapon within reach. The reports are replete with accounts of suspects sleeping close to weapons. See United States v. Enslin, 327 F. 3d 788, 791 (CA9 2003) (“When [the suspect] put his hands in the air and began to sit up, his movement shifted the covers and the marshals could see a gun in the bed next to him”); see also United States v. Jones, 336 F. 3d 245, 248 (CA3 2003) (suspect kept a 9-millimeter Luger under his pillow while he slept); United States v. Hightower, 96 F. 3d 211 (CA7 1996) (suspect kept a loaded five-shot handgun under his pillow); State v. Willis, 36,759-KA, p. 3 (La. App. 4/9/03), 843 So. 2d 592,595 (officers “pulled back the bed covers and found a .38 caliber Model 10 Smith and Wesson revolver located near where defendant’s left hand had been”); State v. Kyfreos, 115 Wash. App. 207, 61 P. 3d 352 (2002) (suspect kept a handgun in the bed).
The deputies needed a moment to secure the room and ensure that other persons were not close by or did not present a danger. Deputies were not required to turn their backs to allow Rettele and Sadler to retrieve clothing or to cover themselves with the sheets. Rather, “[t]he risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.” Summers, 452 U. S., at 702-703.
This is not to say, of course, that the deputies were free to force Rettele and Sadler to remain motionless and standing for any longer than necessary. We have recognized that “special circumstances, or possibly a prolonged detention,” might render a search unreasonable. See id., at 705, n. 21. There is no accusation that the detention here was prolonged. The deputies left the home less than 15 minutes after arriving. The detention was shorter and less restrictive than the 2- to 3-hour handcuff detention upheld in Mena. See 544 U. S., at 100. And there is no allegation that the deputies prevented Sadler and Rettele from dressing longer than necessary to protect their safety. Sadler was unclothed for no more than two minutes, and Rettele for only slightly more time than that. Sadler testified that once the police were satisfied that no immediate threat was presented, “they wanted us to get dressed and they were pressing us really fast to hurry up and get some clothes on.” Deposition of Judy Lorraine Sadler in No. CV-0206262-RSWL (RNBX) (CD Cal., June 10, 2003), Doc. 26, Exh. 4, p. 55.
The Fourth Amendment allows warrants to issue on probable cause, a standard well short of absolute certainty. Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter a house when residents are engaged in private activity; and the re-suiting frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is not violated.
As respondents’ constitutional rights were not violated, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201 (2001). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner is enrolled as a student at a theological school preparing for the ministry and was accordingly classified as IV-D by the Selective Service Board. Section 6 (g) of the Selective Service Act, 62 Stat. 611, as amended, now § 6 (g) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 (see 81 Stat. 100, § 1 (a)), 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (g), gives such students exemption from training and service under the Act. He returned his registration certificate to the Government, according to the complaint in the present action, “for the sole purpose of expressing dissent from the participation by the United States in the war in Vietnam.” Shortly thereafter his Board declared him delinquent (1) for failure to have the registration certificate in his possession, and (2) for failure to provide the Board with notice of his local status. The Board thereupon changed his IV-D classification to I-A. He took an administrative appeal and lost and was ordered to report for induction.
At that point he brought suit to restrain his induction. The District Court dismissed the complaint, 280 F. Supp. 78, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 390 F. 2d 100. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 391 U. S. 912.
As noted, § 6 (g) of the Act states that “students preparing for the ministry” in qualified schools “shall be exempt from training and service” under the Act. Equally unambiguous is § 10 (b) (3) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 104, which provides that there shall be no pre-induction judicial review “of the classification or processing of any registrant,” judicial review being limited to a defense in a criminal prosecution or, as the Government concedes, to habeas corpus after induction. See Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, 123-125; Eagles v. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304; Witmer v. United States, 348 U. S. 375, 377. If we assume, as we must for present purposes, that petitioner is entitled to a statutory exemption as a divinity student, by what authority can the Board withhold it or withdraw it and make him a delinquent?
In 1967 Congress added a provision concerning the immediate service of members of a “prime age group” after expiration of their deferment, stating that they were the first to be inducted “after delinquents and volunteers.” 50 U. S. C. App. §456 (h)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. III). Congress has also made criminal the knowing failure or neglect to perform any duty prescribed by the rules or regulations of the Selective Service System. 50 U. S. C. App. § 462 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. III). But Congress did not define delinquency; nor did it provide any standards for its definition by the Selective Service System. Yet Selective Service, as we have noted, has promulgated regulations governing delinquency and uses them to deprive registrants of their statutory exemption, because of various activities and conduct and without any regard to the exemptions provided by law.
We can find no authorization for that use of delinquency. Even if Congress had authorized the Boards to revoke statutory exemptions by means of delinquency classifications, serious questions would arise if Congress were silent and did not prescribe standards to govern the Boards' actions. There is no suggestion in the legislative history that, when Congress has granted an exemption and a registrant meets its terms and conditions, a Board can nonetheless withhold it from him for activities or conduct not material to the grant or withdrawal of the exemption. So to hold would make the Boards freewheeling agencies meting out their brand of justice in a vindictive manner.
Once a person registers and qualifies for a statutory exemption, we find no legislative authority to deprive him of that exemption because of conduct or activities unrelated to the merits of granting or continuing that exemption. The Solicitor General confesses error on the use by Selective Service of delinquency proceedings for that purpose.
We deal with conduct of a local Board that is basically lawless. It is no different in constitutional implications from a case where induction of-an ordained minister or other clearly exempt person is ordered (a) to retaliate against the person because of his political views or (b) to bear down on him for his religious views or his racial attitudes or (c) to get him out of town so that the amorous interests of a Board member might be better served. See Townsend v. Zimmerman, 237 F. 2d 376. In such instances, as in the present one, there is no exercise of discretion by a Board in evaluating evidence and in determining whether a claimed exemption is deserved. The case we decide today involves a clear departure by the Board from its statutory mandate. To hold that a person deprived of his statutory exemption in such a blatantly lawless manner must either be inducted and raise his protest through habeas corpus or defy induction and defend his refusal in a criminal prosecution is to construe the Act with unnecessary harshness. As the Solicitor General suggests, such literalness does violence to the clear mandate of § 6 (g) governing the exemption. Our construction leaves § 10 (b)(3) unimpaired in the normal operations of the Act.
No one, we believe, suggests that § 10 (b)(3) can sustain a literal reading. For while it purports on its face to suspend the writ of habeas corpus as a vehicle for reviewing a criminal conviction under the Act, everyone agrees that such was not its intent. Examples are legion where literalness in statutory language is out of harmony either with constitutional requirements, United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, or with an Act taken as an organic whole. Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., 332 U. S. 480, 488-489. We think § 10 (b) (3) and § 6 (g) are another illustration; and the Solicitor General agrees. Since the exemption granted divinity students is plain and unequivocal and in no way contested here, and since the scope of the statutory delinquency concept is not broad enough to sustain a revocation of what Congress has granted as a statutory right, or sufficiently buttressed by legislative standards, we conclude that pre-induction judicial review is not precluded in cases of this type.
We accordingly reverse the judgment and remand the case to the District Court where petitioner must have the opportunity to prove the facts alleged and also to demonstrate that he meets the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U. S. C. § 1331.
Reversed.
Section 6 (g) reads as follows:
“Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, as defined in this title, and students preparing for the ministry under the direction of recognized churches or religious organizations, who are satisfactorily pursuing full-time courses of instruction in recognized theological or divinity schools, or who are satisfactorily pursuing full-time courses of instruction leading to their entrance into recognized theological or divinity schools in which they have been pre-enrolled, shall be exempt from training and service (but not from registration) under this title.”
Section 1617.1 of the Selective Service System Regulations requires a registrant to have the certificate in his personal possession at all times (32 CFR § 1617.1), and § 1642.4, 32 CFR § 1642.4 (a), provides that whenever a registrant fails to perform “any duty” required of him (apart from the duty to obey an order to report for induction) the Board may declare him to be “a delinquent.”
The United States admits for purposes of the present proceeding by its motion to dismiss that petitioner satisfies the requirements of the exemption provided by § 6 (g).
Section 10 (b) (3) reads in pertinent part as follows:
“No judicial review shall be made of the classification or processing of any registrant by local boards, appeal boards, or the President, except as a defense to a criminal prosecution instituted under section 12 of this title, after the registrant has responded either affirmatively or negatively to an order to report for induction, or for civilian work in the case of a registrant determined to be opposed to participation in war in any form: Provided, That such review shall go to the question of the jurisdiction herein reserved to local boards, appeal boards, and the President only when there is no basis in fact for the classification assigned to such registrant.”
See S. Rep. No. 209, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 10, where it is stated:
“A registrant who presents himself for induction may challenge his classification by seeking a writ of habeas corpus after his induction. If the registrant does not submit to induction, he may raise as a defense to a criminal prosecution the issue of the legality of the classification.”
In Falbo v. United States, 320 U. S. 549, a Jehovah’s Witness had been given conscientious objector status and ordered to report to a domestic camp for civilian work in lieu of military service. In defense to a criminal prosecution for disobeying that order, he argued that his local board had wrongly classified him by denying him an exemption as a minister. Without deciding whether Congress envisaged judicial review of such classifications, we held that a registrant could not challenge his classification without first exhausting his administrative remedies by reporting, and being accepted, for induction. Because he might still have been rejected at the civilian camp for mental or physical disabilities, Falbo had omitted a “necessary intermediate step in a united and continuous process designed to raise an army speedily and efficiently.” Id., at 553. In Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, petitioners were Jehovah’s Witnesses like Falbo who had been denied ministerial exemptions and who challenged that classification in defense to a criminal prosecution for refusing induction. In their case, however, they had exhausted their administrative remedies by reporting, and being accepted, for service, before then refusing to submit to induction. We found nothing in the 1940 Act to preclude judicial review of selective service classifications in defense to a criminal prosecution for refusing induction.
Supra, at n. 2.
We would have a somewhat different problem were the contest over, say, the quantum of evidence necessary to sustain a Board's classification. Then we would not be able to say that it was plain on the record and on the face of the Act that an exemption had been granted and there would therefore be no clash between § 10 (b) (3) and another explicit provision of the Act.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction generally requires courts in the United States to order children returned to their countries of habitual residence, if the courts find that the children have been wrongfully removed to or retained in the United States. The question is whether, after a child is returned pursuant to such an order, any appeal of the order is moot.
I
A
The Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in 1980. T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11. In 1988, the United States ratified the treaty and passed implementing legislation, known as the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 102 Stat. 437, 42 U. S. C. § 11601 et seq. See generally Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U. S. 1, 8-9 (2010).
The Convention seeks “to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State” and “to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.” Art. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11, at 7. Article 3 of the Convention provides that the “removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful” when “it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention” and “at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.” Ibid.
Article 12 then states:
“Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the > child forthwith.” Id., at 9.
There are several exceptions to that command. Return is not required if the parent seeking it was not exercising custody rights at the time of removal or had consented to removal, if there is a “grave risk” that return will result in harm, if the child is mature and objects to return, or if return would conflict with fundamental principles of freedom and human rights in the state from which return is requested. Arts. 13, 20, id., at 10, 11. Finally, the Convention directs Contracting States to “designate a Central Authority to discharge the duties which are imposed by the Convention.” Art. 6, id., at 8; see also Art. 7, ibid.
Congress established procedures for implementing the Convention in ICARA. See 42 U. S. C. § 11601(b)(1). ICARA grants federal and state courts concurrent jurisdiction over actions arising under the Convention, § 11603(a), and directs them to “decide the case in accordance with the Convention,” § 11603(d). If those courts find children to have been wrongfully removed or retained, the children “are to be promptly returned.” § 11601(a)(4). ICARA also provides that courts ordering children returned generally must require defendants to pay various expenses incurred by plaintiffs, including court costs, légal fees, and transportation costs associated with the return of the children. § 11607(b)(3). ICARA instructs the President to designate the U. S. Central Authority, § 11606(a), and the President has designated the Office of Children’s Issues in the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, 22 CFR §94.2 (2012).
Eighty-nine nations are party to the Convention as of this writing. Hague Conference on Private Int’l Law, Status , Table, Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, http://www.hcch.net (as visited Feb. 15, 2013, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). In the 2009 fiscal year, 324 children removed to or retained in other countries were returned to the United States under the Convention, while 154 children removed to or retained in the United States were returned to their countries of habitual residence. Dept, of State, Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 6 (2010).
B
Petitioner Jeffrey Lee Chafin is a citizen of the United States and a sergeant first class in the U. S. Army. While stationed in Germany in 2006, he married respondent Lynne Hales Chafin, a citizen of the United Kingdom. Their daughter E. C. was born the following year.
Later in 2007, Mr. Chafin was deployed to Afghanistan, and Ms. Chafin took E. C. to Scotland. Mr. Chafin was eventually transferred to Huntsville, Alabama, and in February 2010, Ms. Chafin traveled to Alabama with E. C. Soon thereafter, however, Mr. Chafin filed for divorce and for child custody in Alabama state court. Toward the end of the year, Ms. Chafin was arrested for domestic violence, an incident that alerted U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to the fact that she had overstayed her visa. She was deported in February 2011, and E. C. remained in Mr. Chafin’s care for several more months.
In May 2011, Ms. Chafin initiated this case in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. She filed a petition under the Convention and ICARA seeking an order for E. C.’s return to Scotland. On October 11 and 12, 2011, the District Court held a bench trial. Upon the close of arguments, the court ruled in favor of Ms. Chafin, concluding that E. C.’s country of habitual residence was Scotland and granting the petition for return. Mr. Chafin immediately moved for a stay pending appeal, but the court denied his request. Within hours, Ms. Chafin left the country with E. C., headed for Scotland. By December 2011, she had initiated custody proceedings there. The Scottish court soon granted her interim custody and a preliminary injunction, prohibiting Mr. Chafin from removing E. C. from Scotland. In the meantime, Mr. Chafin had appealed the District Court order to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
In February 2012, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Mr. Chafin’s appeal as moot in a one-paragraph order, citing Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F. 3d 1051 (2001). App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-2. In Bekier, the Eleventh Circuit had concluded that an appeal of a Convention return order was moot when the child had been returned to the foreign country, because the court “became powerless” to grant relief. 248 F. 3d, at 1055. In accordance with Bekier, the Court of Appeals remanded this case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the suit as moot and vacate its order.
On remand, the District Court did so, and also ordered Mr. Chafin to pay Ms. Chafin over $94,000 in court costs, attorney’s fees, and travel expenses. Meanwhile, the Alabama state court had dismissed the child custody proceeding initiated by Mr. Chafin for lack of jurisdiction. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, relying in part on the U. S. District Court’s finding that the child’s habitual residence was not Alabama, but Scotland.
We granted certiorari to review' the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 567 U. S. 960 (2012).
II
Article III of the Constitution restricts the power of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” Accordingly, “[t]o invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury-traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 477 (1990). Federal courts may not “decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them” or give “opinion[s] advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Ibid. (quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam); internal quotation marks omitted). The “ease-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Lewis, 494 U. S., at 477. “[I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed”; the parties must “continue to have a ‘personal stake’ ” in the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit. Id., at 477-478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 101 (1983); some internal quotation marks omitted).
There is thus no case or controversy, and a suit becomes moot, “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., ante, at 91 (quoting Murphy v Hunt, 455 U. S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam); some internal quotation marks omitted). But a case “becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U. S. 298, 307 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 12 (1992) (“if an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed” (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653 (1895))). “As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.” Knox, supra, at 307-308 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
III
This dispute is still very much alive. Mr. Chafin continues to contend that his daughter’s country of habitual residence is the United States, while Ms. Chafin maintains that E. C.’s home is in Scotland. Mr. Chafin also argues that even if E. C.’s habitual residence was Scotland, she should not have been returned because the Convention’s defenses to return apply. Mr. Chafin seeks custody of E. C., and wants to pursue that relief in the United States, while Ms. Chafin is pursuing that right for herself in Scotland. And Mr. Chafin wants the orders that he pay Ms. Chafin over $94,000 vacated, while Ms. Chafin asserts the money is rightfully owed.
On many levels, the Chafins continue to vigorously contest the question of where their daughter will be raised. This is not a case where a decision would address “a hypothetical state of facts.” Lewis, supra, at 477 (quoting Rice, supra, at 246; internal quotation marks omitted). And there is not the slightest doubt that there continues to exist between the parties “that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues.” Camreta v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 701 (2011) (quoting Lyons, supra, at 101; internal quotation marks omitted).
A
At this point in the ongoing dispute, Mr. Chafin seeks reversal of the District Court determination that E. C.’s habitual residence was Scotland and, if that determination is reversed, an order that E. C. be returned to the United States (or “re-return,” as the parties have put it). In short, Mr. Chafin is asking for typical appellate relief: that the Court of Appeals reverse the District Court and that the District Court undo what it has done. See Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 249 U. S. 134, 145-146 (1919); Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U. S. 216, 219 (1891) (“Jurisdiction to correct what had been wrongfully done must remain with the court so long as the parties and the case are properly before it, either in the first instance or when remanded to it by an appellate tribunal”). The question is whether such relief would be effectual in this case.
Ms. Chafin argues that this case is moot because the District Court lacks the authority to issue a re-return order either under the Convention or pursuant to its inherent equitable powers. But that argument—which goes to the meaning of the Convention and the legal availability of a certain kind of relief—confuses mootness with the merits. In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486 (1969), this Court held that a claim for backpay saved the case from mootness, even though the defendants argued that the backpay claim had been brought in the wrong court and therefore could not result in relief. As the Court explained, “this argument . . . confuses mootness with whether [the plaintiff] has established a right to recover ..., a question which it is inappropriate to treat at this stage of the litigation.” Id., at 500. Mr. Chafin’s claim for re-return—under the Convention itself or according to general equitable principles—cannot be dismissed as so implausible that it is insufficient to preserve jurisdiction, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 89 (1998), and his prospects of success are therefore not pertinent to the mootness inquiry.
As to the effectiveness of any relief, Ms. Chafin asserts that even if the habitual residence ruling were reversed and the District Court were to issue a re-return order, that relief would be ineffectual because Scotland would simply ignore it. But even if Scotland were to ignore a U. S. re-return order, or decline to assist in enforcing it, this case would not be moot. The U. S. courts continue to have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Chafin, may command her to take action even outside the United States, and may back up any such command with sanctions. See Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U. S. 280, 289 (1952); cf. Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U. S. 448, 451-452 (1932). No law of physics prevents E. C.’s return from Scotland, see Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F. 3d 491, 496 (CA4 2003), abrogated on other grounds, Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U. S. 1 (2010), and Ms. Chafin might decide to comply with an order against her and return E. C. to the United States, see, e. g., Larbie v. Larbie, 690 F. 3d 295, 303-304 (CA5 2012) (mother who had taken child to United Kingdom complied with Texas court sanctions order and order to return child to United States for trial), cert, pending, No. 12-304. After all, the consequence of compliance presumably would not be relinquishment of custody rights, but simply custody proceedings in a different forum.
Enforcement of the order may be uncertain if Ms. Chafin chooses to defy it, but such uncertainty does not typically render cases moot. Courts often adjudicate disputes where the practical impact of any decision is not assured. For example, courts issue default judgments against defendants who failed to appear or participate in the proceedings and therefore seem less likely to comply. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 55. Similarly, the fact that a defendant is insolvent does not moot a claim for damages. See 13C C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3583.3, p. 3 (3d ed. 2008) (cases not moot “even though the defendant does not seem able to pay any portion of the damages claimed”)- Courts also decide cases against foreign nations, whose choices to respect final rulings are not guaranteed. See, e. g., Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U. S. 677 (2004) (suit against Austria for return of paintings); Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U. S. 607 (1992) (suit against Argentina for repayment of bonds). And we have heard the Government’s appeal from the reversal of a conviction, even though the defendants had been deported, reducing the practical impact of any decision; we concluded that the case was not moot because the defendants might “re-enter this country on their own” and encounter the consequences of our ruling. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 581, n. 2 (1983).
So too here. A re-return order may not result in the return of E. C. to the United States, just as an order that an insolvent defendant pay $100 million may not make the plaintiff rich. But it cannot be said that the parties here have no “concrete interest” in whether Mr. Chafin secures a re-return order. Knox, 567 U. S., at 307 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[HJowever small” that concrete interest may be due to potential difficulties in enforcement, it is not simply a matter of academic debate, and is enough to save this case from mootness. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
B
Mr. Chafin also seeks, if he prevails, vacatur of the District Court’s expense orders. The District Court ordered Mr. Chafin to pay Ms. Chafin over $94,000 in court costs, attorney’s fees, and travel expenses. See Civ. No. 11-1461 (ND Ala., Mar. 7, 2012), pp. 15-16; Civ. No. 11-1461 (ND Ala., June 5, 2012), p. 2. That award was predicated on the District Court’s earlier judgment allowing Ms. Chafin to return with her daughter to Scotland. See Civ. No. 11-1461 (ND Ala., Mar. 7, 2012), pp. 2-3, and n. 2. Thus, in conjunction with reversal of the judgment, Mr. Chafin desires vacatur of the award. That too is common relief on appeal, see, e. g., Fawcett, supra, at 501, n. 6 (reversing costs and fees award when reversing on the issue of wrongful removal), and the mootness inquiry comes down to its effectiveness.
At oral argument, Ms. Chafin contended that such relief was “gone in this case,” and that the case was therefore moot, because Mr. Chafin had failed to pursue an appeal of the expense orders, which had been entered as separate judgments. Tr. of Oral Arg. 33; see Civ. No. 11-1461 (ND Ala., Mar. 7, 2012); Civ. No. 11-1461 (ND Ala., June 5, 2012). But this is another argument on the merits. Mr. Chafin’s requested relief is not so implausible that it may be disregarded on the question of jurisdiction; there is authority for the proposition that failure to appeal such judgments separately does not preclude relief. See 15B Wright, Miller, & Cooper, supra, §3915.6, at 230, and n. 39.5 (2d ed., Supp. 2012) (citing cases). It is thus for lower courts at later stages of the litigation to decide whether Mr. Chafin is in fact entitled to the relief he seeks—vacatur of the expense orders.
Such relief would of course not be “‘fully satisfactory/” but with respect to the case as whole, “even the availability of a ‘partial remedy’ is ‘sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot.’ ” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U. S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (quoting Church of Scientology, 506 U. S., at 13).
1—1 <1
Ms. Chafin is correct to emphasize that both the Hague Convention and ICARA stress the importance of the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained. We are also sympathetic to the concern that shuttling children back and forth between parents and across international borders may be detrimental to those children. But courts can achieve the ends of the Convention and ICARA—and protect the well-being of the affected children—through the familiar judicial tools of expediting proceedings and granting stays where appropriate. There is no need to manipulate constitutional doctrine and hold these cases moot. Indeed, doing so may very well undermine the goals of the treaty and harm the children it is meant to protect.
If these cases were to become moot upon return, courts would be more likely to grant stays as a matter of course, to prevent the loss of any right to appeal. See, e. g., Garrison v. Hudson, 468 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1984) (Burger, C. J., in chambers) (“When . . . the normal course of appellate review might otherwise cause the case to become moot, issuance of a stay is warranted” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nicolson v. Pappalardo, Civ. No. 10-1125 (CA1, Feb. 19, 2010) (‘Without necessarily finding a clear probabil-' ity that appellant will prevail, we grant the stay because . .. a risk exists that the case could effectively be mooted by the child’s departure”). In cases in which a stay would not be granted but for the prospect of mootness, a child would lose precious months when she could have been readjusting to life in her country of habitual residence, even though the appeal had little chance of success. Such routine stays due to mootness would be likely but would conflict with the Convention’s mandate of prompt return to a child’s country of habitual residence.
Routine stays could also increase the number of appeals. Currently, only about 15% of Hague Convention cases are appealed. Hague Conference on Private Int’l Law, N. Lowe, A Statistical Analysis of Applications Made in 2008 Under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Pt. Ill-National Reports 207 (2011). If losing parents were effectively guaranteed a stay, it seems likely that more would appeal, a scenario that would undermine the goal of prompt return and the best interests of children who should in fact be returned. A mootness holding here might also encourage flight in future Hague Convention cases, as prevailing parents try to flee the jurisdiction to moot the case. See Bekier, 248 F. 3d, at 1055 (mootness holding “to some degree conflicts with the purposes of the Convention: to prevent parents from fleeing jurisdictions to find a more favorable judicial forum”).
Courts should apply the four traditional stay factors in considering whether to stay a return order: “ ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 776 (1987)). In every case under the Hague Convention, the well-being of a child is at stake; application of the traditional stay factors ensures that each case will receive the individualized treatment necessary for appropriate consideration of the child’s best interests.
Importantly, whether at the district or appellate court level, courts can and should take steps to decide these cases as expeditiously as possible, for the sake of the children who find themselves in such an unfortunate situation. Many courts already do so. See Federal Judicial Center, J. Garbolino, The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: A Guide for Judges 116, n. 435 (2012) (listing courts that expedite appeals). Cases in American courts often take over two years from filing to resolution; for a 6-year-old such as E. C., that is one-third of her lifetime. Expedition will help minimize the extent to which uncertainty adds to the challenges confronting both parents and child.
* * *
The Hague Convention mandates the prompt return of children to their countries of habitual residence. But such return does not render this case moot; there is a live dispute between the parties over where their child will be raised, and there is a possibility of effectual relief for the prevailing parent. The courts below therefore continue to have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the parties’ respective claims.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Whether Scotland would do so is unclear; Ms. Chafin cited no authority for her assertion in her brief or at oral argument. In a recently issued decision from the Family Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, a judge of that court rejected the “concept of automatic re-return of a child in response to the overturn of [a] Hague order.” DL v. EL, [2013] EWHC (Fam.) 49, ¶59 (Judgt. of Jan. 17). The judge in that case did not ignore the pertinent re-return order—issued by the District Court in Larbie v. Larbie, 690 F. 3d 295 (CA5 2012), cert. pending, No. 12-304 [Reporter’s Note: See post, p. 1192]—but did not consider it binding in light of the proceedings in England.
Earlier in those proceedings, the Family Division of the High Court directed the parties to provide this Court with a joint statement on the status of those proceedings. This Court is grateful for that consideration.
Ms. Chafin suggests that the Scottish court’s ne exeat order prohibits E. C. from leaving Scotland. The ne exeat order, however, only prohibits Mr. Chafin from removing E. C. from Scotland; it does not constrain Ms. Chafin in the same way.
The award was predicated on the earlier judgment even though that judgment was vacated. The District Court cited Eleventh Circuit cases for the proposition that if a plaintiff obtains relief before a district court and the case becomes moot on appeal, the plaintiff is still a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees. We express no view on that question. The fact remains that the District Court ordered Mr. Chafin to pay attorney’s fees and travel expenses based on its earlier ruling. A reversal, as opposed to vacatur, of the earlier ruling could change the prevailing party calculus and afford Mr. Chafin effective relief.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present questions concerning the standards governing the preparation and review of reports of commissions appointed by district courts under Rule 71A (h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to determine the issue of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings. Some of the property interests taken are fee interests and some are flowage easements, road easements, and clearance easements.
In No. 79 the District Court instructed the Commissioners on the standards of “just compensation/’ the factors that could be considered in determining it, the weight to be given the opinion of competent experts, the burden of proof, the conduct of the hearing to be held, and the propriety of viewing the lands in question. And they were instructed to file a written report “setting forth separately your findings of fact and conclusions of law and the amount of just compensation to which you think each property owner or claimant is entitled.”
In No. 65 the District Court gave no instructions to the Commissioners, so far as the record shows.
The hearing in each case was transcribed by a reporter. In each, both the landowners and the Government produced witnesses. In No. 65 the effect of clearance easements on agricultural uses and on mineral values was contested. In No. 79 the testimony was widely at variance on the value of the fees. Severance damages were also hotly contested. The value of improvements was also at issue as respects one property.
In No. 65 the Commission filed a report in which it listed each tract, following which it added a dollar figure for “Damages Assessed.” The Government objected to the adequacy of the report, as a result of which a supplemental one was filed which described in greater detail the clearance easements taken and stated that the highest and best use of the land was for general agricultural purposes. The supplemental report added that: (1) the United States was entitled to take the property and the landowners were entitled to just compensation; (2) just compensation was to be determined by subtracting the value of the landowners’ interests immediately after the taking from their value immediately before the taking; (3) the use to which the Government would put the area taken by the clearance easements was not an issue in the case; and (4) certain evidence pertaining to a tract taken in fee simple was stricken, and the Government’s motion to strike the testimony of one witness for the landowners was overruled.
In No. 79 three reports, one covering each landowner, were filed. Each report contained capsule résumés of all testimony heard, and, as findings of fact, set forth a description of the interests taken, the lands’ highest and best use, the acreage remaining after the taking and the amount of severance damage to it, the value of the fees taken and of each easement, and the total awards. Each report also stated that the United States had the right to take the land and that the landowners were entitled to just compensation, including severance damages. One report stated that a government objection to certain evidence had been overruled. The first report, in addition to placing a lump sum value on the fee interest taken, allowed no severance damage for the “home place,” four miles away, and yet granted $15,785 severance damages to other portions of the remaining tract without explication and in spite of the fact that the landowner’s expert fixed severance damages, apart from the “home place,” at $12,435. In the second report the landowner’s expert witness valued the entire tract at $52,500, the land taken at $36,125, and improvements at $12,700. The Government’s experts did not value improvements separately but assessed the fee interest taken at $34,000. The Commission, without any findings concerning improvements, awarded $52,950 — a sum in excess of the valuation placed on the full 400 acres by the landowner’s expert — as compensation for taking about 330 acres. And it awarded $3,500 for severance damages though the highest estimate was $1,275. The third report valued lands at $105,080 while the landowner’s own expert valued them at $93,693. The Commission also awarded severance damages without any indication as to the basis for them.
In both No. 65 and No. 79, the District Courts adopted the Commissions’ reports, setting forth no additional or supplementary grounds of decision nor taking further evidence to resolve any of the objections tendered by the Government. In No. 65 the Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that, although there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to the amount of the damages, the awards were well within the range of the conflicting testimony. 306 F. 2d 39, 42. In No. 79 the Court of Appeals remanded for resubmission to the Commissioners, saying that the reports did not indicate which evidence the Commission credited and which it discredited, the degree to which the awards were based on the testimony of comparable sales, whether the sales were in fact comparable, and to whait extent the awards depended on the opinions of nonexpert witnesses. 310 F. 2d 775, 777, 779. The cases are here on writs of certiorari. 372 U. S. 974, 975.
The use of a commission to resolve the issue of just compensation is justified by the facility with which commissioners may inspect the property and a likelihood that uniformity of awards may be realized expeditiously. At the same time, there is danger that commissioners, unlike juries, may use their own expertise and not act as a deliberative body applying constitutional standards. A jury, until it retires, sits under the direct supervision of the judge, who rules on the admissibility of evidence, who sees that witnesses are properly qualified as experts, and who polices the entire hearing, keeping it within bounds. Then in due course the judge instructs the jury on the law, answering any inquiries its members may have on the law. The jury is under surveillance from start to finish and subject to judicial control. Hence its general verdict that the land is worth so many dollars is not overturned for lack of particularized findings.
The judge who uses commissioners, however, establishes a tribunal that may become free-wheeling, taking the law from itself, unless subject to close supervision. The first responsibility of the District Court, apart from the selection of responsible commissioners, is careful instruction of them on the law. That was done in one of the present cases. But the instructions should explain with some particularity the qualifications of expert witnesses, the weight to be given other opinion evidence, competent evidence of value, the best evidence of value, illustrative examples of severance damages, and the like. The commissioners should be instructed as to the manner of the hearing and the method of conducting it, of the right to view the property, and of the limited purpose of viewing. They should be instructed on the kind of evidence that is inadmissible and the manner of ruling on it.
The commissioners should also be instructed as to the kind of report to be filed. Since by Rule 71A (h) the report has the effect of a master’s findings of fact under Rule 53 (e)(2), the commission should be instructed as to what kind of findings should be included. Conclusory findings are alone not sufficient, for the commission’s findings shall be accepted by the court “unless clearly erroneous” ; and conclusory findings as made in these cases are normally not reviewable by that standard, even when the District Court reads the record, for it will have no way of knowing what path the commissioners took through the maze of conflicting evidence. See United States v. Lewis, 308 F. 2d 453, 458. The commissioners need not make detailed findings such as judges do who try a case without a jury. Commissioners, we assume, will normally be laymen, inexperienced in the law. But laymen can be instructed to reveal the reasoning they use in deciding on a particular award, what standard they try to follow, which line of testimony they adopt, what measure of severance damages they use, and so on. We do not say that every contested issue raised on the record before the commission must be resolved by a separate finding of fact. We do not say that there must be an array of findings of subsidiary facts to demonstrate that the ultimate finding of value is soundly and legally based. The path followed by the commissioners in reaching the amount of the award can, however, be distinctly marked. Such a requirement is within the competence of laymen; and laymen, like judges, will give more careful consideration to the problem if they are required to state not only the end result of their inquiry, but the process by which they reached it.
Moreover, the litigants have a responsibility to assist the process by specifying their objections to instructions, by offering alternate ones, and by making their timely objections to the report in specific, rather than in generalized form, as required by equity practice. See Sheffield & Birmingham R. Co. v. Gordon, 151 U. S. 285, 290, 291.
If those procedures are followed and the District Court adopts the report, as it may under Rule 53 (e)(2), the Court of Appeals will have some guidelines to help it determine whether the report is “clearly erroneous” within the meaning of Rule 53 (e)(2). If the use of those guidelines by the District Court leaves it in doubt, there are alternatives. It may “modify” the report on the basis of the record made before the commissioners, or it “may reject it in whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions” — all as provided in Rule 53 (e)(2). We think the District Court in each of these cases should have the opportunity under Rule 53 (e) (2) to make its decision afresh, in light of this opinion. We write on a clean slate against a background of a contrariety of views among the circuits. The reports in each of these cases leave much to be desired, measured by the standards we have suggested. None of the reports should have been adopted without more by the District Court. On remand, its informed discretion will be used to determine whether the matters should be resubmitted in whole or in part to the respective commissioners or whether, in light of the exigencies of the particular case, the court should itself resolve the disputes on the existing records, or on those records as supplemented by further evidence.
The judgment in No. 65 is reversed and the judgments in No. 79 are modified and each is remanded to the District Court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Rule 71A (h) provides:
"(h) Trial.
“If the action involves the exercise of the power of eminent domain under the law of the United States, any tribunal specially constituted by an Act of Congress governing the case for the trial of the issue of just compensation shall be the tribunal for the determination of that issue; but if there is no such specially constituted tribunal any party may have a trial by jury of the issue of just compensation by filing a demand therefor within the time allowed for answer or within such further time as the court may fix, unless the court in its discretion orders that, because of the character, location, or quantity of the property to be condemned, or for other reasons in the interest of justice, the issue of compensation shall be determined by a commission of three persons appointed by it. If a commission is appointed it shall have the powers of a master provided in subdivision (c) of Rule 53 and proceedings before it shall be governed by the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (d) of Rule 53. Its action and report shall be determined by a majority and its findings and report shall have the effect, and be dealt with by the court in accordance with the practice, prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Rule 53. Trial of all issues shall otherwise be by the court.”
Rule 53 provides in relevant part:
“(e) Report.
“ (2) In Non-Jury Actions. In an action to be tried without a jury the court shall accept the master’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. Within 10 days after being served with notice of the filing of the report any party may serve written objections thereto upon the other parties. Application to the court for action upon the report and upon objections thereto shall be by motion and upon notice as prescribed in Rule 6 (d). The court after hearing may adopt the report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions.”
As to the history of Rule 71A (h) see 7 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1955), pp. 2709-2712; Nealy, Rule 71A (h) in Federal Condemnation Proceedings, 23 Fed. Bar Jour. 45 (1963); H. R. Rep. No. 739, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 502, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 112, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.; Preliminary Draft of Proposed Rule to Govern Condemnation Cases, Advisory Committee on Rules for Civil Procedure, June 1947.
For the Rule in operation see Annual Report, Judicial Conference of the United States, 1961, pp. 17, 106, 254; Annual Report, Judicial Conference of the United States, 1962, pp. 30, 212-214; H. R. Rep. No. 1467, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 11.
No question is presented concerning the right to jury trial notwithstanding Rule 71A (h). While the Government asked for a jury trial in both eases, the question was not preserved nor brought here.
See Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., v. United, States, 371 U. S. 156, 167-168; United States v. Forness, 125 F. 2d 928, 942-943; United States v. Lewis, 308 F. 2d 453, 456.
The Hague Convention of October 18, 1907, by Article 79 provided that an arbitration award “must give the reasons on which it is based.” Chief Justice Hughes — then Secretary of State — said in a ease involving that provision: it “does not mean that the statement of reasons must be cast in any artificial form, much less that the reasons given should be those which the defeated party would recognize as adequate.” The Secretary of State to President Harding, Jan. 11,1923, II Foreign Relations of the United States, 1923, pp. 617, 620.
See United States v. 44 Acres of Land, 234 F. 2d 410, 414; United States v. Twin City Power Co., 248 F. 2d 108, 112; United States v. Certain Interests in Property, 296 F. 2d 264, 268; United States v. Carroll, 304 F. 2d 300, 303-304.
See United States v. Carroll, supra, 303-304.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Souter join, dissenting.
This case involves a patent that claims a process for helping to diagnose deficiencies of two vitamins, folate and cobalamin. The process consists of using any test (whether patented or unpatented) to measure the level in a body fluid of an amino acid called homocysteine and then noticing whether its level is elevated above the norm; if so, a vitamin deficiency is likely.
The lower courts held that the patent claim is valid. They also found the petitioner, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), liable for inducing infringement of the claim when it encouraged doctors to order diagnostic tests for measuring homocysteine. The courts assessed damages. And they enjoined LabCorp from using any tests that would lead the doctors it serves to find a vitamin deficiency by taking account of elevated homocysteine levels.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the patent claim is invalid on the ground that it improperly seeks to “claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship,” Pet. for Cert, i, namely, the relationship between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency. The Court has dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. In my view, we should not dismiss the writ. The question presented is not unusually difficult. We have the authority to decide it. We said that we would do so. The parties and amici have fully briefed the question. And those who engage in medical research, who practice medicine, and who as patients depend upon proper health care might well benefit from this Court’s authoritative answer.
I
A
The relevant principle of law “[e]xelude[s] from .. . patent protection . . . laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981). This principle finds its roots in both English and American law. See, e. g., Neilson v. Harford, Webster’s Patent Cases 295, 371 (1841); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853); O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 (1854); The Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1 (1888). The principle means that Einstein could not have “patented] his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 309 (1980). Neither can one patent “a novel and useful mathematical formula,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584, 585 (1978), the motive power of electromagnetism or steam, Morse, supra, at 116, “the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals,” Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 130 (1948).
The justification for the principle does not lie in any claim that “laws of nature” are obvious, or that their discovery is easy, or that they are not useful. To the contrary, research into such matters may be costly and time consuming; monetary incentives may matter; and the fruits of those incentives and that research may prove of great benefit to the human race. Rather, the reason for the exclusion is that sometimes too much patent protection can impede rather than “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” the constitutional objective of patent and copyright protection. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
The problem arises from the fact that patents do not only encourage research by providing monetary incentives for invention. Sometimes their presence can discourage research by impeding the free exchange of information, for example by forcing researchers to avoid the use of potentially patented ideas, by leading them to conduct costly and time-consuming searches of existing or pending patents, by requiring complex licensing arrangements, and by raising the costs of using the patented information, sometimes prohibitively so.
Patent law seeks to avoid the dangers of overprotection just as surely as it seeks to avoid the diminished incentive to invent that underprotection can threaten. One way in which patent law seeks to sail between these opposing and risky shoals is through rules that bring certain types of invention and discovery within the scope of patentability while excluding others. And scholars have noted that “patent law[’s] exclusion of] fundamental scientific (including mathematical) and technological principles” (like copyright’s exclusion of “ideas”) is a rule of the latter variety. W. Landes & R. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law 305 (2003). That rule reflects “both . . . the enormous potential for rent seeking that would be created if property rights could be obtained in [those basic principles] and . . . the enormous transaction costs that would be imposed on would-be users.” Id., at 305-306; cf. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119, 122 (CA2 1930) (L. Hand, J.).
Thus, the Court has recognized that “[phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are . . . the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 67 (1972). It has treated fundamental scientific principles as “part of the storehouse of knowledge” and manifestations of laws of nature as “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Funk Bros., supra, at 130. And its doing so reflects a basic judgment that protection in such cases, despite its potentially positive incentive effects, would too often severely interfere with, or discourage, development and the further spread of useful knowledge itself.
B
In the 1980’s three university doctors, after conducting research into vitamin deficiencies, found a correlation between high levels of homocysteine in the blood and deficiencies of two essential vitamins, folate (folic acid) and cobalamin (vitamin B12). They also developed more accurate methods for testing body fluids for homocysteine, using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. They published their findings in 1985. They obtained a patent. And that patent eventually found its commercial way into the hands of Competitive Technologies, Inc. (CTI), and its licensee Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. (Metabolite), the respondents here.
The patent contains several claims that cover the researchers’ new methods for testing homocysteine levels using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Supp. App. 30. In 1991, LabCorp (in fact, a corporate predecessor) took a license from Metabolite permitting it to use the tests described in the patent in return for 27.5% of related revenues. Their agreement permitted LabCorp to terminate the arrangement if “a more cost effective commercial alternative is available that does not infringe a valid and enforceable claim of” the patent. App. 305 (emphasis added).
Until 1998, LabCorp used the patented tests and paid royalties. By that time, however, growing recognition that elevated homocysteine levels might predict risk of heart disease led to increased testing demand. Other companies began to produce alternative testing procedures. And LabCorp decided to use one of these other procedures—a test devised by Abbott Laboratories that LabCorp concluded was “far superior.” Id., at 167 (testimony of Peter Wentz).
LabCorp continued to pay royalties to respondents whenever it used the patented tests. But it concluded that Abbott’s test did not fall within the patent’s protective scope. And LabCorp consequently refused to pay royalties when it used the Abbott test. Id., at 237 (payment eliminated due to “change in methodology”).
In response, respondents brought this suit against Lab-Corp for patent infringement and breach of the license agreement. They did not claim that LabCorp’s use of the Abbott test infringed the patent’s claims describing methods for testing for homocysteine. Instead, respondents relied on a broader claim not limited to those tests, namely, claim 13, the sole claim at issue here. That claim—set forth below in its entirety—seeks patent protection for:
“A method for detecting a deficiency of cobalamin or folate in warm-blooded animals comprising the steps of: “assaying a body fluid for an elevated level of total homocysteine; and
“correlating an elevated level of total homocysteine in said body fluid with a deficiency of cobalamin or folate.” Supp. App. 30.
Claim 13, respondents argued, created a protected monopoly over the process of “correlating” test results and potential vitamin deficiencies. The parties agreed that the words “assaying a body fluid” refer to the use of any test at all, whether patented or not patented, that determines whether a body fluid has an “elevated level of total homocysteine.” And at trial, the inventors testified that claim 13’s “correlating” step consists simply of a physician’s recognizing that a test that shows an elevated homocysteine level—by that very fact—shows the patient likely has a cobalamin or folate deficiency. App. 108-111 (testimony of Dr. Sally Stabler); id., at 137-142, 155-161 (testimony of Dr. Robert Allen). They added that, because the natural relationship between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency was now well known, such “correlating” would occur automatically in the mind of any competent physician. Id., at 137-138 (same).
On this understanding of the claim, respondents argued, LabCorp was liable for inducing doctors to infringe. More specifically, LabCorp would conduct homocysteine tests and report the results measured in micromoles (millionths of a mole) per liter (symbolized mol/L). Doctors, because of their training, would know that a normal homocysteine range in blood is between 7 and 22 mol/L (and in urine between 1 and 20 mol/L), Supp. App. 14, and would know that an elevated homocysteine level is correlated with a vitamin deficiency. Hence, in reviewing the test results, doctors would look at the mol/L measure and automatically reach a conclusion about whether or not a person was suffering from a vitamin deficiency. Claim 13 therefore covered every homo-cysteine test that a doctor reviewed. And since LabCorp had advertised its tests and educated doctors about the correlation, LabCorp should be liable for actively inducing the doctors’ infringing acts. See 35 U. S. C. § 271(b).
The jury found LabCorp liable on this theory. The District Court calculated damages based on unpaid royalties for some 350,000 homocysteine tests performed by LabCorp using the Abbott method. The court also enjoined LabCorp from performing “any homocysteine-only test, including, without limitation homocysteine-only tests via the Abbott method.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a-37a (internal quotation marks omitted).
LabCorp appealed. It argued to the Federal Circuit that the trial court was wrong to construe claim 13 so broadly that infringement took place “every time a physician does nothing more than look at a patient’s homocysteine level.” Corrected Brief for Appellant in No. 03-1120 (CA Fed.), p. 28 (hereinafter Brief for Appellant). Indeed, if so construed (rather than construed, say, to cover only patented tests), then claim 13 was “invalid for indefiniteness, lack of written description, non-enablement, anticipation, and obviousness.” Id., at 38. LabCorp told the Federal Circuit:
“If the Court were to uphold this vague claim, anyone could obtain a patent on any scientific correlation—that there is a link between fact A and fact B—merely by drafting a patent claiming no more than ‘test for fact A and correlate with fact B’.. . . Claim 13 does no more than that. If it is upheld, CTI would improperly gain a monopoly over a basic scientific fact rather than any novel invention of its own. The law is settled that no such claim should be allowed. See, e. g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981).. .; Chisum on Patents § 1.03[6].” Id., at 41.
The Federal Circuit rejected LabCorp’s arguments. It agreed with the District Court that claim 13’s “correlating” step simply means “relating total homocysteine levels to cobalamin or folate deficiency, a deficiency in both, or a deficiency in neither.” 370 F. 3d 1354, 1363 (2004). That meaning, it said, is “discernible and clear”; it is definite, it is described in writing, and it would enable virtually anyone to follow the instruction it gives. And that is sufficient. Id., at 1366-1367. The Court did not address LabCorp’s argument that, if so construed, claim 13 must be struck down as an improper effort to obtain patent protection for a law of nature.
Moreover, the Circuit concluded, because any competent doctor reviewing test results would automatically correlate those results with the presence or absence of a vitamin deficiency, virtually every doctor who ordered and read the tests was a direct infringer. And because LabCorp “publishes ... Continuing Medical Education articles” and other pieces, which urge doctors to conduct the relevant tests and to reach a conclusion about whether a patient is suffering from a vitamin deficiency based upon the test results, LabCorp induces infringement. Id., at 1365. Finally, the court rejected LabCorp’s challenge to the injunction. Id., at 1372.
LabCorp filed a petition for certiorari. Question Three of the petition asks “[wjhether a method patent. .. directing a party simply to ‘correlat[e]’ test results can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship . . . such that any doctor necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking about the relationship after looking at a test result.” Pet. for Cert. i. After calling for and receiving the views of the Solicitor General, 543 U. S. 1185 (2005), we granted the petition, limited to Question Three.
II
The question before us is whether claim 13, as construed and applied in the way I have described in Part I-B, is invalid in light of the “law of nature” principle, described in Part I-A. I believe that we should answer that question. There is a technical procedural reason for not doing so, namely, that LabCorp did not refer in the lower courts to § 101 of the Patent Act, which sets forth subject matter that is patentable, and within the bounds of which the “law of nature” principle most comfortably fits. See 35 U. S. C. §101 (patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”); Flook, 437 U. S., at 588-589. There is also a practical reason for not doing so, namely, that we might benefit from the views of the Federal Circuit, which did not directly consider the question. See, e. g., United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U. S. 51, 72-73 (1998).
Nonetheless, stronger considerations argue for our reaching a decision. For one thing, the technical procedural objection is tenuous. LabCorp argued the essence of its present claim below. It told the Federal Circuit that claim 13 as construed by the District Court was too “vague” because that construction would allow “anyone” to “obtain a patent on any scientific correlation”; it would permit the respondents “improperly [to] gain a monopoly over a basic scientific fact” despite “settled” law “that no such claim should be allowed.” Brief for Appellant 41 (citing Diehr, 450 U. S., at 185; 1 D. Chisum, Patents §1.03[6] (2006 ed.) (hereinafter Chisum)). LabCorp explicitly stated in its petition for certiorari that, “[i]f the Court allows the Federal Circuit opinion to stand ... [respondents] would improperly gain monopolies over basic scientific facts rather than any novel inventions of their own.” Pet. for Cert. 25 (citing Diehr, supra; Gottschalk, 409 U. S. 63; Funk Bros., 333 U. S. 127; Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U. S. 86 (1939)). And after considering the Solicitor General’s advice not to hear the case (primarily based upon LabCorp’s failure to refer to 35 U. S. C. § 101), we rejected that advice, thereby “necessarily considering] and rejecting] that contention as a basis for denying review.” United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. 36, 40 (1992).
For another thing, I can find no good practical reason for refusing to decide the case. The relevant issue has been fully briefed and argued by the parties, the Government, and 20 amici. The record is comprehensive, allowing us to learn the precise nature of the patent claim, to consider the commercial and medical context (which the parties and amici have described in detail), and to become familiar with the arguments made in all courts. Neither the factual record nor the briefing suffers from any significant gap. No party has identified any prejudice due to our answering the question. And there is no indication that LabCorp’s failure to cite § 101 reflected unfair gamesmanship.
Of course, further consideration by the Federal Circuit might help us reach a better decision. Lower court consideration almost always helps. But the thoroughness of the briefing leads me to conclude that the extra time, cost, and uncertainty that further proceedings would engender are not worth the potential benefit.
Finally, I believe that important considerations of the public interest—including that of clarifying the law in this area sooner rather than later—argue strongly for our deciding the question presented now. See Part IV, infra.
Ill
I turn to the merits. The researchers who obtained the present patent found that an elevated level of homocysteine in a warmblooded animal is correlated with folate and cobalamin deficiencies. As construed by the Federal Circuit, claim 13 provides those researchers with control over doctors’ efforts to use that correlation to diagnose vitamin deficiencies in a patient. Does the law permit such protection or does claim 13, in the circumstances, amount to an invalid effort to patent a “phenomenon of nature”?
I concede that the category of nonpatentable “[phenomena of nature,” like the categories of “mental processes” and “abstract intellectual concepts,” is not easy to define. See Flook, supra, at 589 (“The line between a patentable ‘process’ and an unpatentable ‘principle’ is not always clear”); cf. Nichols, 45 F. 2d, at 122 (“[W]e are as aware as anyone that the line [between copyrighted material and non-copyrightable ideas], wherever it is drawn, will seem arbitrary”). After all, many a patentable invention rests upon its inventor’s knowledge of natural phenomena; many “process” patents seek to make abstract intellectual concepts workably concrete; and all conscious human action involves a mental process. See generally 1 Chisum § 1.03, at 1-78 to 1-295. Nor can one easily use such abstract categories directly to distinguish instances of likely beneficial, from likely harmful, forms of protection. Cf. FTC, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, ch. 3, p. 1 (Oct. 2003) (hereinafter FTC) (collecting evidence that “issues of fixed cost recovery, alternative appropriability mechanisms, and relationships between initial and follow-on innovation” vary by industry); Burk & Lemley, Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 Va. L. Rev. 1575, 1577-1589 (2003) (“Recent evidence has demonstrated that this complex relationship [between patents and innovation] is . . . industry-specific at each stage of the patent process”).
But this case is not at the boundary. It does not require us to consider the precise scope of the “natural phenomenon” doctrine or any other difficult issue. In my view, claim 13 is invalid no matter how narrowly one reasonably interprets that doctrine.
There can be little doubt that the correlation between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency set forth in claim 13 is a “natural phenomenon.” That is what the petitioner argues. It is what the Solicitor General has told us. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19 (filed Dec. 23, 2005) (“The natural relationship between elevated total homocysteine and deficiencies in the B vitamins is an unpatentable ‘principle in natural philosophy or physical science’ ” (quoting Morse, 15 How., at 116)). Indeed, it is close to what the respondents concede. Brief for Respondents 31 (“The correlation between total homocysteine and deficiencies in cobalamin and folate that the Inventors discovered could be considered, standing alone, a ‘natural phenomenon’ in the literal sense: It is an observable aspect of biochemistry in at least some human populations”).
The respondents argue, however, that the correlation is nonetheless patentable because claim 13 packages it in the form of a “process” for detecting vitamin deficiency, with discrete testing and correlating steps. They point to this Court’s statements that a “process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature,” Flook, 437 U. S., at 590; see also Gottschalk, supra, at 67, and that “an application of a law of nature ... to a known . . . process may well be deserving of patent protection,” Diehr, supra, at 187. They add that claim 13 is a patentable “application of a law of nature” because, considered as a whole, it (1) “Entails A Physical Transformation Of Matter,” namely,' the alteration of a blood sample during whatever test is used, Brief for Respondents 33 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 788 (1877); Gottschalk, 409 U. S., at 70), and because it (2) "produces a 'useful, concrete, and tangible result,’” namely, detection of a vitamin deficiency, Brief for Respondents 36 (citing State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F. 3d 1368, 1373 (CA Fed. 1998)).
In my view, however, the cases to which the respondents refer do not support their claim. Neither Cochrane nor Gottschalk can help them because the process described in claim 13 is not a process for transforming blood or any other matter. Claim 13’s process instructs the user to (1) obtain test results and (2) think about them. Why should it matter if the test results themselves were obtained through an unpatented procedure that involved the transformation of blood? Claim 13 is indifferent to that fact, for it tells the user to use any test at all. Indeed, to use virtually any natural phenomenon for virtually any useful purpose could well involve the use of empirical information obtained through an unpatented means that might have involved transforming matter. Neither Cochrane nor Gottschalk suggests that that fact renders the phenomenon patentable. See Cochrane, supra, at 785 (upholding process for improving quality of flour by removing impurities with blasts of air); Gottschalk, supra, at 71-73 (rejecting process for converting numerals to binary form through mathematical formula).
Neither does the Federal Circuit’s decision in State Street Bank help the respondents. That case does say that a process is patentable if it produces a " 'useful, concrete and tangible result.’ ” 149 F. 3d, at 1373. But this Court has never made such a statement and, if taken literally, the statement would cover instances where this Court has held the contrary. The Court, for example, has invalidated a claim to the use of electromagnetic current for transmitting messages over long distances even though it produces a result that seems “useful, concrete, and tangible.” Morse, supra, at 116. Similarly the Court has invalidated a patent setting forth a system for triggering alarm limits in connection with catalytic conversion despite a similar utility, concreteness, and tangibility. Flook, supra. And the Court has invalidated a patent setting forth a process that transforms, for computer-programming purposes, decimal figures into binary figures—even though the result would seem useful, concrete, and at least arguably (within the computer’s wiring system) tangible. Gottschalk, supra.
Even were I to assume (purely for argument’s sake) that claim 13 meets certain general definitions of process patent-ability, however, it still fails the one at issue here: the requirement that it not amount to a simple natural correlation, i. e., a “natural phenomenon.” See Flook, supra, at 588, n. 9 (even assuming patent for improved catalytic converter system meets broad statutory definition of patentable “process,” it is invalid under natural phenomenon doctrine); Diehr, 450 U. S., at 184-185 (explaining that, even if patent meets all other requirements, it must meet the natural phenomena requirement as well).
At most, respondents have simply described the natural law at issue in the abstract patent language of a “process.” But they cannot avoid the fact that the process is no more than an instruction to read some numbers in light of medical knowledge. Cf. id., at 192 (warning against “allowing] a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection”). One might, of course, reduce the “process” to a series of steps, e. g., Step 1: gather data; Step 2: read a number; Step 3: compare the number with the norm; Step 4: act accordingly. But one can reduce any process to a series of steps. The question is what those steps embody. And here, aside from the unpatented test, they embody only the correlation between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency that the researchers uncovered. In my view, that correlation is an unpatentable “natural phenomenon,” and I can find nothing in claim 13 that adds anything more of significance.
IV
If I am correct in my conclusion in Part III that the patent is invalid, then special public interest considerations reinforce my view that we should decide this case. To fail to do so threatens to leave the medical profession subject to the restrictions imposed by this individual patent and others of its kind. Those restrictions may inhibit doctors from using their best medical judgment; they may force doctors to spend unnecessary time and energy to enter into license agreements; they may divert resources from the medical task of health care to the legal task of searching patent files for similar simple correlations; they may raise the cost of health care while inhibiting its effective delivery. See Brief for American Clinical Laboratory Association as Amicus Curiae 8-13.
Even if Part III is wrong, however, it still would be valuable to decide this case. Our doing so would help diminish legal uncertainty in the area, affecting a “substantial number of patent claims.” See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12-14 (filed Aug. 26, 2005). It would permit those in the medical profession better to understand the nature of their legal obligations. It would help Congress determine whether legislation is needed. Cf. 35 U. S. C. § 287(c) (limiting liability of medical practitioners for performance of certain medical and surgical procedures).
In either event, a decision from this generalist Court could contribute to the important ongoing debate, among both specialists and generalists, as to whether the patent system, as currently administered and enforced, adequately reflects the “careful balance” that “the federal patent laws . . . em-bod[y].” Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U. S. 141, 146 (1989). See also eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C, 547 U. S. 388, 396-397 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring); FTC, ch. 4, at 1-44; Pollack, The Multiple Unconstitutionality of Business Method Patents: Common Sense, Congressional Consideration, and Constitutional History, 28 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L. J. 61 (2002); Pitofsky, Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Unresolved Issues at the Heart of the New Economy, 16 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 535, 542-546 (2001).
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine precisely what effect the Florida courts gave to the evidence petitioner presented in mitigation of his death sentence, and consequently to determine whether his death sentence meets federal constitutional requirements.
I
On the afternoon of February 6, 1982, petitioner Robert Parker and several others set off to recover money owed them for the delivery of illegal drugs. There followed a nightmarish series of events that ended in the early morning hours of February 7 with the deaths of Richard Padgett, Jody Dalton, and Nancy Sheppard.
A Duval County, Florida, grand jury indicted Parker, his former wife Elaine, Tommy Groover, and William Long for the first-degree murders of Padgett, Dalton, and Sheppard. Elaine Parker and Long entered negotiated pleas to second-degree murder. A jury convicted Groover of all three first-degree murders, and the judge sentenced him to death on two counts and life imprisonment on the third.
Parker’s jury convicted him of first-degree murder for the killings of Padgett and Sheppard and third-degree murder for the Dalton killing. At the advisory sentencing hearing, Parker presented evidence in mitigation of a death sentence and argued that such evidence also had been presented at trial. The jury found that sufficient aggravating circumstances existed to justify a death sentence as to both the Padgett and Sheppard murders, but that sufficient mitigating circumstances existed that outweighed these aggravating factors. The jury therefore recommended that Parker be sentenced to life imprisonment on both first-degree counts.
The trial judge, who has ultimate sentencing authority under Florida law, accepted the jury’s recommendation for the Padgett murder. The judge overrode the jury’s recommendation for the Sheppard murder, however, and sentenced Parker to death. The judge’s sentencing order explained that “this Court has carefully studied and considered all the evidence and testimony at trial and at advisory sentence proceedings.” App. 47. After reviewing the evidence of the various aggravating and mitigating circumstances defined by Florida statute, the judge found six aggravating circumstances present as to the Sheppard murder and no statutory mitigating circumstances. In the sentencing order, the judge did not discuss evidence of, or reach any explicit conclusions concerning, nonstatutory mitigating evidence. He did conclude that “[t]here are no mitigating circumstances that outweigh the aggravating circumstances in the first count (Padgett murder) and the second count (Sheppard murder).” 7d.,at61.
On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Parker’s convictions and sentences. Parker v. State, 458 So. 2d 750 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1088 (1985). The court concluded, however, that there was insufficient evidence to support two of the aggravating circumstances that the trial judge had relied upon in sentencing Parker to death: that the Sheppard murder was “especially heinous, atrocious and cruel,” and that the murder was committed during a robbery. 458 So. 2d, at 754. Nonetheless, the court affirmed the death sentence, its entire written analysis consisting of the following:
“The trial court found no mitigating circumstances to balance against the aggravating factors, of which four were properly applied. In light of these findings the facts suggesting the sentence of death are so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ. Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1975). The jury override was proper and the facts of this case clearly place it within the class of homicides for which the death penalty has been found appropriate.” Ibid.
Parker pursued state collateral review without success, and then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That court denied Parker’s petition as to his convictions, but granted the petition as to the imposition of the death penalty. App. 146. The court concluded that the trial judge had found no nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. The court also found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, and, in particular, to support the jury’s recommendation of a life sentence for the Sheppard murder. Because, under Florida law, a sentencing judge is to override a jury’s recommendation of life imprisonment only when “virtually no reasonable person could differ,” Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975) (per curiam), the District Court concluded that the failure of the trial judge to find the presence of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances fairly supported by the record rendered the death sentence unconstitutional. App. 139-142. The District Court also speculated that the trial judge might have failed even to consider non-statutory mitigating circumstances, thereby violating the rule of Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U. S. 393 (1987). App. 143. The court ordered the State of Florida to hold a resentencing hearing within 120 days, or to vacate the death sentence and impose a lesser sentence. Id., at 146.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 876 F. 2d 1470 (1989). That court agreed with the District Court that there was “copious evidence of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances presented by Parker during the sentencing phase.” Id., at 1475, n. 7. As a consequence, however, the Court of Appeals refused to read the trial judge’s silence as to nonstatutory mitigating circumstances as an indication that the judge did not consider or find such circumstances: “Under the facts of this case the only reasonable conclusion is that the trial judge found at least some mitigating factors to be present, but also found that they were outweighed by the aggravating factors also present. In his sentencing order, the judge wrote that ‘[tjhere are no mitigating circumstances that outweigh the aggravating circumstances in . . . the second count (Sheppard murder).’ (emphasis added).” Id., at 1475. The Court of Appeals found no constitutional error in Parker’s' convictions or death sentence. We granted certiorari, 497 U. S. 1023 (1990), and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.
II
Parker presents several related challenges to his death sentence. The crux of his contentions is that the Florida courts acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by failing to treat adequately the evidence he presented in mitigation of the sentence. This case is somewhat unusual in that we are required to reconstruct that which we are to review. The trial judge’s order imposing the challenged sentence does not state explicitly what effect the judge gave Parker’s nonstatu-tory mitigating evidence. We must first determine what precisely the trial judge found.
A Florida statute defines certain aggravating and mitigating circumstances relevant to the imposition of the death penalty. Fla. Stat. §§921.141(5), 921.141(6) (1985 and Supp. 1990). The death penalty may be imposed only where sufficient aggravating circumstances exist that outweigh mitigating circumstances. Fla. Stat. §921.141(3) (1985). A jury makes an initial sentencing recommendation to the judge; the judge imposes the sentence. §§921.141(2), 921.141(3). Both may consider only those aggravating circumstances described by statute. McCampbell v. State, 421 So. 2d 1072, 1075 (Fla. 1982) (per curiam). In counterbalance, however, they may consider any mitigating evidence, whether or not it goes to a statutory mitigating circumstance. Jacobs v. State, 396 So. 2d 713, 718 (Fla. 1981) (per curiam). If the jury recommends a life sentence rather than the death penalty, the judge may override that recommendation and impose a sentence of death only where “the facts suggesting a sentence of death [are] so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.” Tedder, supra, at 910.
The jury here recommended a life sentence for the Sheppard murder. The trial judge overrode that recommendation. In his sentencing order, the judge described in detail his factfinding as to each of the eight statutory aggravating and seven statutory mitigating circumstances. The judge found six aggravating circumstances present as to the Sheppard murder, and no statutory mitigating circumstances. App. 48-60. The sentencing order makes no specific mention of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. Under “Findings of the Court,” the order states: “There are no mitigating circumstances that outweigh the aggravating circumstances.” Id., at 60-61.
What did the trial judge conclude about nonstatutory mitigating evidence? There is no question that Parker presented such evidence. For example, several witnesses at trial, including witnesses for the State, testified that Parker was under the influence of large amounts of alcohol and various drugs, including LSD, during the murders. Tr. 1401-1402, 1497, 1540-1541, 1619, 1738-1739, 1834, 1836, 1880-1881. At the sentencing hearing, Parker’s attorney emphasized to the jury that none of Parker’s accomplices received a death sentence for the Sheppard murder. Billy Long, who admitted shooting Nancy Sheppard, had been allowed to plead guilty to second-degree murder. Id., at 2366, 2378, 2491-2496. Finally, numerous witnesses testified on Parker’s behalf at the sentencing hearing concerning his background and character. Their testimony indicated both a difficult childhood, including an abusive, alcoholic father, and a positive adult relationship with his own children and with his neighbors. Id., at 2322-2360.
We must assume that the trial judge considered all this evidence before passing sentence. For one thing, he said he did. The sentencing order states: “Before imposing sentence, this Court has carefully studied and considered all the evidence and testimony at trial and at advisory sentence proceedings, the presentence Investigation Report, the applicable Florida Statutes, the case law, and all other factors touching upon this case.” App. 47 (emphasis added). Under both federal and Florida law, the trial judge could not refuse to consider any mitigating evidence. See Jacobs, supra, at 718; Songer v. State, 365 So. 2d 696, 700 (Fla. 1978) (per curiam), cert. denied, 441 U. S. 956 (1979); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978) (plurality opinion). In his instructions to the jury concerning its sentencing recommendation, the judge explained that, in addition to the statutory mitigating factors, the jury could consider “[a]ny other aspect of the defendant’s character or record, and any other circumstances of the crime.” Tr. 2506-2507. Moreover, Parker’s nonstatutory mitigating evidence — drug and alcohol intoxication, more lenient sentencing for the perpetrator of the crime, character and background — was of a type that the Florida Supreme Court had in other cases found sufficient to preclude a jury override. See, for example, Norris v, State, 429 So. 2d 688, 690 (1983) (per curiam) (defendant claimed to be intoxicated); Buckrem v. State, 355 So. 2d 111, 113-114 (1978) (same); Malloy v. State, 382 So. 2d 1190, 1193 (1979) (per curiam) (lesser sentence for triggerman); McCampbell, supra, at 1075-1076 (background and character); Jacobs, supra, at 718 (same). The trial judge must have at least taken this evidence into account before passing sentence.
We also conclude that the trial judge credited much of this evidence, although he found that it did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. The judge instructed the jurors at the end of the sentencing hearing that they need be only “reasonably convinced” that a mitigating circumstance exists to consider it established. Tr. 2507; Florida Bar, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases 81 (1981 ed.). We assume the judge applied the same standard himself. He must, therefore, have found at least some nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. The evidence of Parker’s intoxication at the time of the murders was uncontroverted. There is also no question that Long, despite being the trig-german for the Sheppard murder, received a lighter sentence than Parker. Respondent conceded this fact in oral argument before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35. And, as noted, there was extensive evidence going to Parker’s personal history and character that might have provided some mitigation.
In addition, every court to have reviewed the record here has determined that the evidence supported a finding of non-statutory mitigating circumstances. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, in reviewing Parker’s habeas petition, concluded that there was more than enough evidence in this record to support such a finding. See App. 141-142; 876 F. 2d, at 1475. We agree. We note also that the jury found sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances in the Sheppard murder. The Florida Supreme Court did not make its own determination whether the evidence supported a finding of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. See Parker, 458 So. 2d, at 754, quoted supra, at 311. To the extent there is ambiguity in the sentencing order, we will not read it to be against the weight of the evidence.
Perhaps the strongest indication that the trial judge found nonstatutory mitigating circumstances is that the judge overrode the jury’s sentencing recommendation for the Sheppard murder, but not for the Padgett murder. The jury recommended a life sentence for both murders. The judge explicitly found six aggravating circumstances related to the Sheppard murder and five aggravating circumstances related to the Padgett murder. App. 56-60. The judge found no statutory mitigating circumstances as to either murder. Id., at 48-56. Yet he sentenced Parker to death for the Sheppard murder, but accepted the jury’s recommendation as to the Padgett murder. If the judge had found no nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, he would have had nothing to balance against the aggravating circumstances for either murder, and the judge presumably would have overridden both recommendations.
It must be that the judge sentenced differentially for the two murders because he believed that the evidence in the Sheppard murder was so “clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ” about the sentence of death, see Tedder, 322 So. 2d, at 910, whereas the evidence in the Padgett murder did not meet this test. Perhaps this decision was based solely on the fact that the judge had found six aggravating circumstances in the Sheppard murder but only five in the Padgett murder. Far more likely, however, is that the judge found nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, at least as to the Padgett murder. But, as the nonstatutory mitigating evidence was in general directed to both murders, there is no reason to think the judge did not find mitigation as to both.
The best evidence that the trial judge did not find any nonstatutory mitigating circumstances is that the sentencing order contains detailed findings as to statutory mitigating circumstances, but makes no explicit reference to nonstatu-tory evidence. There is a likely explanation for this fact. By statute, the sentencing judge is required to set forth explicitly his findings as to only the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Fla. Stat. §921.141(3) (1985). Florida case law at the time the trial judge entered Parker’s sentencing order required no more. See Mason v. State, 438 So. 2d 374, 380 (Fla. 1983) (trial judge need not expressly address each nonstatutory mitigating circumstance), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1051 (1984). Only very recently has the Florida Supreme Court established a requirement that a trial court must expressly evaluate in its sentencing order each nonstatutory mitigating circumstance proposed by the defendant. See Campbell v. State, 571 So. 2d 415 (1990). The absence of a requirement that the sentencing order contain specific findings as to nonstatutory mitigating circumstances probably explains why the order here discusses only those circumstances categorized by statute. Nonstatutory evidence, precisely because it does not fall into any predefined category, is considerably more difficult to organize into a coherent discussion; even though a more complete explanation is obviously helpful to a reviewing court, from the trial judge’s perspective it is simpler merely to conclude, in those cases where it is true, that such evidence taken together does not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. And so the judge did, stating that he found “no mitigating circumstances that outweigh the aggravating circumstances.” App. 61 (emphasis added). .
In light of the substantial evidence, much of it uncontro-verted, favoring mitigation, the differential sentences for the Sheppard and Padgett murders, and the fact that the judge indicated that he found no mitigating circumstances “that outweigh” aggravating circumstances, we must conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that the trial court found and weighed nonstatutory mitigating circumstances before sentencing Parker to death.
Ill
The Florida Supreme Court did not consider the evidence of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. On direct review of Parker’s sentence, the Florida Supreme Court struck two of the aggravating circumstances on which the trial judge had relied. The Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the death sentence because “[t]he trial court found no mitigating circumstances to balance against the aggravating factors.” Parker, 458 So. 2d, at 754. The Florida Supreme Court erred in its characterization of the trial judge’s findings, and consequently erred in its review of Parker’s sentence.
As noted, Florida is a weighing State; the death penalty may be imposed only where specified aggravating circumstances outweigh all mitigating circumstances. Fla. Stat. §921.141(3) (1985); McCampbell, 421 So. 2d, at 1075; Jacobs, 396 So. 2d, at 718. In a weighing State, when a reviewing court strikes one or more of the aggravating factors on which the sentencer relies, the reviewing court may, consistent with the Constitution, reweigh the remaining evidence or conduct a harmless error analysis. Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, 741 (1990). It is unclear what the Florida Supreme Court did here. It certainly did not conduct an independent reweighing of the evidence. In affirming Parker’s sentence, the court explicitly relied on what it took to be the trial judge’s finding of no mitigating circumstances. Parker, supra, at 754. Had it conducted an independent review of the evidence, the court would have had no need for such reliance. More to the point, the Florida Supreme Court has made it clear on several occasions that it does not reweigh the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See, e. g., Hudson v. State, 538 So. 2d 829, 831 (per curiam) (“It is not within this Court’s province to reweigh or reevaluate the evidence presented as to aggravating or mitigating circumstances”), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 875 (1989); Brown v. Waimwright, 392 So. 2d 1327, 1331-1332 (1981) (per curiam).
The Florida Supreme Court may have conducted a harmless error analysis. At the time it heard Parker’s appeal, this was its general practice in cases in which it had struck aggravating circumstances and the trial judge had found no mitigating circumstances. See Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964, 971 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U. S. 984 (1982); Elledge v. State, 346 So. 2d 998, 1002-1003 (1977). Perhaps the Florida Supreme Court conducted a harmless error analysis here: Believing that the trial judge properly had found four aggravating circumstances, and no mitigating circumstances to weigh against them, the Florida Supreme Court may have determined that elimination of two additional aggravating circumstances would have made no difference to the sentence.
But, as we have explained, the trial judge must have found mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court’s practice in such cases — where the court strikes one or more aggravating circumstances relied on by the trial judge and mitigating circumstances are present — is to remand for a new sentencing hearing. See ibid. See also Moody v. State, 418 So. 2d 989, 995 (1982). Following Clemons, a reviewing court is not compelled to remand. It may instead reweigh the evidence or conduct a harmless error analysis based on what the sentencer actually found. What the Florida Supreme Court could not do, but what it did, was to ignore the evidence of mitigating circumstances in the record and misread the trial judge’s findings regarding mitigating circumstances, and affirm the sentence based on a mis-charaeterization of the trial judge’s findings.
In Wainwright v. Goode, 464 U. S. 78, 83-85 (1983), the Court held that a federal court on habeas review must give deference to a state appellate court’s resolution of an ambiguity in a state trial court statement. We did not decide in Goode whether the issue resolved by the state appellate court was . properly characterized as one of law or of fact. In this case, we conclude that a determination of what the trial judge found is an issue of historical fact. It depends on an examination of the transcript of the trial and sentencing hearing, and the sentencing order. This is not a legal issue; no determination of the legality of Parker’s sentence under Florida law necessarily follows from a resolution of the question of what the trial judge found.
Because it is a factual issue, the deference we owe is that designated by 28 U. S. C. § 2254. In ruling on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a federal court is not to overturn a factual conclusion of a state court, including a state appellate court, unless the conclusion is not “fairly supported by the record.” §2254(d)(8); Goode, supra, at 85. For the reasons stated, we find that the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion that the trial judge found no mitigating circumstances is not fairly supported by the record in this case.
>
“If a State has determined that death should be an available penalty for certain crimes, then it must administer that penalty in a way that can rationally distinguish between those individuals for whom death is an appropriate sanction and those for whom it is not.” Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 460 (1984). The Constitution prohibits the arbitrary or irrational imposition of the death penalty. Id., at 466-467. We have emphasized repeatedly the crucial role of meaningful appellate review in ensuring that the death penalty is not imposed arbitrarily or irrationally. See, e. g., Clemons, supra, at 749 (citing cases); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976). We have held specifically that the Florida Supreme Court’s system of independent review of death sentences minimizes the risk of constitutional error, and have noted the “crucial protection” afforded by such review in jury override cases. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 295 (1977). See also Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 253 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Spaziano, supra, at 465. The Florida Supreme Court did not conduct an independent review here. In fact, there is a sense in which the court did not review Parker’s sentence at all.
It cannot be gainsaid that meaningful appellate review requires that the appellate court consider the defendant’s actual record. “What is important... is an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.” Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 879 (1983). See also Clemons, supra, at 749, 752; Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S. 939, 958 (1983) (plurality opinion). The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Parker’s death sentence neither based on a review of the individual record in this case nor in reliance on the trial judge’s findings based on that record, but in reliance on some other nonexistent findings.
The jury found sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances and recommended that Parker be sentenced to life imprisonment for the Sheppard murder. The trial judge found nonstatutory mitigating circumstances related to the Sheppard murder. The judge also declined to override the jury’s recommendation as to the Padgett murder, even though he found five statutory aggravating circumstances and no statutory mitigating circumstances related to that crime. The Florida Supreme Court then struck two of the aggravating circumstances on which the trial judge had relied. On these facts, the Florida Supreme Court’s affirmance of Parker’s death sentence based on four aggravating circumstances and the trial judge’s “finding” of no mitigating circumstances was arbitrary.
This is not simply an error in assessing the mitigating evidence. Had the Florida Supreme Court conducted its own examination of the trial and sentencing hearing records and concluded that there were no mitigating circumstances, a different question would be presented. Similarly, if the trial judge had found no mitigating circumstances and the Florida Supreme Court had relied on that finding, our review would be very different. Cf. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U. S. 764 (1990). But the Florida Supreme Court did not come to its own independent factual conclusion, and it did not rely on what the trial judge actually found; it relied on “findings” of the trial judge that bear no necessary relation to this case. After striking two aggravating circumstances, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Parker’s death sentence without considering the mitigating circumstances. This affirmance was invalid because it deprived Parker of the individualized treatment to which he is entitled under the Constitution. See Clemons, 494 U. S., at 752.
V
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand with instructions to return the case to the District Court to enter an order directing the State of Florida to initiate appropriate proceedings in state court so that Parker’s death sentence may be reconsidered in light of the entire record of his trial and sentencing hearing and the trial judge’s findings. The District Court shall give the State a reasonable period of time to initiate such proceedings. We express no opinion as to whether the Florida courts must order a new sentencing hearing.
As to Parker’s remaining questions presented to this Court, his petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the interest of national defense, the War Production Board, in 1942, issued its Limitation Order L-208 ordering nonessential gold mines to close down. This litigation was instituted in the Court of Claims to recover compensation from the United States for its alleged taking, under such order, of respondents’ rights to operate their respective gold mines. Two issues are now presented. First, whether the Act of July 14, 1952, granting jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to entertain the claims arising out of L-208, was a mandate to that court to award compensation for whatever losses were suffered as a result of L-208, or whether it amounted merely to a waiver by the United States of defenses based on the passage of time. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it was the latter. We, therefore, reach the second question — whether L-208 constituted a taking of private property for public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it did not.
Early in 1941, it became apparent to those in charge of the Nation’s defense mobilization that we faced a critical shortage of nonférrous metals, notably copper, and a comparable shortage of machinery and supplies to produce them. Responsive to this situation, the Office of Production Management (OPM) and its successor, the War Production Board (WPB), issued a series of Preference Orders. These gave the producers of mining machinery and supplies relatively high priorities for the acquisition of needed materials. They also gave to those mines, which were deemed important from the standpoint of defense or essential civilian needs, a high priority in the acquisition of such machinery. Gold mines were classified as nonessential and eventually were relegated to the lowest priority rating. These orders prevented the mines operated by respondents from acquiring new machinery or supplies so that, by March of 1942, respondents were reduced to using only the machinery and supplies which they had on hand.
Soon thereafter, a severe shortage of skilled labor developed in the nonferrous metal mines. This was due in part to the expanding need for nonferrous metals, and in part to a depletion of mining manpower as a result of the military draft and the attraction of higher wages paid by other industries. It became apparent that the only reservoir of skilled mining labor was that which remained in the gold mines. Pressure was brought to bear on the WPB to close down the gold mines with the expectation that many gold miners would thus be attracted to the nonferrous mines.
As a part of this conservation program, WPB, on October 8, 1942, issued Limitation Order L-208 now before us. That order was addressed exclusively to the gold mining industry which it classified as nonessential. It directed each operator of a gold mine to take steps immediately to close down its operations and, after seven days, not to acquire, use or consume any material or equipment in development work. The order directed that, within 60 days, all operations should cease, excepting only the minimum activity necessary to maintain mine buildings, machinery and equipment, and to keep the workings safe and accessible. Applications to the WPB were permitted to meet special needs and several exceptions were made under that authority. Small mines were defined and exempted from the order. The WPB did not take physical possession of the gold mines. It did not require the mine owners to dispose of any of their machinery or equipment.
On November 19, 1942, Order L-208 was amended to prohibit the disposition of certain types of machinery or supplies without the permission of an officer of the WPB. Each mine operator was required to submit an itemized list of all such equipment held in inventory and to indicate which items he would be willing to sell or rent. On August 31, 1943, L-208 was further amended to permit disposition of equipment, without approval of the WPB, to persons holding certain preference ratings. The order, thus amended, remained in effect until revoked on June 30, 1945.
The first legal action against the Government arising out of L-208 was brought in the Court of Claims in 1950. It was there alleged that the order had amounted to a taking of the complainant’s right to mine gold during the life of the order. The Government demurred, taking its present position that the order was merely a lawful regulation of short supplies relevant to the war effort. The court sustained the demurrer, holding that the damages were not compensable. Oro Fino Consolidated Mines, Inc., v. United States, 118 Ct. Cl. 18, 92 F. Supp. 1016. Accord, Alaska-Pacific Consolidated Mining Co. v. United States, 120 Ct. Cl. 307. Somewhat later, the instant action was brought in the Court of Claims by the Idaho Maryland Mines Corporation. Relying on the Oro Fino decision, the Government again demurred. This time, however, the court overruled the demurrer on the ground that this complaint contained detailed allegations which, if true, in its opinion demonstrated that L-208 was an arbitrary order without rational connection with the war effort. On that basis, the court authorized a commissioner to hear this case and several similar ones, solely to determine the Goverment’s liability, leaving determination of the amount of recovery, if any, to further proceedings. 122 Ct. Cl. 670, 104 F. Supp. 576. The commissioner heard the cases and filed his report. The Court of Claims, with two judges dissenting, held that the six respondents now before us were entitled to just compensation. 134 Ct. Cl. 1, 53, 56, 138 F. Supp. 281, 310, 312. A new trial was denied. 134 Ct. Cl. 130, 146 F. Supp. 476. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari in order to consider the important constitutional issue presented. 352 U. S. 964.
Before reaching the merits, we face the suggestion of respondents that the Special Jurisdictional Act of July 14, 1952, 66 Stat. 605, did more than waive the statute of limitations and the defense of laches. Respondents contend that this Act was a congressional mandate to the Court of Claims to award compensation to such of the respondents as established any loss which was, in fact, caused by L-208. We conclude that the language of the Act and its legislative history demonstrate that it was no more than a waiver of defenses based on the passage of time.
The entire Act reads as follows:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States Court of Claims be, and hereby is, given jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment, notwithstanding any statute of limitations, laches, or lapse of time, on the claim of any owner or operator of a gold mine or gold placer operation for losses incurred allegedly because of the closing or curtaihiient or prevention of operations of such mine or placer operation as a result of the restrictions imposed by War Production Board Limitation Order L-208 during the effective life thereof: Provided, That actions on such claims shall be brought within one year from the date this Act becomes effective.”
The Act thus contains no language prejudging the validity of the claims on their merits. On the other hand, it expressly permits the filing of actions, based on L-208, within one year from the taking effect of the Act, “notwithstanding any statute of limitations, laches, or lapse of time . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) That this was the motivating purpose of Congress is further indicated by the fact that the statute of limitations had recently run against many of these claims by the time the Court of Claims, in the instant case, upheld the claim on the pleadings of the Idaho Maryland Mines Corporation. 122 Ct. Cl. 670, 104 F. Supp. 576. This was explained to Congress as follows in the House Report recommending passage of the bill:
“At the present time many other claimants who may have as good a right for an adjudication of their claims as does the Idaho Maryland Mines Corp. may not prosecute such claims due to the running of the statute of limitations. Many of the claimants after the ruling in the Oro Fina case undoubtedly felt that to file in the Court of Claims would be useless and, therefore, allowed the statute to run against them.” H. R. Rep. No. 2220, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 2. See also, S. Rep. No. 1605, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 2.
The legislative history also discloses repeated failures to induce Congress to act upon the merits of the claims. In view of such history, it is hard to believe that the successful passage of this Act of July 14, 1952, would have taken place, as it did, without opposition had it included a concession of liability. On the other hand, as explained in the above-quoted House Committee Report, its passage is readily undérstood if it merely granted an extension, for one year, of the time within which to file an action to recover a claim, the merits of which would be determined by the Court of Claims. For these reasons, we hold that this Jurisdictional Act is fairly interpreted as amounting only to a waiver of defenses based on the passage of time.
Turning to the merits, it is clear from the record that the Government did not occupy, use, or in any manner take physical possession of the gold mines or of the equipment connected with them. Cf. United States v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U. S. 114. All that the Government sought was the cessation of the consumption of mining equipment and manpower in the gold mines and the conservation of such equipment and manpower for more essential war uses. The Government had no need for the gold or the gold mines. The mere fact that L-208 was in the form of an express prohibition of the operation of the mines, rather than a prohibition of the use of the scarce equipment in the mines, did not convert the order into a “taking” of a right to operate the mines. Obviously, if the use of equipment were prohibited, the mines would close and it did not make that order a “taking” merely because the order was, in form, a direction to close down the mines. The record shows that the WPB expected that L-208 would release substantial amounts of scarce mining equipment for use in essential industries, and also that experienced gold miners would transfer to other mines whose product was in gravely short supply. The purpose of L-208 was to encourage voluntary reallocation of scarce resources from the unessential to the essential.
Respondents contend that L-208 was arbitrary and without rational connection with the war effort. They contend that, if it were arbitrary, there is no distinction in law between this case and one where the Government consciously exercises its power to take for public use. Respondents base their assertion of arbitrariness on several circumstances. For example, they urge that the preamble to L-208 recited as its sole purpose the conservation of scarce materials. If that alone were the purpose, they contend, it had already been achieved by priority orders which prevented the gold mines from obtaining any scarce equipment. Order L-208 did more than merely prohibit the acquisition of scarce equipment — it also prohibited the use of equipment previously acquired. The fact that L-208 did not require the mine owners to sell their inventory of scarce equipment to essential users was a reasonable course of action. The WPB could properly rely on the profit motive to induce the mine owners to liquidate their inventories, and it was thought that the people who would be interested in purchasing used mining equipment probably would be the owners of essential mines. In any event, L-208 was soon amended to prohibit sales to nonessential users.
Respondents also urge that the record shows that the shortage of experienced miners was the dominant, if not the sole, consideration for the issuance of L-208. They contend that the WPB had no authority to compel gold miners to transfer to other mines. The record shows that a dominating consideration in the issuance of L-208 was the expectation that it would release experienced miners for work in the nonferrous mines, but the record does not support a finding that such was the sole purpose of the order. It was lawful for the WPB to consider the impact of its material orders on the manpower situation. Order L-208 did not draft gold miners into government service as copper miners. It sought only to make the gold miners available for more essential work if they chose to move. Although the record indicates that the number of gold miners who transferred to nonferrous mines was disappointingly small, yet there were some who did, and others moved to other essential wartime services. The record shows a careful official consideration of the subject and a well-considered decision to accomplish a proper result. There is no suggestion that any of the officials who were responsible for the order were motivated by anything other than appropriate concern for the war effort.
Thus the WPB made a reasoned decision that, under existing circumstances, the Nation’s need was such that the unrestricted use of mining equipment and manpower in gold mines was so wasteful of wartime resources that it must be temporarily suspended. Traditionally, we have treated the issue as to whether a particular governmental restriction amounted to a constitutional taking as being a question properly turning upon the particular circumstances of each case. See Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 416. In doing so, we have recognized that action in the form of regulation can so diminish the value of property as to constitute a taking. E. g., United States v. Kansas City Ins. Co., 339 U. S. 799; United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256. However, the mere fact that the regulation deprives the property owner of the most profitable use of his property is not necessarily enough to establish the owner’s right to compensation. See Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 664, 668, 669. In the context of war, we have been reluctant to find that degree of regulation which, without saying so, requires compensation to be paid for resulting losses of income. E. g., Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503; and see United States v. Caltex, Inc., 344 U. S. 149. The reasons are plain. War, particularly in modern times, demands the strict regulation of nearly all resources. It makes demands which otherwise would be insufferable. But wartime economic restrictions, temporary in character, are insignificant'when compared to the widespread uncompensated loss of life and freedom of action which war traditionally demands.
We do not find in the temporary restrictions here placed on the operation of gold mines a taking of private property that would justify a departure from the trend of the above decisions. The WPB here sought, by reasonable regulation, to conserve the limited supply of equipment used by the mines and it hoped that its order would divert available miners to more essential work. Both purposes were proper objectives; both matters were subject to regulation to the extent of the order. L-208 did not order any disposal of property or transfer of men. Accordingly, since the damage to the mine owners was incidental to the Government’s lawful regulation of matters reasonably deemed essential to the war effort, the judgment is
Reversed.
Issued October 8,1942, 7 Fed. Reg. 7992-7993. Amended, November 19, 1942, 7 Fed. Reg. 9613-9614; November 25, 1942, 7 Fed. Reg. 9810-9811; and August 31, 1943, 8 Fed. Reg. 12007-12008. Revoked, June 30, 1945, 10 Fed. Reg. 8110. For text of the order as issued October 8, 1942, see note 4, infra.
The Act is set forth in the text of this opinion at p. 163, infra.
“No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U. S. Const., Amend. V.
War Production Board Limitation Order L-208, 7 Fed. Reg. 7992-7993, provided as follows:
“The fulfillment of requirements for the defense of the United States has created a shortage in the supply of critical materials for defense, for private account and for export which are used in the maintenance and operation of gold mines; and the following order is deemed necessary and appropriate in the public interest and to promote the national defense.
“§ 3093.1 Limitation Order L-208 — (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this order, 'nonessential mine’ means any mining enterprise in which gold is produced, whether lode or placer, located in the United States, its territories or possessions, unless the operator of such mining enterprise is the holder of a serial number for such enterprise which has been issued under Preference Rating Order P-56.
"(b) Restrictions upon production. (1) On and after the issuance date of this order, each operator of a nonessential mine shall immediately take all such steps as may be necessary to close down, and shall close down, in the shortest possible time, the operations of such mine.
“ (2) In no event on or after 7 days from the issuance date of this order shall any operator of a nonessential mine acquire, consume, or use any material, facility, or equipment to break any new ore or to proceed with any development work or any new operations in or about such mine.
“(3) In no event on or after 60 days from the issuance date of this order shall any operator of a nonessential mine acquire, consume, or use any material, facility, or equipment to remove any ore or waste from such mine, either above or below ground, or to conduct any other operations in or about such mine, except to the minimum amount necessary to maintain its buildings, machinery, and equipment in repair, and its access and development workings safe and accessible.
“ (4) The provisions of this order shall not apply to any lode mine which produced 1200 tons or less of commercial ore in the year 1941, provided the rate of production of such mine, after the issuance date of this order, shall not exceed 100 tons per month, nor to any placer mine which treated less than 1000 cubic yards of material in the year 1941, provided that the rate of treatment of such placer mine, after the issuance date of this order, shall not exceed 100 cubic yards per month.
“(5) Nothing contained in this order shall limit or prohibit the use or operation of the mill, machine shop, or other facilities of a nonessential mine in the manufacture of articles to be delivered pursuant to orders bearing a preference rating of A-l-k or higher, or in milling ores for the holder of a serial number under Preference Rating Order P-56.
“(e) Restrictions on application of preference ratings. No person shall apply any preference rating, whether heretofore or hereafter assigned, to acquire any material or equipment for consumption or use in the operation, maintenance, or repair of a nonessential mine, except with the express permission of the Director General for Operations issued after application made to the Mining Branch, War Production Board.
“(d) Assignment of preference ratings. The Director General for Operations, upon receiving an application in accordance with paragraph (c) above, may assign such preference ratings as may be required to obtain the minimum amount of material necessary to maintain such nonessential mine on the basis set forth in paragraph (b) (3) above.
“(e) Records. All persons affected by this order shall keep and preserve, for not less than two years, accurate and complete records concerning inventory, acquisition, consumption, and use of materials, and production of ore.
“(f) Reports. All persons affected by this order shall execute and file with the War Production Board such reports and questionnaires as said Board shall from time to time prescribe.
“(g) Audit and inspection. All records required to be kept by this order shall, upon request, be submitted to audit and inspection by duly authorized representatives of the War Production Board.
“(h) Communications. All reports to be filed, appeals, and other communications concerning this order should be addressed to: War Production Board, Mining Branch, Washington, D. C., Ref.: D-208.
“(i) Violations. Any person who wilfully violates any provision of this order, or who, in connection with this order, wilfully conceals a material fact or furnishes false information to any department or agency of the United States, is guilty of a crime, and upon conviction may be punished by fine or imprisonment. In addition, any such person may be prohibited from making or obtaining further deliveries of, or from processing or using, material under priority control and may be deprived of priorities assistance.
“ (j) Appeal. Any person affected by this order who considers that compliance therewith would work an exceptional and unreasonable hardship upon him may appeal to the War Production Board, by letter, in triplicate, setting forth the pertinent facts and the reason he considers he is entitled to relief. The Director General for Operations may thereupon take such action as he deems appropriate.
“(k) Applicability of priorities regulations. This order and all transactions affected thereby are subject to all applicable provisions of the priorities regulations of the War Production Board, as amended from time to time.
“(P. D. Reg. 1, as amended, 6 F. R. 6680; W. P. B. Reg. 1, 7 F. R. 561; E. O. 9024, 7 F. R. 329; E. O. 9040, 7 F. R. 527; E. O. 9125, 7 F. R. 2719; sec. 2 (a), Pub. Law 671, 76th Cong., as amended by Pub. Laws 89 and 507, 77th Cong.)
“Issued this 8th day of October 1942.
“ERNEST KANZLER,
“Director General for Operations.”
Section 6 (e), added to the original order on November 19, 1942, 7 Fed. Reg. 9613, provided:
“(e) Restrictions on disposition of machinery and equipment. No person shall sell or otherwise dispose of any machinery or equipment of the types listed in Schedule A to Preference Rating Order P-56, which has been used in a nonessential mine, and no person shall accept delivery thereof, except with specific permission of the Director General for Operations. On or before November 19, 1942, or within sixty days after the effective date, whichever is later, each operator of a nonessential mine shall file with the War Production Board, Washington, D. C., Reference: L-208, an itemized list of such machinery and equipment, signed by such operator or an authorized official, indicating each item available for sale or rental. Upon receipt of such itemized list, the War Production Board will furnish to the operator appropriate forms to be filled out for each item which the operator desires to dispose of.”
8 Fed. Reg. 12007-12008.
10 Fed. Reg. 8110.
See also, Homestake Mining Co. v. United States, 122 Ct. Cl. 690, and Central Eureka Mining Co. v. United States, 122 Ct. Cl. 691.
The Court of Claims concluded that respondents had shown not only that L-208 was arbitrary, but also that they had a sufficient inventory of machinery and supplies so that they would have been able to operate had it not been for the order. However, as to the following companies, it ordered their petitions dismissed on the ground that they had not shown that they would have been able to continue operations, thus failing to show that L-208 was the proximate cause of their loss: Alabama-California Gold Mines Co., Consolidated Chollar Gould & Savage Mining Co., and Oro Fino Consolidated Mines, Inc. 134 Ct. Cl., at 53, 138 F. Supp., at 310.
Bills were first introduced in the 78th Congress, 1st Session (1943), for the relief of the owners and operators of gold mines. Early efforts were directed at recision of L-208. H. R. 3009, 89 Cong. Rec. 6181, was referred to the House Committee on Banking and Currency and never reported out; H. R. 3682, 89 Cong. Rec. 9653, was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and never reported out.
At the same session of Congress, Senator McCarran introduced a bill, S. 27, 89 Cong. Rec. 34, which provided legislative relief to the mine owners vis-á-vis their creditors. This bill, referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, was favorably reported, 89 Cong. Rec. 5187, S. Rep. No. 271, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., and, after amendment, it passed the Senate, 89 Cong. Rec. 6094-6095. In the House, S. 27 was referred to the House Committee on Mines and Mining, 89 Cong. Rec. 6180, and was never reported out. In the following session of Congress, a similar bill was introduced in the House by Representative Engle. H. R. 5093, 90 Cong. Rec. 6587. It too was referred to the House Committee on Banking and Currency and was never reported out.
In the 79th Congress, 1st Session (1945), Representative Engle introduced the first bill calling for compensation for losses arising out of L-208. H. R. 4393, 91 Cong. Rec. 9726. This bill was referred to the House Committee on War Claims which, in turn, referred the matter to a Subcommittee. The Subcommittee held hearings over several days and issued a report to the full Committee recommending approval. (This report was quoted at length in the Reports to both Houses favoring passage of the Jurisdictional Act.) The bill was never reported out of the full Committee.
In the 81st Congress, 1st Session (1949), Senator McCarran introduced S. 45, 95 Cong. Rec. 39, substantively similar to H. R. 4393 introduced by Representative Engle. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary which reported it favorably. S. Rep. No. 79, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. It was objected to, however, by Senator Donnell, 95 Cong. Rec. 2764; Senator Hendrickson, by request, id., at 13297; Senator Schoeppel, id., at 14722; Senator Williams, 96 Cong. Rec. 1278; Senator Hendrickson, id., at 14691; and Senators Hendrickson and Williams, id., at 16592, and consequently never came to a vote. In the same Congress, Representative White introduced H. R. 7851, 96 Cong. Rec. 4066, a bill of the same type, which was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and never reported out.
The Special Jurisdictional Act was passed on the Consent Calendar. 98 Cong. Rec. 6322-6323, 8931. The seriousness of a concession of liability is evidenced by the Government’s recent estimate that its potential liability, if respondents prevail, can be measured in “terms of thirty to sixty million dollars.”
Ordinarily the remedy for arbitrary governmental action is an injunction, rather than an action for just compensation. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579. Our view of the case makes it unnecessary to reach that question.
See pp. 160-161, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In 1964 petitioner was tried and convicted in a Massa--chusetts Superior Court for murder, armed robbery, and other offenses. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 352 Mass. 311, 225 N. E. 2d 360. We granted certiorari because there appeared to be substantial questions concerning the voluntariness of a confession of petitioner which was admitted in evidence at his trial. After oral argument and study of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the record relevant to the constitutional claims now asserted is insufficient to permit decision of those claims. The writ is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Smith v. Mississippi, 373 U. S. 238; Massachusetts v. Painten, 389 U. S. 560.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner’s claim on voir dire was that his confession was beaten out of him by police. The trial judge found as a fact that it was not. At the trial itself petitioner did not attack the voluntariness of the confession on any other ground, or raise the other constitutional challenges argued in this Court. The defense at the trial was primarily directed at persuading the jury not to impose the death penalty. The petitioner made an unsworn statement to the jury at the close of summations in which he said, “all the evidence which the prosecutor presented to you was true. There was no sense in my taking the stand because all the evidence points to me. ... All that I ask is just clemency .... I put my life into your hands. Please recommend clemency, life imprisonment.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal raises the question whether notice by publication and posting provides a mortgagee of real property with adequate notice of a proceeding to sell the mortgaged property for nonpayment of taxes.
I — I
To secure an obligation to pay $14,000, Alfred Jean Moore executed a mortgage in favor of appellant Mennonite Board of Missions (MBM) on property in Elkhart, Ind., that Moore had purchased from MBM. The mortgage was recorded in the Elkhart County Recorder’s Office on March 1, 1973. Under the terms of the agreement, Moore was responsible for paying all of the property taxes. Without MBM’s knowledge, however, she failed to pay taxes on the property.
Indiana law provides for the annual sale of real property on which payments of property taxes have been delinquent for 15 months or longer. Ind. Code §6-1.1-24-1 et seq. (1982). Prior to the sale, the county auditor must post notice in the county courthouse and publish notice once each week for three consecutive weeks. §6-1.1-24-3. The owner of the property is entitled to notice by certified mail to his last known address. §6-1.1-24-4. Until 1980, however, Indiana law did not provide for notice by mail or personal service to mortgagees of property that was to be sold for nonpayment of taxes.
After the required notice is provided, the county treasurer holds a public auction at which the real property is sold to the highest bidder. § 6-1.1-24-5. The purchaser acquires a certificate of sale which constitutes a lien against the real property for the entire amount paid. §6-1.1-24-9. This lien is superior to all other liens against the property which existed at the time the certificate was issued. Ibid.
The tax sale is followed by a 2-year redemption period during which the “owner, occupant, lienholder, or other person who has an interest in” the property may redeem the property. §6-1.1-25-1. To redeem the property an individual must pay the county treasurer a sum sufficient to cover the purchase price of the property at the tax sale and the amount of taxes and special assessments paid by the purchaser following the sale, plus an additional percentage specified in the statute. §6-1.1-25-2. The county in turn remits the payment to the purchaser of the property at the tax sale. §6-1.1-25-3.
If no one redeems the property during the statutory redemption period, the purchaser may apply to the county auditor for a deed to the property. Before executing and delivering the deed, the county auditor must notify the former owner that he is still entitled to redeem the property. §6-1.1-25-6. No notice to the mortgagee is required. If the property is not redeemed within 30 days, the county auditor may then execute and deliver a deed for the property to the purchaser, §6-1.1-25-4, who thereby acquires “an estate in fee simple absolute, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances . ” § 6-1. l-25-4(d).
After obtaining a deed, the purchaser may initiate an action to quiet his title to the property. § 6-1.1-25-14. The previous owner, lienholders, and others who claim to have an interest in the property may no longer redeem the property. They may defeat the title conveyed by the tax deed only by proving, inter alia, that the property had not been subject to, or assessed for, the taxes for which it was sold, that the taxes had been paid before the sale, or that the property was properly redeemed before the deed was executed. §6-1.1-25-16.
In 1977, Elkhart County initiated proceedings to sell Moore’s property for nonpayment of taxes. The county provided notice as required under the statute: it posted and published an announcement of the tax sale and mailed notice to Moore by certified mail. MBM was not informed of the pending tax sale either by the County Auditor or by Moore. The property was sold for $1,167.75 to appellee Richard Adams on August 8, 1977. Neither Moore nor MBM appeared at the sale or took steps thereafter to redeem the property. Following the sale of her property, Moore continued to make payments each month to MBM, and as a result MBM did not realize that the property had been sold. On August 16,1979, MBM first learned of the tax sale. By then the redemption period had run and Moore still owed appellant $8,237.19.
In November 1979, Adams filed a suit in state court seeking to quiet title to the property. In opposition to Adams’ motion for summary judgment, MBM contended that it had not received constitutionally adequate notice of the pending tax sale and of the opportunity to redeem the property following the tax sale. The trial court upheld the Indiana tax sale statute against this constitutional challenge. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. 427 N. E. 2d 686 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction, 459 U. S. 908 (1982), and we now reverse.
II
In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950), this Court recognized that prior to an action which will affect an interest in life, liberty, or property protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a State must provide “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Invoking this “elementary and fundamental requirement of due process,” ibid., the Court held that published notice of an action to settle the accounts of a common trust fund was not sufficient to inform beneficiaries of the trust whose names and addresses were known. The Court explained that notice by publication was not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice of the pending proceeding and was therefore inadequate to inform those who could be notified by more effective means such as personal service or mailed notice:
“Chance alone brings to the attention of even a local resident an advertisement in small type inserted in the back pages of a newspaper, and if he makes his home outside the area of the newspaper’s normal circulation the odds that the information will never reach him are large indeed. The chance of actual notice is further reduced when, as here, the notice required does not even name those whose attention it is supposed to attract, and does not inform acquaintances who might call it to attention. In weighing its sufficiency on the basis of equivalence with actual notice, we are unable to regard this as more than a feint.” Id., at 315.
In subsequent cases, this Court has adhered unwaveringly to the principle announced in Mullane. In Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U. S. 112 (1956), for example, the Court held that notice of condemnation proceedings published in a local newspaper was an inadequate means of informing a landowner whose name was known to the city and was on the official records. Similarly, in Schroeder v. New York City, 371 U. S. 208 (1962), the Court concluded that publication in a newspaper and posted notices were inadequate to apprise a property owner of condemnation proceedings when his name and address were readily ascertainable from both deed records and tax rolls. Most recently, in Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U. S. 444 (1982), we held that posting a summons on the door of a tenant's apartment was an inadequate means of providing notice of forcible entry and detainer actions. See also Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 13-15 (1978); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156, 174-175 (1974); Bank of Marin v. England, 385 U. S. 99, 102 (1966); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U. S. 141, 146-147 (1956); New York City v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S. 293, 296-297 (1953).
This case is controlled by the analysis in Mullane. To begin with, a mortgagee possesses a substantial property interest that is significantly affected by a tax sale. Under Indiana law, a mortgagee acquires a lien on the owner’s property which may be conveyed together with the mortgag- or’s personal obligation to repay the debt secured by the mortgage. Ind. Code §32-8-11-7 (1982). A mortgagee’s security interest generally has priority over subsequent claims or liens attaching to the property, and a purchase-money mortgage takes precedence over virtually all other claims or liens including those which antedate the execution of the mortgage. § 32-8-11-4. The tax sale immediately and drastically diminishes the value of this security interest by granting the tax-sale purchaser a lien with priority over that of all other creditors. Ultimately, the tax sale may result in the complete nullification of the mortgagee’s interest, since the purchaser acquires title free of all liens and other encumbrances at the conclusion of the redemption period.
Since a mortgagee clearly has a legally protected property interest, he is entitled to notice reasonably calculated to apprise him of a pending tax sale. Cf. Wiswall v. Sampson, 14 How. 52, 67 (1853). When the mortgagee is identified in a mortgage that is publicly recorded, constructive notice by publication must be supplemented by notice mailed to the mortgagee’s last known available address, or by personal service. But unless the mortgagee is not reasonably identifiable, constructive notice alone does not satisfy the mandate of Mullane,
Neither notice by publication and posting, nor mailed notice to the property owner, are means “such as one desirous of actually informing the [mortgagee] might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” Mullane, 339 U. S., at 315. Because they are designed primarily to attract prospective purchasers to the tax sale, publication and posting are unlikely to reach those who, although they have an interest in the property, do not make special efforts to keep abreast of such notices. Walker v. City of Hutchinson, supra, at 116; New York City v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., supra, at 296; Mullane, supra, at 315. Notice to the property owner, who is not in privity with his creditor and who has failed to take steps necessary to preserve his own property interest, also cannot be expected to lead to actual notice to the mortgagee. Cf. Nelson v. New York City, 352 U. S. 103, 107-109 (1956). The county’s use of these less reliable forms of notice is not reasonable where, as here, “an inexpensive and efficient mechanism such as mail service is available.” Greene v. Lindsey, supra, at 455.
Personal service or mailed notice is required even though sophisticated creditors have means at their disposal to discover whether property taxes have not been paid and whether tax-sale proceedings are therefore likely to be initiated. In the first place, a mortgage need not involve a complex commercial transaction among knowledgeable parties, and it may well be the least sophisticated creditor whose security interest is threatened by a tax sale. More importantly, a party’s ability to take steps to safeguard its interests does not relieve the State of its constitutional obligation. It is true that particularly extensive efforts to provide notice may often be required when the State is aware of a party’s inexperience or incompetence. See, e. g., Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, supra, at 13-15; Covey v. Town of Somers, supra. But it does not follow that the State may forgo even the relatively modest administrative burden of providing notice by mail to parties who are particularly resourceful. Cf. New York City v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S., at 297. Notice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice is a minimum constitutional precondition to a proceeding which will adversely affect the liberty or property interests of any party, whether unlettered or well versed in commercial practice, if its name and address are reasonably ascertainable. Furthermore, a mortgagee’s knowledge of delinquency in the payment of taxes is not equivalent to notice that a tax sale is pending. The latter “was the information which the [county] was constitutionally obliged ... to give personally to the appellant — an obligation which the mailing of a single letter would have discharged.” Schroeder v. New York City, 371 U. S., at 214.
We therefore conclude that the manner of notice provided to appellant did not meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Indiana Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Because a mortgagee has no title to the mortgaged property under Indiana law, the mortgagee is not considered an “owner” for purposes of § 6-1.1-24-4. First Savings & Loan Assn. of Central Indiana v. Furnish, 174 Ind. App. 265, 272, n. 14, 367 N. E. 2d 596, 600, n. 14 (1977).
Indiana Code §6-1.1-24-4.2 (1982), added in 1980, provides for notice by certified mail to any mortgagee of real property which is subject to tax sale proceedings, if the mortgagee has annually requested such notice and has agreed to pay a fee, not to exceed $10, to cover the cost of sending notice. Because the events in question in this case occurred before the 1980 amendment, the constitutionality of the amendment is not before us.
The decision in Mullane rejected one of the premises underlying this Court’s previous decisions concerning the requirements of notice in judicial proceedings: that due process rights may vary depending on whether actions are in rem or in personam. 339 U. S., at 312. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 206 (1977). Traditionally, when a state court based its jurisdiction upon its authority over the defendant’s person, personal service was considered essential for the court to bind individuals who did not submit to its jurisdiction. See, e. g., Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S. 256, 275 (1896); Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316, 320 (1890); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 726, 733-734 (1878) (“[D]ue process of law would require appearance or personal service before the defendant could be personally bound by any judgment rendered”). In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352 (1927), the Court recognized for the first time that service by registered mail, in place of personal service, may satisfy the requirements of due process. Constructive notice was never deemed sufficient to bind an individual in an action in personam.
In contrast, in in rem or quasi in rem proceedings in which jurisdiction was based on the court’s power over property within its territory, see generally Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 196-205, constructive notice to nonresidents was traditionally understood to satisfy the requirements of due process. In order to settle questions of title to property within its territory, a state court was generally required to proceed by an in rem action since the court could not otherwise bind nonresidents. At one time constructive service was considered the only means of notifying nonresidents since it was believed that “[pjrocess from the tribunals of one State cannot run into another State.” Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, at 727. See Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 255 (1907). As a result, the nonresident acquired the duty “to take measures that in some way he shall be represented when his property is called into requisition.” Id., at 262. If he “fail[ed] to get notice by the ordinary publications which have been usually required in such cases, it [was] his misfortune.” Ibid.
Rarely was a corresponding duty imposed on interested parties who resided within the State and whose identities were reasonably ascertainable. Even in actions in rem, such individuals were generally provided personal service. See, e. g., Arndt v. Griggs, supra, at 326-327. Where the identity of interested residents could not be ascertained after a reasonably diligent inquiry, however, their interests in property could be affected by a proceeding in rem as long as constructive notice was provided. See Hamilton v. Brown, supra, at 275; American Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U. S. 47, 61-62, 65-66 (1911).
Beginning with Mullane, this Court has recognized, contrary to the earlier line of cases, that “an adverse judgment in rem directly affects the property owner by divesting him of his rights in the property before the court.” Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 206. In rejecting the traditional justification for distinguishing between residents and nonresidents and between in rem and in personam actions, the Court has not left all interested claimants to the vagaries of indirect notice. Our cases have required the State to make efforts to provide actual notice to all interested parties comparable to the efforts that were previously required only in in personam actions. See infra, this page.
In this case, the mortgage on file with the County Recorder identified the mortgagee only as “MENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS a corporation, of Wayne County, in the State of Ohio.” We assume that the mortgagee’s address could have been ascertained by reasonably diligent efforts. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S., at 317. Simply mailing a letter to “Mennonite Board of Missions, Wayne County, Ohio,” quite likely would have provided actual notice, given “the well-known skill of postal officials and employés in making proper delivery of letters defectively addressed.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 397-398 (1914). We do not suggest, however, that a governmental body is required to undertake extraordinary efforts to discover the identity and whereabouts of a mortgagee whose identity is not in the public record.
Indeed, notice by mail to the mortgagee may ultimately relieve the county of a more substantial administrative burden if the mortgagee arranges for payment of the delinquent taxes prior to the tax sale.
This appeal also presents the question whether, before the County Auditor executes and delivers a deed to the tax-sale purchaser, the mortgagee is constitutionally entitled to notice of its right to redeem the property. Cf. Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U. S. 220, 229 (1946). Because we conclude that the failure to give adequate notice of the tax-sale proceeding deprived appellant of due process of law, we need not reach this question.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
After respondent Guardian Life Insurance Company terminated petitioner’s general agency agreement, petitioner brought suit in California Superior Court alleging various state-law claims. Respondent removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and filed state-law counterclaims. After closing arguments but before the District Judge instructed the jury, the parties arrived at an oral agreement settling all claims and counterclaims, the substance of which they recited, on the record, before the District Judge in chambers. In April 1992, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(ii), the parties executed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, dismissing the complaint and cross-complaint. On April 13, the District Judge signed the Stipulation and Order under the notation “It is so ordered.” The Stipulation and Order did not reserve jurisdiction in the District Court to enforce the settlement agreement; indeed, it did not so much as refer to the settlement agreement.
Thereafter the parties disagreed on petitioner’s obligation to return certain files to respondent under the settlement agreement. On May 21, respondent moved in the District Court to enforce the agreement, which petitioner opposed on the ground, inter alia, that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Court entered an enforcement order, asserting an “inherent power” to do so. Order Enforcing Settlement (ED Cal., Aug. 19,1992), App. 180. Petitioner appealed, relying solely on his jurisdictional objection. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, quoting its opinion in Wilkinson v. FBI, 922 F. 2d 555, 557 (1991), to the effect that after dismissal of an action pursuant to a settlement agreement, a “ ‘district court ha[s] jurisdiction to decide the [enforcement] motion[] under its inherent supervisory power.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-5 (Apr. 27, 1993) (unpublished), judgt. order reported at 993 F. 2d 883 (1993) (final brackets in original). We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 930 (1993).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, see Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U. S. 131,136-137 (1992); Bender v. Williamsport Area School Disk, 475 U. S. 534, 541 (1986), which is not to be expanded by judicial decree, Amer-. ican Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6 (1951). It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. Bank of North-America, 4 Dali. 8,11 (1799), and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178,182-183 (1936).
The dismissal in this case issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(ii), which provides for dismissal “by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action,” and causes that dismissal to be with prejudice if (as here) the stipulation so specifies. Neither the Rule nor any provision of law provides for jurisdiction of the court over disputes arising out of an agreement that produces the stipulation. It must be emphasized that what respondent seeks in this case is enforcement of the settlement agreement, and not merely reopening of the dismissed suit by reason of breach of the agreement that was the basis for dismissal. Some Courts of Appeals have held that the latter can be obtained under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See, e. g., Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Assn., 937 F. 2d 408, 410 (CA9 1991); Fairfax Countywide Citizens Assn. v. Fairfax County, 571 F. 2d 1299, 1302-1303 (CA4 1978). But see Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F. 2d 138, 140-141 (CA3 1993) (breach of settlement agreement insufficient reason to set dismissal aside on Rule 60(b)(6) grounds); Harman v. Pauley, 678 F. 2d 479, 480-481 (CA4 1982) (Rule 60(b)(6) does not require vacating dismissal order whenever a settlement agreement has been breached). Enforcement of the settlement agreement, however, whether through award of damages or decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.
Respondent relies upon the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, which recognizes federal courts’ jurisdiction over some matters (otherwise beyond their competence) that are incidental to other matters properly before them. Respondent appeals to our statement (quoting a then-current treatise on equity) in Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93 (1904): “A bill filed to continue a former litigation in the same court... to obtain and secure the fruits, benefits and advantages of the proceedings and judgment in a former suit in the same court by the same or additional parties ... or to obtain any equitable relief in regard to, or connected with, or growing out of, any judgment or proceeding at law rendered in the same court,... is an ancillary suit.” Id., at 113-114 (citing 1 C. Bates, Federal Equity Procedure § 97 (1901)).
The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction can hardly be criticized for being overly rigid or precise, but we think it does not stretch so far as that statement suggests. The expansive language of Julian can be countered by (equally inaccurate) dicta in later cases that provide an excessively limited description of the doctrine. See, e. g., Fulton Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Hozier, 267 U. S. 276, 280 (1925) (“[N]o controversy can be regarded as dependent or ancillary unless it has direct relation to property or assets actually or constructively drawn into the court’s possession or control by the principal suit”). The holding of Julian was not remotely as permissive as its language: Jurisdiction was based upon the fact that the court, in a prior decree of foreclosure, had expressly reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against the judicially conveyed property, and to retake and resell the property if claims it found valid were not paid. 193 U. S., at 109-112.
It is to the holdings of our cases, rather than their dicta, that we must attend, and we find none of them that has, for purposes of asserting otherwise nonexistent federal jurisdiction, relied Upon a relationship so tenuous as the breach of an agreement that produced the dismissal of an earlier federal suit. Generally speaking, we have asserted ancillary jurisdiction (in the very broad sense in which that term is sometimes used) for two separate, though sometimes related, purposes: (1) to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent, see, e. g., Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc., 417 U. S. 467, 469, n. 1 (1974); Moore v. New York, Cotton Exchange, 270 U. S. 593, 610 (1926); and (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees, see, e. g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U. S. 32 (1991) (power to compel payment of opposing party’s attorney’s fees as sanction for misconduct); United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812) (contempt power to maintain order during proceedings). See generally 13 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3523 (1984); cf. 28 U. S. C. § 1367 (1988 ed., Supp. IV).
Neither of these heads supports the present assertion of jurisdiction. As to the first, the facts underlying respondent’s dismissed claim for breach of agency agreement and those underlying its claim for breach of settlement agreement have nothing to do with each other; it would neither be necessary nor even particularly efficient that they be adjudicated together. No case of ours asserts, nor do we think the concept of limited federal jurisdiction permits us to assert, ancillary jurisdiction over any agreement that has as part of its consideration the dismissal of a case before a federal court.
But it is the second head of ancillary jurisdiction, relating to the court’s power to protect its proceedings and vindicate its authority, that both courts in the present case appear to have relied upon, judging from their references to “inherent power,” see App. to Pet. for Cert. A-2 and A-5; App. 180. We think, however, that the power asked for here is quite remote from what courts require in order to perform their functions. We have recognized inherent authority to appoint counsel to investigate and prosecute violation of a court’s order. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U. S. 787 (1987). But the only order here was that the suit be dismissed, a disposition that is in no way flouted or imperiled by the alleged breach of the settlement agreement. The situation would be quite different if the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal — either by separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order. In that event, a breach of the agreement would be a violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would therefore exist. That, however, was not the case here. The judge’s mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement agreement do not suffice to make them part of his order.
The short of the matter is this: The suit involves a claim for breach of a contract, part of the consideration for which was dismissal of an earlier federal suit. No federal statute makes that connection (if it constitutionally could) the basis for federal-court jurisdiction over the contract dispute. The facts to be determined with regard to such alleged breaches of contract are quite separate from the facts to be determined in the principal suit, and automatic jurisdiction over such contracts is in no way essential to the conduct of federal-court business. If the parties wish to provide for the court’s enforcement of a dismissal-producing settlement agreement, they can seek to do so. When the dismissal is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which specifies that the action “shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper,” the parties’ compliance with the terms of the settlement contract (or the court’s “retention of jurisdiction” over the settlement contract) may, in the court’s discretion, be one of the terms set forth in the order. Even when, as occurred here, the dismissal is pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l)(ii) (which does not by its terms empower a district court to attach conditions to the parties’ stipulation of dismissal) we think the court is authorized to embody the settlement contract in its dismissal order (or, what has the same effect, retain jurisdiction over the settlement contract) if the parties agree. Absent such action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Guardian Life is the sole respondent. The Guardian Insurance and Annuity Corporation and the Guardian Investor Services Corporation were listed as appellees below, but in fact they had been dismissed prior to trial.
The relevant provision of that Rule reads as follows:
“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the 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.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal presents the question whether a political party officer can be removed from his position by the State of New York and barred for five years from holding any other party or public office, because he has refused to waive his constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
(1)
Under § 22 of the New York Election Law, an officer of a political party may be subpoenaed by a grand jury or other authorized tribunal and required to testify concerning his conduct of the party office he occupies. If the officer refuses to answer any question, or if he declines to waive immunity from the use of his testimony against him in a later prosecution, the statute immediately terminates his party office and prohibits him from holding any other party or public office for a period of five years.
In December 1975, appellee Patrick J. Cunningham (hereafter appellee) was subpoenaed pursuant to § 22 to appear and testify before a special grand jury authorized to investigate his conduct in the political offices he then held, which consisted of four unsalaried elective positions in the Democratic Party of the State of New York. Appellee moved to quash the subpoena in the state courts, arguing in part that § 22 violated his federal constitutional right to be free of compelled self-incrimination; his motion was denied. In re Cunningham v. Nadjari, 51 App. Div. 2d 927, 383 N. Y. S. 2d 311, aff’d, 39 N. Y. 2d 314, 347 N. E. 2d 915 (1976). On April 12, 1976, he appeared before the grand jury in response to the subpoena. Appellee refused to sign a waiver of immunity form which would have waived his constitutional right not to be compelled to incriminate himself. Because § 22 is self-executing, appellee’s refusal to waive his constitutional immunity automatically divested him of all his party offices and activated the five-year ban on holding any public or party office.
The following day, appellee commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. After hearing, the District Judge entered a temporary restraining order against enforcement of § 22. A three-judge court was then convened, and that court granted appellee declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of § 22 on the ground that it violated appellee’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We noted probable jurisdiction, 429 U. S. 893 (1976). We affirm.
(2)
We begin with the proposition that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination protects grand jury witnesses from being forced to give testimony which may later be used to convict them in a criminal proceeding. See, e. g., United States v. Washington, ante, at 186-187. Moreover, since the test is whether the testimony might later subject the witness to criminal prosecution, the privilege is available to a witness in a civil proceeding, as well as to a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 11 (1964). In either situation the witness may “refuse to answer unless and until he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant.” Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U. S. 70, 78 (1973).
Thus, when a State compels testimony by threatening to inflict potent sanctions unless the constitutional privilege is surrendered, that testimony is obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and cannot be used against the declarant in a subsequent criminal prosecution. In Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967), for example, police officers under investigation were told that if they declined to answer potentially incriminating questions they would be removed from office, but that any answers they did give could be used against them in a criminal prosecution. We held that statements given under such circumstances were made involuntarily and could not be used to convict the officers of crime.
Similarly, our cases have established that a State may not impose substantial penalties because a witness elects to exercise his Fifth Amendment right not to give incriminating testimony against himself. In Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273 (1968), a police officer appearing before a grand jury investigating official corruption was subject to discharge if he did not waive his Fifth Amendment privilege and answer, without immunity, all questions asked of him. When he refused, and his employment was terminated, this Court held that the officer could not be discharged solely for his refusal to forfeit the rights guaranteed him by the Fifth Amendment; the privilege against compelled self-inerimination could not abide any “attempt, regardless of its ultimate effectiveness, to coerce a waiver of the immunity it confers on penalty of the loss of employment.” Id., at 279. Accord, Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Comm’r, 392 U. S. 280 (1968). At the same time, the Court provided for effectuation of the important public interest in securing from public employees an accounting of their public trust. Public employees may constitutionally be discharged for refusing to answer potentially incriminating questions concerning their official duties if they have not been required to surrender their constitutional immunity. Gardner, supra, at 278-279.
We affirmed the teaching of Gardner more recently in Lefkowitz v. Turley, supra, where two architects who did occasional work for the State of New York refused to waive their Fifth Amendment privilege before a grand jury investigating corruption in public contracting practices. State law provided that if a contractor refused to surrender his constitutional privilege before a grand jury, his existing state contracts would be canceled, and he would be barred from future contracts with the State for five years. The Court saw no constitutional distinction between discharging a public employee and depriving an independent contractor of the opportunity to secure public contracts; in both cases the State had sought to compel testimony by imposing a sanction as the price of invoking the Fifth Amendment right.
These cases settle that government cannot penalize assertion of the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination by imposing sanctions to compel testimony which has not been immunized. It is true, as appellant points out, that our earlier cases were concerned with penalties having a substantial economic impact. But the touchstone of the Fifth Amendment is comjpulsion, and direct economic sanctions and imprisonment are not the only penalties capable of forcing the self-incrimination which the Amendment forbids.
(3)
Section 22 confronted appellee with grave consequences solely because he refused to waive immunity from prosecution and give self-incriminating testimony. Section 22 is therefore constitutionally indistinguishable from the coercive provisions we struck down in Gardner, Sanitation Men, and Turley. Appellee’s party offices carry substantial prestige and political influence, giving him a powerful voice in recommending or selecting candidates for office and in other political decisions. The threatened loss of such widely sought positions, with their power and perquisites, is inherently coercive. Additionally, compelled forfeiture of these posts diminishes appellee’s general reputation in his community.
There are also economic consequences; appellee’s professional standing as a practicing lawyer would suffer by his removal from his political offices under these circumstances. Further, § 22 bars appellee from holding any other party or public office for five years. Many such offices carry substantial compensation. Appellant argues that appellee has no enforceable property interest in future office, but neither did the architects in Turley have an enforceable claim to future government contracts. Nevertheless, we found that disqualification from eligibility for such contracts was a substantial economic burden. In assessing the coercion which § 22 exerts, we must take into account potential economic benefits realistically likely of attainment. Prudent persons weigh heavily such legally unenforceable prospects in making decisions; to that extent, removal of those prospects constitutes economic coercion.
Section 22 is coercive for yet another reason: It requires appellee to forfeit one constitutionally protected right as the price for exercising another. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377, 394 (1968). As an officer in a private political party, appellee is in a far different position from a government policymaking official holding office at the pleasure of the President or Governor. By depriving appellee of his offices, § 22 impinges on his right to participate in private, voluntary political associations. That right is an important aspect of First Amendment freedom which this Court has consistently found entitled to constitutional protection. Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S. 51 (1973); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23 (1968).
Appellant argues that even if § 22 is violative of Fifth Amendment rights, the State’s overriding interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its political process justifies the constitutional infringement. We have already rejected the notion that citizens may be forced to incriminate themselves because it serves a governmental need. E. g., Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U. S., at 78-79. Government has compelling interests in maintaining an honest police force and civil service, but this Court did not permit those interests to justify infringement of Fifth Amendment rights in Garrity, Gardner, and Sanitation Men, where alternative methods of promoting state aims were no more apparent than here.
(4)
It may be, as appellant contends, that “[a] State forced to choose between an accounting from or a prosecution of a party officer is in an intolerable position.” Brief for Appellant 12-13. But this dilemma is created by New York’s transactional immunity law, which immunizes grand jury witnesses from prosecution for any transaction about which they testify. The more limited use immunity required by the Fifth Amendment would permit the State to prosecute appellee for any crime of which he may be guilty in connection with his party office, provided only that his own compelled testimony is not used to convict him. Once proper use immunity is granted, the State may use its contempt powers to compel testimony concerning the conduct of public office, without forfeiting the opportunity to prosecute the witness on the basis of evidence derived from other sources.
Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“If any party officer shall, after lawful notice of process, wilfully refuse or fail to appear before any court or judge, grand jury, legislative committee, officer, board or body authorized to conduct any hearing or inquiry concerning the conduct of his party office or the performance of his duties, or having appeared, shall refuse to testify or answer any relevant question, or shall refuse to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, his term or tenure of office shall terminate, such office shall be vacant and he shall be disqualified from holding any party or public office for a period of five years.” N. Y. Elec. Law § 22 (McKinney 1964).
New York Election Law § 2 (9) (McKinney 1964) defines a party officer as “one who holds any party position or any party office whether by election, appointment or otherwise.”
Appellee was chairman of the State Democratic Committee and the Bronx County Democratic Executive Committee, and a member of the Executive Committee of the New York State Democratic Committee and the Bronx County Democratic Executive Committee. We are advised that appellee has recently resigned as chairman of the state organization. He retains his other party offices.
In the absence of an effective waiver, New York law would have entitled appellee to transactional immunity from prosecution on all matters about which he testified. N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law §§ 50.10, 190.40, 190.45 (McKinney 1971 and Supp. 1976-1977). As appellant concedes, however, Tr. of Oral Arg. 4r-5, and as the record reflects, the State also insisted on a waiver of the more limited use immunity which we have held essential to protect Fifth Amendment rights. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972).
The waiver form which appellee’s counsel represents is presented to grand jury witnesses waives “all immunity and privileges which I would otherwise obtain under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and of the State of New York” and further “consent[s] to the use against me of the testimony so given . . . upon any criminal trial, investigation, prosecution or proceeding.” McKinney’s Forms for the Criminal Procedure Law § 190.45, Form 1 (1971). See N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 190.45. Appellee’s refusal to sign this waiver form, pressed on him immediately before talcing the oath, was in these circumstances an effective assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege.
Of course, New York’s procedure in this regard is not constitutionally required. Rather than permit an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege to confer immunity with respect to all matters testified to before the grand jury, New York could, if it chose, require a witness to assert his constitutional privilege to the specific questions • he deems potentially incriminating, withholding constitutional use immunity until the validity of the assertion is upheld.
That appellee’s refusal to waive immunity and answer questions concerning his conduct of office may have already damaged his reputation and standing is irrelevant to the issues in this case; it is inescapable that public judgments are often made on such factors.
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308 (1976), is not to the contrary. That case involved an administrative disciplinary proceeding in which the respondent was advised that he was not required to testify, but that if he chose to remain silent his silence could be considered against him. Baxter did no more than permit an inference to be drawn in a civil case from a party’s refusal to testify. Respondent’s silence in Baxter was only one of a number of factors to be considered by the finder of fact in assessing a penalty, and was given no more probative value than the facts of the case warranted; here, refusal to waive the Fifth Amendment privilege leads automatically and without more to imposition of sanctions.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These cases arise from the Veterans’ Administration’s refusal to grant two recovered alcoholics extensions of time in which to use their veterans’ educational benefits. We must decide whether the Veterans’ Administration’s decision is subject to judicial review and, if so, whether that decision violates § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 394, 29 U. S. C. § 794, which requires that federal programs not discriminate against handicapped individuals solely because of their handicap.
I
Veterans who have been honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces are entitled to receive educational assistance benefits under the Veterans’ Readjustment Benefit Act of 1966 (“GI Bill”) to facilitate their readjustment to civilian life. See 38 U. S. C. § 1661. These benefits generally must be used within 10 years following discharge or release from active duty. § 1662(a)(1). Veterans may obtain an extension of the 10-year delimiting period, however, if they were prevented from using their benefits earlier by “a physical or mental disability which was not the result of [their] own willful misconduct.” Ibid.
Petitioners are honorably discharged veterans who did not exhaust their educational benefits during the decade following their military service. They sought to continue to receive benefits after the expiration of the 10-year delimiting period on the ground that they had been disabled by alcoholism during much of that period. The Veterans’ Administration determined that petitioners’ alcoholism constituted “willful misconduct” under 38 CFR § 3.301(c)(2) (1987), and accordingly denied the requested extensions.
Petitioner Traynor sought review of the Veterans’ Administration’s decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court held that it was not foreclosed from exercising jurisdiction over the case by 38 U. S. C. § 211(a), which bars judicial review of “the decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration providing benefits for veterans,” because the complaint “requires us to examine constitutional and statutory questions and not merely issues of VA policy.” Traynor v. Walters, 606 F. Supp. 391, 396 (1985). The court rejected Traynor’s claim that the Veterans’ Administration’s refusal to extend his delimiting period violated the Due Process Clause and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. However, the court concluded that alcoholism is a handicap within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, and that the Veterans’ Administration therefore had engaged in the sort of discrimination on the basis of handicap that is forbidden by that Act.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed on the ground that § 211(a) barred judicial review of the Rehabilitation Act claim. Traynor v. Walters, 791 F. 2d 226 (1986). The court reasoned that, while “many veterans have in the service of our country suffered injuries that qualify them as ‘handicapped individuals]’ for purposes of [the Rehabilitation Act],” Congress evinced no intent in enacting that statute “to grant to ‘handicapped’ veterans the judicial review traditionally denied all other veterans” under §211(a). Id., at 229.
Meanwhile, petitioner McKelvey sought review of the Veterans’ Administration’s decision in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court exercised jurisdiction over McKelvey’s claims on the ground that §211 (a) permits judicial review of decisions rejecting claims that Veterans’ Administration regulations of general applicability violate a federal statute that is “completely independent of the complex statutory and regulatory scheme for dispersing veterans’ benefits.” McKelvey v. Walters, 596 F. Supp. 1317, 1321 (1984). The court then invalidated 38 CFR § 3.301(c) (2) (1987) as contrary to the Rehabilitation Act. The court ordered the Veterans’ Administration to determine without resort to the regulation whether McKelvey had suffered a disability attributable to his own misconduct.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that judicial review was not foreclosed by § 211(a), which was held to apply only to claims “resolved by an actual ‘decision of the Administrator.’” 253 U. S. App. D. C. 126, 130, 792 F. 2d 194, 198 (1986) (per curiam) (quoting Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 367 (1974)). The court found that no such decision had been rendered by the Veterans’ Administration as to the validity of 38 CFR §3.301(c)(2) (1987) under the Rehabilitation Act. On the merits, however, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Veterans’ Administration could consistently with the Rehabilitation Act distinguish between veterans who are at least to some extent responsible for their disabilities and veterans who are not. With respect to alcoholism, this distinction could be effected by means of § 3.301(c)(2), said the court, because the Veterans’ Administration could reasonably conclude that alcoholism is a “willfully caused handicap” unless attributable to an underlying psychiatric disorder. 253 U. S. App. D. C., at 132-133, 792 F. 2d, at 200-201. The court expressed disagreement with Tinch v. Walters, 765 F. 2d 599 (CA6 1985), which had invalidated the regulation in light of the Rehabilitation Act. See 253 U. S. App. D. C., at 133, n. 4, 792 F. 2d, at 201, n. 4.
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflicts between the Courts of Appeals as to whether Veterans’ Administration decisions challenged under the Rehabilitation Act are subject to judicial review and, if so, whether that Act bars the Veterans’ Administration from characterizing petitioners’ alcoholism as “willful misconduct” for purposes of 38 U. S. C. § 1662(a)(1). 480 U. S. 916 (1987).
II
We must first consider whether §211(a)’s bar against judicial review of “the decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration providing benefits for veterans” extends to petitioners’ claim that the Veterans’ Administration regulation defining primary alcoholism as “willful misconduct” discriminates against handicapped persons in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
We have repeatedly acknowledged “the strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action.” Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667, 670 (1986); see also Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S. 560, 567 (1975); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, 166-167 (1970). The presumption in favor of judicial review may be overcome “only upon a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a contrary legislative intent.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967) (citations omitted). We look to such evidence as “‘specific language or specific legislative history that is a reliable indicator of congressional intent,’ or a specific congressional intent to preclude judicial review that is ‘fairly discernible in the detail of the legislative scheme.’” Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, supra, at 673 (quoting Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349, 351 (1984)).
In Johnson v. Robison, supra, we held that the federal courts could entertain constitutional challenges to veterans’ benefits legislation. We determined that “neither the text nor the scant legislative history of § 211(a)” provided the requisite “clear and convincing” evidence of congressional intent to foreclose judicial review of challenges to the constitutionality of a law administered by the Veterans’ Administration., 415 U. S., at 373-374. In that case, the Veterans’ Administration, acting under 38 U. S. C. §§ 101(21), 1652(a)(1), and 1661(a), denied educational benefits to a conscientious objector who had completed the required alternative civilian service. The claimant brought suit in the District Court, challenging those statutory sections on First and Fifth Amendment grounds. The District Court denied a motion to dismiss based on § 211(a) and gave judgment to the plaintiff. Robison v. Johnson, 352 F. Supp. 848 (Mass. 1973). We agreed that § 211(a) did not bar the suit, but reversed the judgment on the merits. On the § 211(a) issue, we reasoned that “[t]he prohibitions [of § 211(a)] would appear to be aimed at review only of those decisions of law or fact that arise in the administration by the Veterans’ Administration of a statute providing benefits for veterans.” 415 U. S., at 367. The'questions of law presented in that case, however, arose under the Constitution rather than under the veterans’ benefits statute and concerned whether there was a valid law on the subject for the Veterans’ Administration to execute. We went on to conclude that the principal purposes of § 211(a)— “(1) to insure that veterans’ benefits claims will not burden the courts and the Veterans’ Administration with expensive and time-consuming litigation, and (2) to insure that the technical and complex determinations and applications of Veterans’ Administration policy connected with veterans’ benefits decisions will be adequately and uniformly made,” id., at 370 — would not be frustrated if federal courts were permitted to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the very statute that was sought to be enforced. We noted that such challenges “cannot be expected to burden the courts by their volume, nor do they involve technical consideration of Veterans’ Administration policy.” Id., at 373.
The text and legislative history of § 211(a) likewise provide no clear and convincing evidence of any congressional intent to preclude a suit claiming that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a statute applicable to all federal agencies, has invalidated an otherwise valid regulation issued by the Veterans’ Administration and purporting to have the force of law. Section 211(a) insulates from review decisions of law and fact “under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration,” that is, decisions made in interpreting or applying a particular provision of that statute to a particular set of facts. Id., at 367. But the cases now before us involve the issue whether the law sought to be administered is valid in light of a subsequent statute whose enforcement is not the exclusive domain of the Veterans’ Administration. There is no claim that the regulation at issue is inconsistent with the statute under which it was issued; and there is no challenge to the Veterans’ Administration’s construction of any statute dealing with veterans’ benefits, except to the extent that its construction may be affected by the Rehabilitation Act. Nor is there any reason to believe that the Veterans’ Administration has any special expertise in assessing the validity of its regulations construing veterans’ benefits statutes under a later passed statute of general application. Permitting these cases to go forward will not undermine the purposes of § 211(a) any more than did the result in Johnson. It cannot be assumed that the availability of the federal courts to decide whether there is some fundamental inconsistency between the Veterans’ Administration’s construction of veterans’ benefits statutes, as reflected in the regulation at issue here, and the admonitions of the Rehabilitation Act will enmesh the courts in “the technical and complex determinations and applications of Veterans’ Administration policy connected with veterans’ benefits decisions” or “burden the courts and the Veterans’ Administration with expensive and time-consuming litigation.” Id., at 370. Of course, if experience proves otherwise, the Veterans’ Administration is fully capable of seeking appropriate relief from Congress.
Accordingly, we conclude that the question whether a Veterans’ Administration regulation violates the Rehabilitation Act is not foreclosed from judicial review by § 211(a). We therefore turn to the merits of petitioners’ Rehabilitation Act claim.
Ill
Congress historically has imposed time limitations on the use of “GI Bill” educational benefits. Veterans of World War II were required to use their benefits within nine years after their discharge from military service, while Korean Conflict veterans had eight years in which to use their benefits. See S. Rep. No. 93-977, p. 13 (1974) (letter to Hon. Vance Hartke from Veterans’ Administrator Johnson). The delimiting period under the current “GI Bill” was raised from 8 years to 10 years in 1974. Pub. L. 93-337, § 2(1), 88 Stat. 292, 38 U. S. C. §§ 1712(b)(1), (2). In 1977, Congress created an exception to this 10-year delimiting period for veterans who delayed their education because of “a physical or mental disability which was not the result of [their] own willful misconduct.” Pub. L. 95-202, Tit. II, § 203(a)(1), 91 Stat. 1429, 38 U. S. C. § 1662(a)(1).
Congress did not use the term “willful misconduct” inadvertently in § 1662(a)(1). The same term had long been used in other veterans’ benefits statutes. For example, veterans are denied compensation for service-connected disabilities that are “the result of the veteran’s own willful misconduct.” 38 U. S. C. § 310. See also § 521 (compensation for disabilities not connected with military service). The Veterans’ Administration had long construed the term “willful misconduct” for purposes of these statutes as encompassing primary alcoholism (i. e., alcoholism that is not “secondary to and a manifestation of an acquired psychiatric disorder”). See n. 2, supra.
“It is always appropriate to assume that our elected representatives, like other citizens, know the law.” Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 696-697 (1979). Hence, we must assume that Congress was aware of the Veterans’ Administration’s interpretation of “willful misconduct” at the time that it enacted § 1662(a)(1), and that Congress intended that the term receive the same meaning for purposes of that statute as it had received for purposes of other veterans’ benefits statutes. See Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 489 (1985); Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 461 U. S. 624, 633 (1983); Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U. S. 574, 586-587, and n. 10 (1983). In these cases, however, we need not rely only on such assumptions. The legislative history confirms that Congress intended that the Veterans’ Administration apply the same test of “willful misconduct” in granting extensions of time under § 1662(a)(1) as the agency already was applying in granting disability compensation under § 310 and § 521. Specifically, the Report of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on the 1977 legislation states:
“In determining whether the disability sustained was a result of the veteran’s own ‘willful misconduct,’ the Committee intends that the same standards be applied as are utilized in determining eligibility for other VA programs under title 38. In this connection, see 38 CFR, part III, paragraphs 3.1(n) and 3.301, and VA Manual M21-1, section 1404.” S. Rep. No. 95-468, pp. 69-70 (1977).
The cited regulations include 38 CFR § 3.301(c)(2) (1987), the regulation that characterizes primary alcoholism as “willful misconduct.” The Veterans’ Administration Manual provision states, inter alia, that “[b]asic principles for application in deciding cases involving alcoholism are stated in Administrator’s Decision No. 988,” the decision on which § 3.301(c)(2) is based. VA Manual M21-1, change 132, subch. I, § 14.04c (Jan. 29, 1976). See n. 2, supra. These sources set forth the criteria for determining whether a veteran’s alcoholism is the result of “willful misconduct.” These criteria therefore are among the “standards” that, according to the Senate Report, Congress intended to be utilized in determining eligibilty for extended educational benefits.
It is thus clear that the 1977 legislation precluded an extension of time to a veteran who had not pursued his education because of primary alcoholism. If Congress had intended instead that primary alcoholism not be deemed “willful misconduct” for purposes of § 1662(a)(1), as it had been deemed for purposes of other veterans’ benefits statutes, Congress most certainly would have said so.
It was the same Congress that one year later extended §504’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of handicap to “any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency.” Pub. L. 95-602, Tit. IV, §§ 119, 122(d)(2), 92 Stat. 2982, 2987, 29 U. S. C. § 794. Yet, in enacting the 1978 Rehabilitation Act amendments, Congress did not affirmatively evince any intent to repeal or amend the “willful misconduct” provision of § 1662(a)(1). Nor did Congress anywhere in the language or legislative history of the 1978 amendments expressly disavow its 1977 determination that primary alcoholism is not the sort of disability that warrants an exemption from the time constraints of § 1662(a)(1).
Accordingly, petitioners can prevail under their Rehabilitation Act claim only if the 1978 legislation can be deemed to have implicitly repealed the “willful misconduct” provision of the 1977 legislation or forbade the Veterans’ Administration to classify primary alcoholism as willful misconduct. They must thereby overcome the “ ‘cardinal rule . . . that repeals by implication are not favored.’” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 549-550 (1974) (quoting Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U. S. 497, 503 (1936); Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 363 (1842); Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm’n, 393 U. S. 186, 193 (1968)). “It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a statute dealing with a narrow, precise, and specific subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute covering a more generalized spectrum,” Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 153 (1976), unless the later statute “‘expressly contradices] the original act’” or unless such a construction “‘is absolutely necessary ... in order that [the] words [of the later statute] shall have any meaning at all.’” Ibid, (quoting T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 98 (2d ed. 1874)). “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Morton v. Mancari, supra, at 551.
As we have noted, the 1978 legislation did not expressly contradict the more “narrow, precise, and specific” 1977 legislation. Moreover, the 1978 legislation is not rendered meaningless, even with respect to those who claim to have been handicapped as a result of alcoholism, if the “willful misconduct” provision of § 1662(a)(1) is allowed to retain the import originally intended by Congress.
First, the “willful misconduct” provision does not undermine the central purpose of §504, which is to assure that handicapped individuals receive “evenhanded treatment” in relation to nonhandicapped individuals. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U. S. 287, 304 (1985); Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U. S. 397, 410 (1979). This litigation does not involve a program or activity that is alleged to treat handicapped persons less favorably than nonhandicapped persons. Cf. School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U. S. 273 (1987); Southeastern Community College, supra. Rather, petitioners challenge a statutory provision that treats disabled veterans more favorably than able-bodied veterans: The former may obtain extensions of time in which to use their educational benefits so long as they did not become disabled as a result of their own “willful misconduct”; the latter are absolutely precluded from obtaining such extensions regardless of how compelling their reasons for having delayed their schooling might be. In other words, § 1662(a)(1) merely provides a special benefit to disabled veterans who bear no responsibility for their disabilities that is not provided to other disabled veterans or to any able-bodied veterans.
There is nothing in the Rehabilitation Act that requires that any benefit extended to one category of handicapped persons also be extended to all other categories of handicapped persons. Hence, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1977 with regard to the application of §504 to federally funded programs provide that “exclusion of a specific class of handicapped persons from a program limited by Federal statute or executive order to a different class of handicapped persons” is not prohibited. 42 Fed. Reg. 22676, 22679 (1977), promulgating 45 CFR § 84.4(c) (1986). It is therefore not inconsistent with the Rehabilitation Act for only those veterans whose disabilities are not attributable to their own “willful misconduct” to be granted extensions of the 10-year delimiting period applicable to all other veterans. Congress is entitled to establish priorities for the allocation of the limited resources available for veterans’ benefits, cf. McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs of Chicago, 394 U. S. 802, 809 (1969), and thereby to conclude that veterans who bear some responsibility for their disabilities have no stronger claim to an extended eligibility period than do able-bodied veterans. Those veterans are not, in the words of § 504, denied benefits “solely by reason of [their] handicap,” but because they engaged with some degree of willfulness in the conduct that caused them to become disabled.
Furthermore, § 1662(a)(1) does not deny extensions of the delimiting period to all alcoholics but only to those whose drinking was not attributable to an underlying psychiatric disorder. It is estimated by some authorities that mental illness is responsible for 20% to 30% of all alcoholism cases. Brief for American Medical Association as Amicus Curiae 7. Each veteran who claims to have been disabled by alcoholism is entitled under § 1662(a)(1) to an individualized assessment of whether his condition was the result of a mental illness.
Petitioners, however, perceive an inconsistency between § 504 and the conclusive presumption that alcoholism not motivated by mental illness is necessarily “willful.” They contend that § 504 mandates an individualized determination of “willfulness” with respect to each veteran who claims to have been disabled by alcoholism. It would arguably be inconsistent with § 504 for Congress to distinguish between categories of disabled veterans according to generalized determinations that lack any substantial basis. If primary alcoholism is not always “willful,” as that term has been defined by Congress and the Veterans’ Administration, some veterans denied benefits may well be excluded solely on the basis of their disability. We are unable to conclude that Congress failed to act in accordance with § 504 in this instance, however, given what the District of Columbia Circuit accurately characterized as “a substantial body of medical literature that even contests the proposition that alcoholism is a disease, much less that it is a disease for which the victim bears no responsibility.” 253 U. S. App. D. C., at 132-133, 792 F. 2d, at 200-201. Indeed, even among many who consider alcoholism a “disease” to which its victims are genetically predisposed, the consumption of alcohol is not regarded as wholly involuntary. See Fingarette, The Perils of Powell: In Search of a Factual Foundation for the “Disease Concept of Alcoholism,” 83 Harv. L. Rev. 793, 802-808 (1970). As we see it, §504 does not demand inquiry into whether factors other than mental illness rendered an individual veteran’s drinking so entirely beyond his control as to negate any degree of “willfulness” where Congress and the Veterans’ Administration have reasonably determined for purposes of the veterans’ benefits statutes that no such factors exist.
In sum, we hold that a construction of § 1662(a)(1) that reflects the original congressional intent that primary alcoholics not be excused from the 10-year delimiting period for utilizing “GI Bill” benefits is not inconsistent with the prohibition on discrimination against the handicapped contained in § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Accordingly, since we “are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments . . . when two statutes are capable of co-existence,” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S., at 551, we must conclude that the earlier, more specific provisions of § 1662(a)(1) were neither expressly nor implicitly repealed by the later, more general provisions of § 504.
IV
This litigation does not require the Court to decide whether alcoholism is a disease whose course its victims cannot control. It is not our-role to resolve this medical issue on which the authorities remain sharply divided. Our task is to decide whether Congress intended, in enacting § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, to reject the position taken on the issue by the Veterans’ Administration and by Congress itself only one year earlier. In our view, it is by no means clear that § 504 and the characterization of primary alcoholism as a willfully incurred disability are in irreconcilable conflict. If petitioners and their proponents continue to believe that this position is erroneous, their arguments are better presented to Congress than to the courts.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in No. 86-737 is affirmed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in No. 86-622 is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 504, 29 U. S. C. § 794, provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o 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 or under any program' or activity conducted by any Executive agency.”
The applicable regulation, 38 CFR § 3.301(c)(2) (1987), provides:
“Alcoholism: The simple drinking of alcoholic beverage is not of itself willful misconduct. The deliberate drinking of a known poisonous substance or under conditions which would raise a presumption to that effect will be considered willful misconduct. If, in the drinking of a beverage to enjoy its intoxicating effects, intoxication results proximately and immediately in disability or death, the disability or death will be considered the result of the person’s willful misconduct. Organic diseases and disabilities which are a secondary result of the chronic use of alcohol as a beverage, whether out of compulsion or otherwise, will not be considered of willful misconduct origin.”
This regulation was intended by the Veterans’ Administration to incorporate the principles of a 1964 administrative decision. 37 Fed. Reg. 20335, 20336 (1972) (proposed regulation); 37 Fed. Reg. 24662 (1972) (final regulation). The 1964 decision provided that alcoholism that is “secondary to and a manifestation of an acquired psychiatric disorder” would not be characterized as willful misconduct. Administrator’s Decision, Veterans’ Administration No. 988, Interpretation of the Term “Willful Misconduct” as Related to the Residuals of Chronic Alcoholism, Aug. 13, 1964, App. 142-143. The Veterans’ Administration refers to this type of alcoholism as “secondary,” and to alcoholism unrelated to an underlying psychiatric disorder as “primary.” See ibid.; Veterans’ Administration Manual M21-1, change 149, subch. XI, § 50.32 (Dec. 23, 1979) (hereinafter VA Manual). Petitioners were found to have suffered from primary alcoholism.
Title 38 U. S. C. § 211(a) provides, in pertinent part:
“[T]he decision of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration providing benefits for veterans and their dependents or survivors shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.”
Petitioners have not raised constitutional claims before this Court.
The dissent maintained that § 211(a) was inapplicable both because the Rehabilitation Act neither provides benefits to veterans nor is administered by the Veterans’ Administration and because the Administrator had not issued a decision as to whether the challenged regulation violated that Act. 791 F. 2d, at 232. Neither the majority nor the dissent reached the merits of Traynor’s Rehabilitation Act claim.
The court acknowledged that the Veterans’ Administration had decided the Rehabilitation Act issue while the case was on appeal. However, the court held that “Section 211(a)’s application is to be determined firmly and finally as of the date that plaintiff commences litigation.” 253 U. S. App. D. C., at 131, 792 F. 2d, at 199. Otherwise, the court reasoned, “[t]he agency could allow a challenge to its action to proceed in the district court secure in the knowledge that if the VA lost there, it could retroactively shield the action from judicial review.” Ibid.
The panel was divided on both the jurisdictional issue and the merits.
The President has designated the Department of Justice as the federal agency responsible for coordinating and enforcing § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Exec. Order No. 12250, 3 CFR 298 (1981).
Indeed, petitioners submit that, in the four Circuits that have held that § 211(a) does not bar judicial review of statutory challenges to Veterans’ Administration regulations, only eight such challenges have been filed. See Brief for Petitioners 46-47, n. 32 (citing American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Nimmo, 711 F. 2d 28 (CA4 1983); Plato v. Roudebush, 397 F. Supp. 1295 (Md. 1975); Tinch v. Walters, 573 F. Supp. 346 (ED Tenn. 1983), aff’d, 765 F. 2d 599 (CA6 1985); Taylor v. United States, 385 F. Supp. 1035 (ND Ill. 1974), vacated and remanded, 528 F. 2d 60 (CA7 1976); Arnolds v. Veterans’ Administration, 507 F. Supp. 128 (ND Ill. 1981); Burns v. Nimmo, 545 F. Supp. 544 (Iowa 1982); Waterman v. Cleland, No. 4-77-Civ. 70 (Minn., Oct. 24, 1978)).
We have previously recognized that the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (later the Department of Health and Human Services) to implement the Rehabilitation Act “were drafted with the oversight and approval of Congress,” School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U. S. 273, 279 (1987), and therefore constitute “‘an important source of guidance on the meaning of §504.’” Ibid. (quoting Alexander v. Choate, 469 U. S. 287, 304, n. 24 (1985)).
Our decision in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, supra, is not to the contrary. In Arline, we recognized that the district courts should “in most cases” undertake an individualized inquiry into whether a handicapped person has been denied a job for which he is otherwise qualified. 480 U. S., at 287. In contrast to the instant case, Arline did not involve a handicapping condition as to which Congress had specifically determined that no individualized inquiry was necessary. We might well have reached a different conclusion in Arline had the employer relied on a congressional determination supported by substantial medical evidence that all employees suffering from acute tuberculosis pose a serious health threat to others in the workplace.
If the position urged by the dissent were to prevail, the Veterans’ Administration would be hard put to avoid making an individualized determination as to whether a veteran’s alcoholism is sufficiently “willful” to disqualify him from disability compensation under §§ 310 and 521. Such a requirement would saddle the Government with additional administrative and financial burdens that Congress could not have contemplated in extending § 504 to federal programs.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether there is a constitutional right to a trial by jury for persons charged under Nevada law with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Nev. Rev. Stat. §484.379(1) (1987). We hold that there is not.
DUI is punishable by a minimum term of two days’ imprisonment and a maximum term of six months’ imprisonment. §484.3792(l)(a)(2). Alternatively, a trial court may order the defendant “to perform 48 hours of work for the community while dressed in distinctive garb which identifies him: as [a DUI offender].” Ibid. The defendant also must pay a fine ranging from $200 to $1,000. § 484.3792(l)(a)(3). In addition, the defendant automatically loses his driver’s license for 90 days, §483.460(l)(c), and he must attend, at his own expense, an alcohol abuse education course. §484.3792(1) (a)(1). Repeat DUI offenders are subject to increased penalties.
Petitioners Melvin R. Blanton and Mark D. Fraley were charged with DUI in separate incidents. Neither petitioner had a prior DUI conviction. The North Las Vegas, Nevada, Municipal Court denied their respective pretrial demands for a jury trial. On appeal, the Eighth Judicial District Court denied Blanton’s request for a jury trial but, a month later, granted Fraley’s. Blanton then appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada, as did respondent city of North Las Vegas with respect to Fraley. After consolidating the two cases along with several others raising the same issue, the Supreme Court concluded, inter alia, that the Federal Constitution does not guarantee a right to a jury trial for a DUI offense because the maximum term of incarceration is only six months and the maximum possible fine is $1,000. 103 Nev. 623, 748 P. 2d 494 (1987). We granted certiorari to consider whether petitioners were entitled to a jury trial, 487 U. S. 1203 (1988), and now affirm.
It has long been settled that “there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 159 (1968); see also District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 624 (1937); Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540, 557 (1888). In determining whether a particular offense should be categorized as “petty,” our early decisions focused on the nature of the offense and on whether it was triable by a jury at common law. See, e. g., District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U. S. 63, 73 (1930); Callan, supra, at 555-557. In recent years, however, we have sought more “objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense.” Frank v. United States, 395 U. S. 147, 148 (1969). “[W]e have found the most relevant such criteria in the severity of the maximum authorized penalty.” Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66, 68 (1970) (plurality opinion); see also Duncan, supra, at 159. In fixing the maximum penalty for a crime, a legislature “include[s] within the definition of the crime itself a judgment about the seriousness of the offense.” Frank, supra, at 149. The judiciary should not substitute its judgment as to seriousness for that of a legislature, which is “far better equipped to perform the task, and [is] likewise more responsive to changes in attitude and more amenable to the recognition and correction of their misperceptions in this respect.” Landry v. Hoepfner, 840 F. 2d 1201, 1209 (CA5 1988) (en banc), cert. pending, No. 88-5043.
In using the word “penalty,” we do not refer solely to the maximum prison term authorized for a particular offense. A legislature’s view of the seriousness of an offense also is reflected in the other penalties that it attaches to the offense. See United States v. Jenkins, 780 F. 2d 472, 474, and n. 3 (CA4), cert. denied, 476 U. S. 1161 (1986). We thus examine “whether the length of the authorized prison term or the seriousness of other punishment is enough in itself to require a jury trial.” Duncan, supra, at 161 (emphasis added); see also Frank, 395 U. S., at 152 (three years’ probation is not “onerous enough to make an otherwise petty offense ‘serious’”). Primary emphasis, however, must be placed on the maximum authorized period of incarceration. Penalties such as probation or a fine may engender “a significant infringement of personal freedom,” id., at 151, but they cannot approximate in severity the loss of liberty that a prison term entails. Indeed, because incarceration is an “intrinsically different” form of punishment, Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U. S. 454, 477 (1975), it is the most powerful indication of whether an offense is “serious.”
Following this approach, our decision in Baldwin established that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial whenever the offense for which he is charged carries a maximum authorized prison term of greater than six months. 399 U. S., at 69; see id., at 74-76 (Black, J., concurring in judgment). The possibility of a sentence exceeding six months, we determined, is “sufficiently severe by itself” to require the opportunity for a jury trial. Id., at 69, n. 6. As for a prison term of six months or less, we recognized that it will seldom be viewed by the defendant as “trivial or ‘petty.’” Id., at 73. But we found that the disadvantages of such a sentence, “onerous though they may be, may be outweighed by the benefits that result from speedy and inexpensive nonjury adjudications.” Ibid.; see also Duncan, supra, at 160.
Although we did not hold in Baldwin that an offense carrying a maximum prison term of six months or less automatically qualifies as a “petty” offense, and decline to do so today, we do find it appropriate to presume for purposes of the Sixth Amendment that society views such an offense as “petty.” A defendant is entitled to a jury trial in such circumstances only if he can demonstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a “serious” one. This standard, albeit somewhat imprecise, should ensure the availability of a jury trial in the rare situation where a legislature packs an offense it deems “serious” with onerous penalties that nonetheless “do not puncture the 6-month incarceration line.” Brief for Petitioners 16.
Applying these principles here, it is apparent that petitioners are not entitled to a jury trial. The maximum authorized prison sentence for first-time DUI offenders does not exceed six months. A presumption therefore exists that the Nevada Legislature views DUI as a “petty” offense for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Considering the additional statutory penalties as well, we do not believe that the Nevada Legislature has clearly indicated that DUI is a “serious” offense.
In the first place, it is immaterial that a first-time DUI offender may face a minimum term of imprisonment. In settling on six months’ imprisonment as the constitutional demarcation point, we have assumed that a defendant convicted of the offense in question would receive the maximum authorized prison sentence. It is not constitutionally determinative, therefore, that a particular defendant may be required to serve some amount of jail time less than six months. Likewise, it is of little moment that a defendant may receive the maximum prison term because of the prohibitions on plea bargaining and probation. As for the 90-day license suspension, it, too, will be irrelevant if it runs concurrently with the prison sentence, which we assume for present purposes to be the maximum of six months.
We are also unpersuaded by the fact that, instead of a prison sentence, a DUI offender may be ordered to perform 48 hours of community service dressed in clothing identifying him as a DUI offender. Even assuming the outfit is the source of some embarrassment during the 48-hour period, such a penalty will be less embarrassing and less onerous than six months in jail. As for the possible $1,000 fine, it is well below the $5,000 level set by Congress in its most recent definition of a “petty” offense, 18 U. S. C. §1 (1982 ed., Supp. IV), and petitioners do not suggest that this congressional figure is out of step with state practice for offenses carrying prison sentences of six months or less. Finally, we ascribe little significance to the fact that a DUI offender faces increased penalties for repeat offenses. Recidivist penalties of the magnitude imposed for DUI are commonplace and, in any event, petitioners do not face such penalties here.
Viewed together, the statutory penalties are not so severe that DUI must be deemed a “serious” offense for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. It was not error, therefore, to deny petitioners jury trials. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nevada is
Affirmed.
A restricted license may be issued after 45 days which permits the defendant to travel to and from work, to obtain food and medicine, and to receive regularly scheduled medical care. §483.490(2).
A second DUI offense is punishable by 10 days to six months in prison. § 484.3792(l)(b). The second-time offender also must pay a fine ranging from $500 to $1,000, ibid., and he loses his driver’s license for one year. § 483.460(l)(b)(5). A third DUI offense is punishable by a minimum term of one year’s imprisonment and a maximum term of six years’ imprisonment. § 484.3792(l)(e). The third-time offender also roust pay from $2,000 to $5,000, ibid., and he loses his driving privileges for three years. §483.460(l)(a)(2).
A prosecutor may not dismiss a DUI charge “in exchange for a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a lesser charge or for any other reason unless he knows or it is obvious” that there is insufficient evidence to prove the offense. § 484.3792(3). Trial courts may not suspend sentences or impose probation for DUI convictions. Ibid.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada remanded Blanton’s case with instructions to proceed without a jury trial. Because Fraley pleaded guilty to DUI before he took an appeal to the District Court, the Supreme Court remanded his case with instructions to reinstate his conviction.
The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968).
Our decision to move away from inquiries into such matters as the nature of the offense when determining a defendant’s right to a jury trial was presaged in District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 628 (1937), where we stated: “Doubts must be resolved, not subjectively by recourse of the judge to his own sympathy and emotions, but by objective standards such as may be observed in the laws and practices of the community taken as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments.” Our adherence to a common-law approach has been undermined by the substantial number of statutory offenses lacking common-law antecedents. See Landry v. Hoepfner, 840 F. 2d 1201, 1209-1210 (CA5 1988) (en banc), cert. pending, No. 88-5043; United States v. Woods, 450 F. Supp. 1335, 1345 (Md. 1978); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18.
In criminal contempt prosecutions, “where no maximum penalty is authorized, the severity of the penalty actually imposed is the best indication of the seriousness of the particular offense.” Frank, 395 U. S. at, 149.
We held “only that a potential sentence in excess of six months’ imprisonment is sufficiently severe by itself to take the offense out of the category of ‘petty.’” Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S., at 69, n. 6 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added); see also Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U. S. 506, 512, n. 4 (1974).
In performing this analysis, only penalties resulting from state action, e. g., those mandated by statute or regulation, should be considered. See Note, The Federal Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury'for the Offense of Driving While Intoxicated, 73 Minn. L. Rev. 122,149-150 (1988) (nonstatu-tory consequences of a conviction “are speculative in nature, because courts cannot determine with any consistency when and if they will occur, especially in the context of society’s continually shifting moral values”).
It is unclear whether the license suspension and prison sentence in fact run concurrently. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §483.460(1) (1987). But even if they do not, we cannot say that a 90-day license suspension is that significant as a Sixth Amendment matter, particularly when a restricted license may be obtained after only 45 days. Cf. Frank v. United. States, supra. Furthermore, the requirement that an offender attend an alcohol abuse education course can only be described as de minimis.
We are hampered in our review of the clothing requirement because the record from the state courts contains neither a description of the clothing nor any details as to where and when it must be worn.
We have frequently looked to the federal classification scheme in determining when a jury trial must be provided. See, e. g., Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U. S. 454, 476-477 (1975); Baldwin, supra, at 71; Duncan, 391 U. S., at 161. Although Congress no longer characterizes offenses as “petty,” 98 Stat. 2027, 2031, 99 Stat. 1728 (repealing 18 U. S. C. § 1), under the current scheme, 18 U. S. C. §3559 (1982 ed., Supp. V), an individual facing a maximum prison sentence of six months or less remains subject to a maximum fine of no more than $5,000. 18 U. S. C. §3571(b)(6) (1982 ed., Supp. V).
We decline petitioners’ invitation to survey the statutory penalties for drunken driving in other States. The question is not whether other States consider drunken driving a “serious” offense, but whether Nevada does. Cf. Martin v. Ohio, 480 U. S. 228, 236 (1987). Although we looked to state practice in our past decisions, we did so chiefly to determine whether there was a nationwide consensus on the potential term of imprisonment or amount of fine that triggered a jury trial regardless of the particular offense involved. See, e. g., Baldwin, supra, at 70-73; Duncan, supra, at 161.
In light of petitioners’ status as first-time offenders, we do not consider whether a repeat offender facing enhanced penalties may state a constitutional claim because of the absence of a jury trial in a prior DUI prosecution.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
A parent failed to comply with a valid court order to make child support payments, and defended against subsequent contempt charges by claiming that he was financially unable to make the required payments. The trial court ruled that under state law he is presumed to remain able to comply with the térms of the prior order, and judged him to be in contempt. The state appellate court held that the legislative presumptions applied by the trial court violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids a court to employ certain presumptions that affect the determination of guilt or innocence in criminal proceedings. We must decide whether the Due Process Clause was properly applied in this case.
I
On January 19, 1976, a California state court entered an order requiring respondent, Phillip Feiock, to begin making monthly payments to his ex-wife for the support of their three children. Over the next six years, respondent only sporadically complied with the order, and by December 1982 he had discontinued paying child support altogether. His ex-wife sought to enforce the support orders. On June 22, 1984, a hearing was held in California state court on her petition for ongoing support payments and for payment of the arrearage due her. The court examined respondent’s financial situation and ordered him to begin paying $150 per month commencing on July 1,1984. The court reserved jurisdiction over the matter for the purpose of determining the arrearages and reviewing respondent’s financial condition.
Respondent apparently made two monthly payments but paid nothing for the next nine months. He was then served with an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt on nine counts of failure to make the monthly payments ordered by the court. At a hearing on August 9, 1985, petitioner made out a prima facie case of contempt against respondent by establishing the existence of a valid court order, respondent’s knowledge of the order, and respondent’s failure to comply with the order. Respondent defended by arguing that he was unable to pay support during the months in question. This argument was partially successful, but respondent was adjudged to be in contempt on five of the nine counts. He was sentenced to 5 days in jail on each count, to be served consecutively, for a total of 25 days. This sentence was suspended, however, and respondent was placed on probation for three years. As one of the conditions of his probation, he was ordered once again to make support payments of $150 per month. As another condition of his probation, he was ordered, starting the following month, to begin repaying $50 per month on his accumulated arrearage, which was determined to total $1,650.
At the hearing, respondent had objected to the application of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209.5 (West 1982) against him, claiming that it was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it shifts to the defendant the burden of proving inability to comply with the order, which is an element of the crime of contempt. This objection was rejected, and he renewed it on appeal. The intermediate state appellate court agreed with respondent and annulled the contempt order, ruling that the state statute purports to impose “a mandatory presumption compelling a conclusion of guilt without independent proof of an ability to pay,” and is therefore unconstitutional because “the mandatory nature of the presumption lessens the prosecution’s burden of proof.” 180 Cal. App. 3d 649, 654, 225 Cal. Rptr. 748, 751 (1986). In light of its holding that the statute as previously interpreted was unconstitutional, the court went on to adopt a different interpretation of that statute to govern future proceedings: “For future guidance, however, we determine the statute in question should be construed as authorizing a permissive inference, but not a mandatory presumption.” Id., at 655, 225 Cal. Rptr., at 751. The court explicitly considered this reinterpretation of the statute to be an exercise of its “obligation to interpret the statute to preserve its constitutionality whenever possible.” Ibid. The California Supreme Court denied review, but we granted certiorari. 480 U. S. 915 (1987).
II
Three issues must be decided to resolve this case. First is whether the ability to comply with a court order constitutes an element of the offense of contempt or, instead, inability to comply is an affirmative defense to that charge. Second is whether § 1209.5 requires the alleged contemnor to shoulder the burden of persuasion or merely the burden of production in attempting to establish his inability to comply with the order. Third is whether this contempt proceeding was a criminal proceeding or a civil proceeding, i. e., whether the relief imposed upon respondent was criminal or civil in nature.
Petitioner argues that the state appellate court erred in its determinations on the first two points of state law. The court ruled that whether the individual is able to comply with a court order is an element of the offense of contempt rather than an affirmative defense to the charge, and that § 1209.5 shifts to the alleged contemnor the burden of persuasion rather than simply the burden of production in showing inability to comply. We are not at liberty to depart from the state appellate court’s resolution of these issues of state law. Although petitioner marshals a number of sources in support of the contention that the state appellate court misapplied state law on these two points, the California Supreme Court denied review of this case, and we are not free in this situation to overturn the state court’s conclusions of state law.
The third issue, however, is a different matter: the argument is not merely that the state court misapplied state law, but that the characterization of this proceeding and the relief given as civil or criminal in nature, for purposes of determining the proper applicability of federal constitutional protections, raises a question of federal law rather than state law. This proposition is correct as stated. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 365-366 (1970); In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 49-50 (1967); Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 368-369 (1966). The fact that this proceeding and the resultant relief were judged to be criminal in nature as a matter of state law is thus not determinative of this issue, and the state appellate court erred insofar as it sustained respondent’s challenge to the statute under the Due Process Clause simply because it concluded that this contempt proceeding is “quasi-criminal” as a matter of California law. 180 Cal. App. 3d, at 653, 225 Cal. Rptr., at 750.
III
A
The question of how a court determines whether to classify the relief imposed in a given proceeding as civil or criminal in nature, for the purposes of applying the Due Process Clause and other provisions of the Constitution, is one of long standing, and its principles have been settled at least in their broad outlines for many decades. When a State’s proceedings are involved, state law provides strong guidance about whether or not the State is exercising its authority “in a nonpunitive, noncriminal manner,” and one who challenges the State’s classification of the relief imposed as “civil” or “criminal” may be required to show “the clearest proof” that it is not correct as a matter of federal law. Allen v. Illinois, 478 U. S. 364, 368-369 (1986). Nonetheless, if such a challenge is substantiated, then the labels affixed either to the proceeding or to the relief imposed under state law are not controlling and will not be allowed to defeat the applicable protections of federal constitutional law. Ibid. This is particularly so in the codified laws of contempt, where the “civil” and “criminal” labels of the law have become increasingly blurred.
Instead, the critical features are the substance of the proceeding and the character of the relief that the proceeding will afford. “If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court.” Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 441 (1911). The character of the relief imposed is thus ascertainable by applying a few straightforward rules. If the relief provided is a sentence of imprisonment, it is remedial if “the defendant stands committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court’s order,” and is punitive if “the sentence is limited to imprisonment for a definite period.” Id., at 442. If the relief provided is a fine, it is remedial when it is paid to the complainant, and punitive when it is paid to the court, though a fine that would be payable to the court is also remedial when the defendant can avoid paying the fine simply by performing the affirmative act required by the court’s order. These distinctions lead up to the fundamental proposition that criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings, including the requirement that the offense be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e. g., Gompers, supra, at 444; Michaelson v. United States ex rel. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 266 U. S. 42, 66 (1924).
The Court has consistently applied these principles. In Gompers, decided early in this century, three men were found guilty of contempt and were sentenced to serve 6, 9, and 12 months respectively. . The Court found this relief to be criminal in nature because the sentence was determinate and unconditional. “The distinction between refusing to do an act commanded, —remedied by imprisonment until the party performs the required act; and doing an act forbidden, — punished by imprisonment for a definite term; is sound in principle, and generally, if not universally, affords a test by which to determine the character of the punishment.” Gompers, 221 U. S., at 443. In the former instance, the conditional nature of the punishment renders the relief civil in nature because the contemnor “can end the sentence and discharge himself at any moment by doing what he had previously refused to do.” Id., at 442. In the latter instance, the unconditional nature of the punishment renders the relief' criminal in nature because the relief “cannot undo or remedy what has been done nor afford any compensation” and the contemnor “cannot shorten the term by promising not to repeat the offense.” Ibid.
The distinction between relief that is civil in nature and relief that is criminal in nature has been repeated and followed in many cases. An unconditional penalty is criminal in nature because it is “solely and exclusively punitive in character.” Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U. S. 585, 593 (1947). A conditional penalty, by contrast, is civil because it is specifically designed to compel the doing of some act. “One who is fined, unless by a day certain he [does the act ordered], has it in his power to avoid any penalty. And those who are imprisoned until they obey the order, ‘carry the keys of their prison in their own pockets.’” Id., at 590, quoting In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (CA8 1902). In Penfield, a man was found guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a court order to produce documents. This Court ruled that since the man was not tried in a proceeding that afforded him the applicable constitutional protections, he could be given a conditional term of imprisonment but could not be made to pay “a flat, unconditional fine of $50.00.” Penfield, supra, at 588. See also United States v. Rylander, 460 U. S. 752 (1983); Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33 (1941); Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U. S. 105 (1936); Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U. S. 217 (1932); Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358 (1929); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87 (1925); Doyle v. London Guarantee Co., 204 U. S. 599 (1907); In re Christensen Engineering Co., 194 U. S. 458 (1904); Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324 (1904).
Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364 (1966), adheres to these same principles. There two men were adjudged guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a court order to testify under a grant of immunity. Both were sentenced to two years of imprisonment, with the proviso that if either answered the questions before his sentence ended, he would be released. The penalties were upheld because of their “conditional nature,” even though the underlying proceeding lacked certain constitutional protections that are essential in criminal proceedings. Id., at 365. Any sentence “must be viewed as remedial,” and hence civil in nature, “if the court conditions release upon the contemnor’s willingness to [comply with the order].” Id., at 370. By the same token, in a civil proceeding the court “may also impose a determinate sentence which includes a purge clause.” Id., at 370, n. 6 (emphasis added). “On the contrary, a criminal contempt proceeding would be characterized by the imposition of an unconditional sentence for punishment or deterrence.” Id., at 370, n. 5.
B
In repeatedly stating and following the rules set out above, the Court has eschewed any alternative formulation that would make the classification of the relief imposed in a State’s proceedings turn simply on what their underlying purposes are perceived to be. Although the purposes that lie behind particular kinds of relief are germane to understanding their character, this Court has never undertaken to psychoanalyze the subjective intent of a State’s laws and its courts, not only because that effort would be unseemly and improper, but also because it would be misguided. In contempt cases, both civil and criminal relief have aspects that can be seen as either remedial or punitive or both: when a court imposes fines and punishments on a contemnor, it is not only vindicating its legal authority to enter the initial court order, but it also is seeking to give effect to the law’s purpose of modifying the contemnor’s behavior to conform to the terms required in the order. As was noted in Gompers:
“It is true that either form of [punishment] has also an incidental effect. For if the case is civil and the punishment is purely remedial, there is also a vindication of the court’s authority. On the other hand, if the proceeding is for criminal contempt and the [punishment] is solely punitive, to vindicate the authority of the law, the complainant may also derive some incidental benefit from the fact that such punishment tends to prevent a repetition of the disobedience. But such indirect consequences will not change [punishment] which is merely coercive and remedial, into that which is solely punitive in character, or vice versa” 221 U. S., at 443.
For these reasons, this Court has judged that conclusions about the purposes for which relief is imposed are properly drawn from an examination of the character of the relief itself.
There is yet another reason why the overlapping purposes of civil and criminal contempt proceedings have prevented this Court from hinging the classification on this point. If the definition of these proceedings and their resultant relief as civil or criminal is made to depend on the federal courts’ views about their underlying purposes, which indeed often are not clearly articulated in any event, then the States will be unable to ascertain with any degree of assurance how their proceedings will be understood as a matter of federal law. The consequences of any such shift in direction would be both serious and unfortunate. Of primary practical importance to the decision in this case is that the States should be given intelligible guidance about how, as a matter of federal constitutional law, they may lawfully employ presumptions and other procedures in their contempt proceedings. It is of great importance to the States that they be able to understand clearly and in advance the tools that are available to them in ensuring swift and certain compliance with valid court orders — not only orders commanding payment of child support, as in this case, but also orders that command compliance in the more general area of domestic relations law, and in all other areas of the law as well.
The States have long been able to plan their own procedures around the traditional distinction between civil and criminal remedies. The abandonment of this clear dividing line in favor of a general assessment of the manifold and complex purposes that lie behind a court’s action would create novel problems where now there are rarely any — novel problems that could infect many different areas of the law. And certainly the fact that a contemnor has his sentence suspended and is placed on probation cannot be decisive in defining the civil or criminal nature of the relief, for many convicted criminals are treated in exactly this manner for the purpose (among others) of influencing their behavior. What is true of the respondent in this case is also true of any such convicted criminal: as long as he meets the conditions of his informal probation, he will never enter the jail. Nonetheless, if the sentence is a determinate one, then the punishment is criminal in nature, and it may not be imposed unless federal constitutional protections are applied in the contempt proceeding.
IV
The proper classification of the relief imposed in respondent’s contempt proceeding is dispositive of this case. As interpreted by the state court here, §1209.5 requires respondent to carry the burden of persuasion on an element of the offense, by showing his inability to comply with the court’s order to make the required payments. If applied in a criminal proceeding, such a statute would violate the Due Process Clause because it would undercut the State’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e. g., Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684, 701-702 (1975). If applied in a civil proceeding, however, this particular statute would be constitutionally valid, Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U. S. 56, 75-76 (1948); Oriel, 278 U. S., at 364-365, and respondent conceded as much at the argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 37.
The state court found the contempt proceeding to be “quasi-criminal” in nature without discussing the point. 180 Cal. App. 3d, at 653, 225 Cal. Rptr., at 750. There were strong indications that the proceeding was intended to be criminal in nature, such as the notice sent to respondent, which clearly labeled the proceeding as “criminal in nature,” Order to Show Cause and Declaration for Contempt (June 12, 1985), App. 21, and the participation of the District Attorney in the case. Though significant, these facts are not dispositive of the issue before us, for if the trial court had imposed only civil coercive remedies, as surely it was authorized to do, then it would be improper to invalidate that result merely because the Due Process Clause, as applied in criminal proceedings, was not satisfied. It also bears emphasis that the purposes underlying this proceeding were wholly ambiguous. Respondent was charged with violating nine discrete prior court orders, and the proceeding may have been intended primarily to vindicate the court’s authority in the face of his defiance. On the other hand, as often is true when court orders are violated, these charges were part of an ongoing battle to force respondent to conform his conduct to the terms of those orders, and of future orders as well.
Applying the traditional rules for classifying the relief imposed in a given proceeding requires the further resolution of one factual question about the nature of the relief in this case. Respondent was charged with nine separate counts of contempt, and was convicted on five of those counts, all of which arose from his failure to comply with orders to make payments in past months. He was sentenced to 5 days in jail on each of the five counts, for a total of 25 days, but his jail sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years. If this were all, then the relief afforded would be criminal in nature. But this is not all. One of the conditions of respondent’s probation was that he begin making payments on his accumulated arrearage, and that he continue making these payments at the rate of $50 per month. At that rate, all of the arrearage would be paid before respondent completed his probation period. Not only did the order therefore contemplate that respondent would be required to purge himself of his past violations, but it expressly states that “[i]f any two payments are missed, whether consecutive or not, the entire balance shall become due and payable.” Order of the California Superior Court for Orange County (Aug. 9, 1985), App. 39. What is unclear is whether the ultimate satisfaction of these accumulated prior payments would have purged the determinate sentence imposed on respondent. Since this aspect of the proceeding will vary as a factual matter from one case to another, depending on the precise disposition entered by the trial court, and since the trial court did not specify this aspect of its disposition in this case, it is not surprising that neither party was able to offer a satisfactory explanation of this point at argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 42-47. If the relief imposed here is in fact a determinate sentence with a purge clause, then it is civil in nature. Shillitani, 384 U. S., at 370, n. 6; Fox, 299 U. S., at 106, 108; Gompers, 221 U. S., at 442.
The state court did not pass on this issue because of its erroneous view that it was enough simply to aver that this proceeding is considered “quasi-criminal” as a matter of state law. And, as noted earlier, the court’s view on this point, coupled with its view of the Federal Constitution, also led it to reinterpret the state statute, thus softening the impact of the presumption, in order to save its constitutionality. Yet the Due Process Clause does not necessarily prohibit the State from employing this presumption as it was construed by the state court, if respondent would purge his contempt judgment by paying off his arrearage. In these circumstances, the proper course for this Court is to vacate the judgment below and remand for further consideration of § 1209.5 free from the compulsion of an erroneous view of federal law. See, e. g., Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 467 U. S. 138, 152 (1984). If on remand it is found that respondent would purge his sentence by paying his arrearage, then this proceeding is civil in nature and there was no need for the state court to reinterpret its statute to avoid conflict with the Due Process Clause.
We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
California Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209.5 (West 1982) states that “[w]hen a court of competent jurisdiction makes an order compelling a parent to furnish support ... for his child, proof that . . . the parent was present in court at the time the order was pronounced and proof of noncompliance therewith shall be prima facie evidence of a contempt of court.”
Although the court mentioned one state case among the cases it cited in support of this proposition, the court clearly rested on federal constitutional grounds as articulated in this Court’s decisions, 180 Cal. App. 3d, at 652-655, 225 Cal. Rptr., at 749-751, as did the other state case it cited. See People v. Roder, 33 Cal. 3d 491, 658 P. 2d 1302 (1983).
“Where an intermediate appellate state court rests its considered judgment upon the rule of law which it announces, that is a datum for ascertaining state law which is not to be disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise. . . . This is the more so where, as in this case, the highest court has refused to review the lower court’s decision rendered in one phase of the very litigation which is now prosecuted by the same parties before the federal court. . . . Even though it is arguable that the Supreme Court of [the State] will at some later time modify the rule of [this] case, whether that will ever happen remains a matter of conjecture. In the meantime the state law applicable to these parties and in this case has been authoritatively declared by the highest state court in which a decision eoúld be had. . . . We think that the law thus announced and applied is the law of the state applicable in the same case and to the same parties in the federal court and that the federal court is not free to apply a different rule however desirable it may believe it to be, and even though it may think that the state Supreme Court may establish a different rule in some future litigation.” West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 311 U. S. 223, 237-238 (1940).
California is a good example of this modern development, for although it defines civil and criminal contempts in separate statutes, compare Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209 (West Supp. 1988) with Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 166 (West 1970), it has merged the two kinds of proceedings under the same procedural rules. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §§ 1209-1222 (West 1982 and Supp. 1988).
We have recognized that certain specific constitutional protections, such as the right to trial by jury, are not applicable to those criminal contempts that can be classified as petty offenses, as is true of other petty crimes as well. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194, 208-210 (1968). This is not true, however, of the proposition that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 205.
In Penfield, the original court order required a person to produce certain documents. He refused to comply. The District Court then found him guilty of contempt and required him to pay a fine to the court, which he promptly paid. (The court had also ordered him to stand committed until he paid this fine.) The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the District Court had erred in imposing this relief, which was criminal in nature, and ordered the man instead to stand committed to prison until he complied with the original order by producing the documents. This Court affirmed, finding that this relief was civil in nature and was properly imposed, whereas the relief that had been ordered by the District Court was criminal in nature and had not been properly imposed. 330 U. S., at 587-595. The reason that the sanction imposed by the District Court was found to be criminal in nature is because it was determinate: the contemnor could not avoid the sanction by agreeing to comply with the original order to produce the documents. Yet the sanction of confinement imposed by the Court of Appeals was civil in nature because it was conditional, i. e., not determinate: the contemnor would avoid the sanction by agreeing to comply with the original order to produce the documents.
In these passages from Shillitani, the Court clearly indicated that when it spoke of a court’s conditioning release upon the contemnor’s willingness to comply, it did not mean simply release from physical confinement, but release from the imposition of any sentence that would otherwise be determinate. The critical feature that determines whether the remedy is civil or criminal in nature is not when or whether the contemnor is physically required to set foot in a jail but-whether the contemnor can avoid the sentence imposed on him, or purge himself of it, by complying with the terms of the original order. It follows that the remedy in this case is not rendered civil in nature merely by suspending respondent’s sentence and placing him on probation (with its attendant disabilities, see n. 11, infra).
This does not even suggest, of course, that the State is unable to suspend the sentence imposed on either a criminal contemnor or a civil contemnor in favor of a term of informal probation. That action may be appropriate and even most desirable in a great many cases, especially when the order that has been disobeyed was one to pay a sum of money. This also accords with the repeated emphasis in our decisions that in wielding its contempt powers, a court “must exercise ‘the least possible power adequate to the end proposed.’” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 371 (1966), quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231 (1821).
Our precedents are clear, however, that punishment may not be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding when it is clearly established that the alleged contemnor is unable to comply with the terms of the order. United States v. Rylander, 460 U. S. 752, 757 (1983); Shillitani, supra, at 371; Oriel, 278 U. S., at 366.
This can also be seen by considering the notice given to the alleged contemnor. This Court has stated that one who is charged with a crime is “entitled to be informed of the nature of the charge against him but to know that it is a charge and not a suit.” Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 446 (1911). Yet if the relief ultimately given in such a proceeding is wholly civil in nature, then this requirement would not be applicable. It is also true, of course, that if both civil and criminal relief are imposed in the same proceeding, then the “‘criminal feature of the order is dominant and fixes its character for purposes of review.’ ” Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, 42-43 (1941), quoting Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107, 110 (1922).
That a determinate sentence is suspended and the contemnor put on probation does not make the remedy civil in nature, for a suspended sentence, without more, remains a determinate sentence, and a fixed term of probation is itself a punishment that is criminal in nature. A suspended sentence with a term of probation is not equivalent to a conditional sentence that would allow the contemnor to avoid or purge these sanctions. A determinate term of probation puts the contemnor under numerous disabilities that he cannot escape by complying with the dictates of the prior orders, such as: any conditions of probation that the court judges to be reasonable and necessary may be imposed; the term of probation may be revoked and the original sentence (including incarceration) may be reimposed at any time for a variety of reasons without all the safeguards that are ordinarily afforded in criminal proceedings; and the contemnor’s probationary status could affect other proceedings against him that may arise in the future (for example, this fact might influence the sentencing determination made in a criminal prosecution for some wholly independent offense).
It is also perhaps of some significance, though not binding upon us, that' the parties reinforce the ambiguity on this point by entitling this contempt order, in the Joint Appendix, as “Order of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to Purge Arrearage and Judgment of Contempt.” App. i.
Even if this relief is judged on remand to be criminal in nature because it does not allow the contemnor to purge the judgment by satisfying the terms of the prior orders, this result does not impose any real handicap on the States in enforcing the terms of their orders, for it will be clear to the States that the presumption established by § 1209.5 can be imposed, consistent with the Due Process Clause, in any proceeding where the relief afforded is civil in nature as defined by this Court’s precedents. In addition, the state courts remain free to decide for themselves the state-law issues we have taken as having been resolved in this case by the court below, and to judge the lawfulness of statutes that impose similar presumptions under the provisions of their own state constitutions.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of New York requires every liquor distiller or producer that sells liquor to wholesalers within the State to sell at a price that is no higher than the lowest price the distiller charges wholesalers anywhere else in the United States. The issue in this case is whether that requirement violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
I
New York extensively regulates the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages within its borders. The State’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (ABC Law) prohibits the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages within the State without the appropriate licenses, ABC Law § 100(1) (McKinney 1970), and regulates the terms of all sales, §§101-a to 101-bbb (McKinney 1970 and Supp. 1986). Distillers and their agents may not sell to wholesalers in New York except in accordance with a price schedule filed with the State Liquor Authority. § 101-b(3)(a). The distiller or agent must file the price schedule before the 25th day of each month, and the prices therein become effective on the first day of the second following month. The schedule must contain a precise description of each item the distiller intends to sell, and a per-bottle and per-case price. All sales to any wholesaler in New York during the month for which the schedule is in effect must be at those prices.
This litigation concerns § 101 — b(3)(d) of the ABC Law, which requires any distiller or agent that files a schedule of prices to include an affirmation that “the bottle and case price of liquor to wholesalers set forth in such schedule is no higher than the lowest price at which such item of liquor will be sold by such [distiller] to any wholesaler anywhere in any other state of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or to any state (or state agency) which owns and operates retail liquor stores” during the month covered by the schedule. Violation of the statute may lead to revocation of a distiller’s license and the forfeiture of bond posted by the distiller in connection with the license, § 101 — b(6). Twenty other States have similar affirmation laws.
Appellant Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. (BrownForman) is a distiller that owns several brands of liquor that it sells in New York and in other States. Beginning in 1978, appellant has offered its wholesalers cash payments, or “promotional allowances,” which are credited against any amounts due appellant. Appellant intends for wholesalers to use these allowances for advertising; however, the amount of the allowance a wholesaler receives is not tied to the quantity either of the wholesaler’s advertising or of its purchases of appellant’s products. The amount of a particular wholesaler’s allowance does depend on its past purchases and projections of future purchases, but accepting the allowance does not constitute an agreement to purchase any particular quantity of Brown-Forman products. The allowances, therefore, are unconditional, lump-sum payments to all wholesalers, in every State except New York, that purchase Brown-Forman brands.
Appellant offered the promotional allowance to its New York wholesalers, but the Liquor Authority determined that the ABC Law prohibited such payments. The Authority also determined, however, that the payment of promotional allowances to wholesalers in other States lowered the effective price of Brown-Forman brands to those wholesalers, and thus violated § 101 — b(3)(d) of the ABC Law. The Liquor Authority accordingly instituted license revocation proceedings against appellant.
Appellant sought review of the Liquor Authority’s ruling in the state courts, asserting that it was both arbitrary and unconstitutional. Appellant contended that it could not possibly file a schedule of prices that reflected precisely the “effective price” charged to wholesalers in other States, because there was no one “effective price.” Each participating wholesaler could pay a different effective price in a given month depending on the amount of Brown-Forman product it had purchased during that month. Moreover, appellant argued, other States did not treat the promotional allowances as discounts. Were New York to force appellant to reduce its prices in that State, appellant would be charging a lower price to New York wholesalers than the price recognized by other States, thereby forcing appellant to violate the affirmation laws of those States. Appellant contended that the only way to avoid this dilemma was to stop offering promotional allowances, unless other States chose to alter their affirmation laws. By effectively forcing appellant to discontinue a promotional program in other States where that program was legal, appellant argued, New York’s regulation violated the Commerce Clause. Appellant also argued that the affirmation law on its face directly regulated interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court rejected these arguments, 100 App. Div. 2d 55, 473 N. Y. S. 2d 420 (1984), as did the New York Court of Appeals, 64 N. Y. 2d 479, 479 N. E. 2d 764 (1985). The Court of Appeals concluded, first, that the Liquor Authority’s decision to consider the promotional allowances as a discount was supported by substantial evidence. Second, the court held that the ABC Law as applied does not violate the Commerce Clause, rejecting as speculative appellant’s contention that it cannot comply simultaneously with the affirmation laws of New York and of other States. Finally, the court held that the affirmation law, on its face, does not violate the Commerce Clause. We noted probable jurisdiction limited to the question whether the ABC Law, on its face, violates the Commerce Clause, 474 U. S. 814 (1985). We now reverse.
II
This Court has adopted what amounts to a two-tiered approach to analyzing state economic regulation under the Commerce Clause. When a state statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry. See, e. g., Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617 (1978); Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189 (1925); Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U. S. 624, 640-643 (1982) (plurality opinion). When, however, a statute has only indirect effects on interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly, we have examined whether the State’s interest is legitimate and whether the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 142 (1970). We have also recognized that there is no clear line separating the category of state regulation that is virtually per se invalid under the Commerce Clause, and the category subject to the Pike v. Bruce Church balancing approach. In either situation the critical consideration is the overall effect of the statute on both local and interstate activity. See Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice, 434 U. S. 429, 440-441 (1978).
A
Appellant does not dispute that New York’s affirmation law regulates all distillers , of intoxicating liquors evenhandedly, or that the State’s asserted interest — to assure the lowest possible prices for its residents — is legitimate. Appellant contends that these factors are irrelevant, however, because the lowest-price affirmation provision of the ABC Law falls within that category of direct regulations of interstate commerce that the Commerce Clause wholly forbids. This is so, appellant contends, because the ABC Law effectively regulates the price at which liquor is sold in other States. By requiring distillers to affirm that they will make no sales anywhere in the United States at a price lower than the posted price in New York, appellant argues, New York makes it illegal for a distiller to reduce its price in other States during the period that the posted New York price is in effect. Appellant contends that this constitutes direct regulation of interstate commerce. The law also disadvantages consumers in other States, according to appellant, and is therefore the sort of “simple economic protectionism” that this Court has routinely forbidden. Philadelphia v. New Jersey, supra, at 624.
If appellant has correctly characterized the effect of the New York lowest-price affirmation law, that law violates the Commerce Clause. While a State may seek lower prices for its consumers, it may not insist that producers or consumers in other States surrender whatever competitive advantages they may possess. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511, 528 (1935); Schwegmann Brothers Giant Super Markets v. Louisiana Milk Comm’n, 365 F. Supp. 1144 (MD La. 1973), aff’d, 416 U. S. 922 (1974). Economic protectionism is not limited to attempts to convey advantages on local merchants; it may include attempts to give local consumers an advantage over consumers in other States. See, e. g., New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U. S. 331, 338 (1982) (State may not require “that its residents be given a preferred right of access, over out-of-state consumers, to natural resources located within its borders”). In Seelig, supra, this Court struck down New York’s Milk Control Act. The Act set minimum prices for milk purchased from producers in New York and in other States, and banned the resale within New York of milk that had been purchased for a lower price. Justice Cardozo’s opinion for the Court recognized that a State may not “establish a wage scale or a scale of prices for use in other states, and . . . bar the sale of the products . . . unless the scale has been observed.” Id., at 528. The mere fact that the effects of New York’s ABC Law are triggered only by sales of liquor within the State of New York therefore does not validate the law if it regulates the out-of-state transactions of distillers who sell in-state. Our inquiry, then, must center on whether New York’s affirmation law regulates commerce in other States.
B
This Court has once before examined the extraterritorial effects of a New York affirmation statute. In Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35 (1966), the Court considered the constitutionality, under the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses, of the predecessor to New York’s current affirmation law. That law differed from the present version in that it required the distiller to affirm that its prices during a given month in New York would be no higher than the lowest price at which the item had been sold elsewhere during the previous month. The Court recognized in that case, as we have here, that the most important issue was whether the statute regulated out-of-state transactions. Id., at 42-43. It concluded, however, that “[t]he mere fact that [the statute] is geared to appellants’ pricing policies in other States is not sufficient to invalidate the statute.” The Court distinguished Seelig, supra, by concluding that any effects of New York’s ABC Law on a distiller’s pricing policies in other States were “largely matters of conjecture,” 384 U. S., at 42-43.
Appellant relies on United States Brewers Assn. v. Healy, 692 F. 2d 275 (CA2 1982), summarily aff’d, 464 U. S. 909 (1983), in seeking to distinguish the present case from Seagram. In Healy, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered a Connecticut price-affirmation statute for beer sales that is not materially different from the current New York ABC Law. The Connecticut statute, like the ABC Law, required sellers to post prices at the beginning of a month, and proscribed deviation from the posted prices during that month. The statute also required brewers to affirm that their prices in Connecticut were as low as the price at which they would sell beer in any bordering State during the effective month of the posted prices. The Court of Appeals distinguished Seagram based on the “prospective” nature of this affirmation requirement. It concluded that the Connecticut statute made it impossible for a brewer to lower its price in a bordering State in response to market conditions so long as it had a higher posted price in effect in Connecticut. By so doing, the statute “regulate[d] conduct occurring wholly outside the state,” 692 F. 2d, at 279, and thereby violated the Commerce Clause. We affirmed summarily.
C
We agree with appellant and with the Healy court that a “prospective” statute such as Connecticut’s beer affirmation statute, or New York’s liquor affirmation statute, regulates out-of-state transactions in violation of the Commerce Clause. Once a distiller has posted prices in New York, it is not free to change its prices elsewhere in the United States during the relevant month. Forcing a merchant to seek regulatory approval in one State before undertaking a transaction in another directly regulates interstate commerce. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U. S., at 642 (plurality opinion); see also Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S., at 522 (regulation tending to “mitigate the consequences of competition between the states” constitutes direct regulation). While New York may regulate the sale of liquor within its borders, and may seek low prices for its residents, it may not “project its legislation into [other States] by regulating the price to be paid” for liquor in those States. Id., at 521.
That the ABC Law is addressed only to sales of liquor in New York is irrelevant if the “practical effect” of the law is to control liquor prices in other States. Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U. S. 761, 775 (1945). We cannot agree with New York that the practical effects of the affirmation law are speculative. It is undisputed that once a distiller’s posted price is in effect in New York, it must seek the approval of the New York State Liquor Authority before it may lower its price for the same item in other States. It is not at all counterintuitive, as the dissent maintains, post, at 588, to assume that the Liquor Authority would not permit appellant to reduce its New York price after the posted price has taken effect. The stated purpose of the prohibition on price changes during a given month is to prevent price discrimination among retailers, see ABC Law §§ 101 — b(l), (2)(a). That goal is in direct conflict with the dissent’s view of the “whole purpose” of the ABC Law, and we have no means of predicting how the Authority would resolve that conflict. We do know, however, that the Liquor Authority forbade appellant to reduce its New York prices by offering promotional allowances to New York retailers, precisely because the Authority believed that program would violate the price-discrimination provisions. App. to Juris. Statement 50a. The dissent would require us to assume that other States will adopt a flexible approach to appellant’s promotional allowance program, post, at 589, despite New York’s refusal to do so.
Moreover, the proliferation of state affirmation laws following this Court’s decision in Seagram, has greatly multiplied the likelihood that a seller will be subjected to inconsistent obligations in different States. The ease with which New York’s lowest-price regulation can interfere with a distiller’s operations in other States is aptly demonstrated by the controversy that gave rise to this lawsuit. By defining the “effective price” of liquor differently from other States, New York can effectively force appellant to abandon its promotional allowance program in States in which that program is legal, or force those other States to alter their own regulatory schemes in order to permit appellant to lower its New York prices without violating the affirmation laws of those States. Thus New York has “projected] its legislation” into other States, and directly regulated commerce therein, in violation of Seelig, supra.
Ill
New York finally contends that the Twenty-first Amendment, which bans the importation or possession of intoxicating liquors into a State “in violation of the laws thereof,” saves the ABC Law from invalidation under the Commerce Clause. That Amendment gives the States wide latitude to regulate the importation and distribution of liquor within their territories, California Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97, 107 (1980). Therefore, New York argues, its ABC Law, which regulates the sale of alcoholic beverages within the State, is a valid exercise of the State’s authority.
It is well settled that the Twenty-first Amendment did not entirely remove state regulation of alcohol from the reach of the Commerce Clause. See Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 (1984). Rather, the Twenty-first Amendment and the Commerce Clause “each must be considered in light of the other and in the context of the issues and interests at stake in any concrete case.” Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324, 332 (1964). Our task, then, is to reconcile the interests protected by the two constitutional provisions.
New York has a valid constitutional interest in regulating sales of liquor within the territory of New York. Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment, however, speaks only to state regulation of the “transportation or importation into any State ... for delivery or use therein” of alcoholic beverages. That Amendment, therefore, gives New York only the authority to control sales of liquor in New York, and confers no authority to control sales in other States. The Commerce Clause operates with full force whenever one State attempts to regulate the transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages destined for distribution and consumption in a foreign country, Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., supra, or another State. Our conclusion that New York has attempted to regulate sales in other States of liquor that will be consumed in other States therefore disposes of the Twenty-first Amendment issue.
Moreover, New York’s affirmation law may interfere with the ability of other States to exercise their own authority under the Twenty-first Amendment. Once a distiller has posted prices in New York, it is not free to lower them in another State, even in response to a regulatory directive by that State, without risking forfeiture of its license in New York. New York law, therefore, may force other States either to abandon regulatory goals or to deprive their citizens of the opportunity to purchase brands of liquor that are sold in New York. New York’s reliance on the Twenty-first Amendment is therefore misplaced. Having found that the ABC Law on its face violates the Commerce Clause, and is not a valid exercise of New York’s powers under the Twenty-first Amendment, we reverse the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
These States differ in the time reference for the affirmation price. Some require the distiller to set a price that is no higher than the lowest price charged previously anywhere in the United States, see, e. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §4-253(A) (Supp. 1985). Others, like New York, require the affirmed price to be no higher than the lowest price that will be charged during the current month. See ABC Law § 101-b(3)(d).
There are 18 States, known as “control” States, that purchase all liquor that will be distributed and consumed within their borders. The control States use a standard sales contract that requires the distiller to warrant that the price the distiller charges to the State is no higher than the lowest price offered anywhere else in the United States. See Brief for Appellant 5, n. 4.
The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), upon appellant’s request, ruled that appellant’s promotional allowance does not violate the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27 U. S. C. §§201-211. See § 205(b) (prohibiting “paying or crediting [any] retailer [of alcoholic beverages] for any advertising” if done to induce the retailer to purchase alcohol from the person providing such payment or credit to the exclusion in whole or in part of other distillers or producers). Some of the features of appellant’s promotional allowance program described herein were required by BATF in order to ensure that the program would not violate the Act. See Juris. Statement 4.
See § 101-b(2)(b) (prohibiting “any discount, rebate, free goods, allowance or other inducement of any kind whatsoever” except for quantity and prompt-payment discounts of specified amounts).
See § 101-b(3)(g) (in determining lowest price, “appropriate reductions shall be made to reflect all discounts . . . and all rebates, free goods, allowances and other inducements”).
The Liquor Authority may “for good cause shown” permit a distiller to change its prices during a particular month, ABC Law § 101-b(3)(a), and New York speculates that the Authority would permit a distiller to lower its prices in other States in a given month so long as the distiller also lowers them in New York. However, whether to permit such a deviation from the statutory scheme is a matter left by the statute to the discretion of the Liquor Authority.
We would not solve the constitutional problems inherent in New York’s statute by indulging the dissent’s assumption that the Authority will be sensitive to Commerce Clause concerns. Certainly New York could not require an out-of-state company to receive a license from New York to do business in other States, even if we were quite sure that such licenses would be granted as a matter of course. Similarly, New York simply may not force appellant to seek regulatory approval from New York before it can reduce its prices in another State. The protections afforded by the Commerce Clause cannot be made to depend on the good grace of a state agency.
While we hold that New York’s prospective price affirmation statute violates the Commerce Clause, we do not necessarily attach constitutional significance to the difference between a prospective statute and the retrospective statute at issue in Seagram. Indeed, one could argue that the effects of the statute in Seagram do not differ markedly from the effects of the statute at issue in the present case. If there is a conflict between today’s decision and the Seagram decision, however, there will be time enough to address that conflict should a case arise involving a retrospective statute. Because no such statute is before us now, we need not consider the continuing validity of Seagram.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
For more than a century, this Court consistently and repeatedly has reaffirmed that racial discrimination by the State in jury selection offends the Equal Protection Clause. See, e. g., Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880). Last Term this Court held that racial discrimination in a civil litigant’s exercise of peremptory challenges also violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614 (1991). Today, we are asked to decide whether the Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges.
b-i
On August 10, 1990, a grand jury sitting in Dougherty County, Ga., returned a six-count indictment charging respondents with aggravated assault and simple battery. See App. 2. The indictment alleged that respondents beat and assaulted Jerry and Myra Collins. Respondents are white; the alleged victims are African-Americans. Shortly after the events, a leaflet was widely distributed in the local African-American community reporting the assault and urging community residents not to patronize respondents’ business.
Before jury selection began, the prosecution moved to prohibit respondents from exercising peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. The State explained that it expected to show that the victims’ race was a factor in the alleged assault. According to the State, counsel for respondents had indicated a clear intention to use peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner, arguing that the circumstances of their case gave them the right to exclude African-American citizens from participating as jurors in the trial. Observing that 43 percent of the county’s population is African-American, the State contended that, if a statistically representative panel is assembled for jury selection, 18 of the potential 42 jurors would be African-American. With 20 peremptory challenges, respondents therefore would be able to remove all the African-American potential jurors. Relying on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), the Sixth Amendment, and the Georgia Constitution, the State sought ' an order providing that, if it succeeded in making out a prima facie case of racial discrimination by respondents, the latter would be required to articulate a racially neutral explanation for peremptory challenges.
The trial judge denied the State’s motion, holding that “[njeither Georgia nor federal law prohibits criminal defendants from exercising peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner.” App. 14. The issue was certified for immediate appeal. Id., at 15 and 18.
The Supreme Court of Georgia, by a 4-to-3 vote, affirmed the trial court’s ruling. 261 Ga. 473,405 S. E. 2d 688 (1991). The court acknowledged that in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614 (1991), this Court had found that the exercise of a peremptory challenge in a racially discriminatory manner “would constitute an impermissible injury” to the excluded juror. 261 Ga., at 473, 405 S. E. 2d, at 689. The court noted, however, that Edmonson involved private civil litigants, not criminal defendants. “Bearing in mind the long history of jury trials as an essential element of the protection of human rights,” the court “decline[d] to diminish the free exercise of peremptory strikes by a criminal defendant.” 261 Ga., at 473, 405 S. E. 2d, at 689. Three justices dissented, arguing that Edmonson and other decisions of this Court establish that racially based peremptory challenges by a criminal defendant violate the Constitution. 261 Ga., at 473, 405 S. E. 2d, at 689 (Hunt, J.); id., at 475, 405 S. E. 2d, at 690 (Benham, J.); id., at 479, 405 S. E. 2d, at 693 (Fletcher, J.). A motion for reconsideration was denied. App. 60.
We granted certiorari to resolve a question left open by our prior cases — whether the Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. 502 U. S. 937 (1991).
II
Over the last century, in an almost unbroken chain of decisions, this Court gradually has abolished race as a consideration for jury service. In Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880), the Court invalidated a state statute providing that only white men could serve as jurors. While stating that a defendant has no right to a “petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race,” id., at 305, the Court held that a defendant does have the right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected by nondiscriminatory criteria. See also Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 397 (1881); Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 599 (1935) (State cannot exclude African-Americans from jury venire on false assumption that they, as a group, are not qualified to serve as jurors).
In Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202 (1965), the Court was confronted with the question whether an African-American defendant was denied equal protection by the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude members of his race from the petit jury. Id., at 209-210. Although the Court rejected the defendant’s attempt to establish an equal protection claim premised solely on the pattern of jury strikes in his own case, it acknowledged that proof of systematic exclusion of African-Americans through the use of perempto-ries over a period of time might establish such a violation. Id., at 224-228.
In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), the Court discarded Swain’s evidentiary formulation. The Batson Court held that a defendant may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury based solely on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant’s trial. Id., at 87. “Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to eome forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.” Id., at 97.
Last Term this Court applied the Batson framework in two other contexts. In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400 (1991), it held that in the trial of a white criminal defendant, a prosecutor is prohibited from excluding African-American jurors on the basis of race. In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614 (1991), the Court decided that in a civil case, private litigants cannot exercise their peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner.
In deciding whether the Constitution prohibits criminal defendants from exercising racially discriminatory peremptory challenges, we must answer four questions. First, whether a criminal defendant’s exercise of peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner inflicts the harms addressed by Batson. Second, whether the exercise of peremptory challenges by a criminal defendant constitutes state action. Third, whether prosecutors have standing to raise this constitutional challenge. And fourth, whether the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant nonetheless preclude the extension of our precedents to this case.
Ill
A
The majority in Powers recognized that “Batson ‘was designed “to serve multiple ends,” ’ only one of which was to protect individual defendants from discrimination in the selection of jurors.” 499 U. S., at 406. As in Powers and Edmonson, the extension of Batson in this context is designed to remedy the harm done to the “dignity of persons” and to the “integrity of the courts.” Powers, 499 U. S., at 402.
As long ago as Strauder, this Court recognized that denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror. 100 U. S., at 308. See also Batson, 476 U. S., at 87. While “[a]n individual juror does not have a right to sit on any particular petit jury,... he or she does possess the right not to be excluded from one on account of race.” Powers, 499 U. S., at 409. Regardless of who invokes the discriminatory challenge, there can be no doubt that the harm is the same — in all eases, the juror is subjected to open and public racial discrimination.
But “[t]he harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community.” Batson, 476 U. S., at 87. One of the goals of our jury system is “to impress upon the criminal defendant and the community as a whole that a verdict of conviction or acquittal is given in accordance with the law by persons who are fair.” Powers, 499 U. S., at 413. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude African-Americans from juries undermine that public confidence — as well they should. “The overt wrong, often apparent to the entire jury panel, casts doubt over the obligation of the parties, the jury, and indeed the court to adhere to the law throughout the trial of the cause.” Id., at 412. See generally Underwood, Ending Race Discrimination in Jury Selection: Whose Right Is It, Anyway?, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 725, 748-750 (1992).
The need for public confidence is especially high in cases involving race-related crimes. In such cases, emotions in the affected community will inevitably be heated and volatile. Public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system is essential for preserving community peace in trials involving race-related crimes. See Alschuler, The Supreme Court and the Jury: Voir Dire, Peremptory Challenges, and the Review of Jury Verdicts, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 153, 195-196 (1989) (describing two trials in Miami, Fla., in which all African-American jurors were peremptorily struck by white defendants accused of racial beating, and the public outrage and riots that followed the defendants’ acquittal).
“[B]e it at the hands of the State or the defense,” if a court allows jurors to be excluded because of group bias, “[it] is [a] willing participant in a scheme that could only undermine the very foundation of our system of justice — our citizens’ confidence in it.” State v. Alvarado, 221 N. J. Super. 324, 328, 534 A. 2d 440, 442 (1987). Just as public confidence in criminal justice is undermined by a conviction in a trial where racial discrimination has occurred in jury selection, so is public confidence undermined where a defendant, assisted by racially discriminatory peremptory strikes, obtains an acquittal.
B
The fact that a defendant’s use of discriminatory peremptory challenges harms the jurors and the community does not end our equal protection inquiry. Racial discrimination, although repugnant in all contexts, violates the Constitution only when it is attributable to state action. See Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163, 172 (1972). Thus, the second question that must be answered is whether a criminal defendant’s exercise of a peremptory challenge constitutes state action for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.
Until Edmonson, the cases decided by this Court that presented the problem of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges involved assertions of discrimination by a prosecutor, a quintessential state actor. In Edmonson, by contrast, the contested peremptory challenges were exercised by a private defendant in a civil action. In order to determine whether state action was present in that setting, the Court in Edmonson used the analytical framework summarized in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922 (1982).
The first inquiry is “whether the claimed [constitutional] deprivation has resulted from the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority.” Id., at 939. “There can be no question” that peremptory challenges satisfy this first requirement, as they “are permitted only when the government, by statute or decisional law, deems it appropriate to allow parties to exclude a given number of persons who otherwise would satisfy the requirements for service on the petit jury.” Edmonson, 500 U. S., at 620. As in Edmonson, a Georgia defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges and the scope of that right are established by a provision of state law. Ga. Code Ann. §15-12-165 (1990).
The second inquiry is whether the private party charged with the deprivation can be described as a state actor. See Lugar, 457 U. S., at 941-942. In resolving that issue, the Court in Edmonson found it useful to apply three principles: (1) “the extent to which the actor relies on governmental assistance and benefits”; (2) “whether the actor is performing a traditional governmental function”; and (3) “whether the injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of governmental authority.” 500 U. S., at 621-622.
As to the first principle, the Edmonson Court found that the peremptory challenge system, as well as the jury system as a whole, “simply could not exist” without the “overt, significant participation of the government.” Id., at 622. Georgia provides for the compilation of jury lists by the board of jury commissioners in each county and establishes the general criteria for service and the sources for creating a pool of qualified jurors representing a fair cross section of the community. Ga. Code Ann. § 15-12-40. State law further provides that jurors are to be selected by a specified process, § 15-12-42; they are to be summoned to court under the authority of the State, § 15-12-120; and they are to be paid an expense allowance by the State whether or not they serve on a jury, § 15-12-9. At court, potential jurors are placed in panels in order to facilitate examination by counsel, § 15-12-131; they are administered an oath, § 15-12-132; they are questioned on voir dire to determine whether they are impartial, § 15-12-164; and they are subject to challenge for cause, § 15-12-163.
In light of these procedures, the defendant in a Georgia criminal case relies on “governmental assistance and benefits” that are equivalent to those found in the civil context in Edmonson. “By enforcing a discriminatory peremptory challenge, the Court ‘has . . . elected to' place its power, property and prestige behind the [alleged] discrimination/” Edmonson, 500 U. S., at 624 (citation omitted).
In regard to the second principle, the Court in Edmonson found that peremptory challenges, perform a traditional function of the government: “Their sole purpose is to permit litigants to assist the government in the selection of an impartial trier of fact.” Id., at 620. And, as the Edmonson Court recognized, the jury system in turn “performs the critical governmental functions of guarding the rights of litigants and ‘ensur[ing] continued acceptance of the laws by all of the people’” id, at 624 (citation omitted). These same conclusions apply with even greater force in the criminal context because the selection of a jury in a criminal case fulfills a unique and constitutionally compelled governmental function. Compare Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968) (making Sixth Amendment applicable to States through Fourteenth Amendment), with Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211 (1916) (States do not have a constitutional obligation to provide a jury trial in civil eases). Cf. West v. Atkins, 487 U. S. 42, 53, n. 10, 57 (1988) (private physician hired by State to provide medical care to prisoners was state actor because doctor was hired to fulfill State's constitutional obligation to attend to necessary medical care of prison inmates). The State cannot avoid its constitutional responsibilities by delegating a public function to private parties. Cf. Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953) (private political party’s determination of qualifications for primary voters held to constitute state action).
Finally, the Edmonson Court indicated that the courtroom setting in which the peremptory challenge is exercised intensifies the harmful effects of the private litigant’s discriminatory act and contributes to its characterization as state action. These concerns are equally present in the context of a criminal trial. Regardless of who precipitated the jurors’ removal, the perception and the reality in a criminal trial will be that the court has excused jurors based on race, an outcome that will be attributed to the State.
Respondents nonetheless contend that the adversarial relationship between the defendant and the prosecution negates the governmental character of the peremptory challenge. Respondents rely on Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U. S. 312 (1981), in which a defendant sued, under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, the public defender who represented him. The defendant claimed that the public defender had violated his constitutional rights in failing to provide adequate representation. This Court determined that a public defender does not qualify as a state actor when engaged in his general representation of a criminal defendant.
Polk County did not hold that the adversarial relationship of a public defender with the State precludes a finding of state action — it held that this adversarial relationship prevented the attorney’s public employment from alone being sufficient to support a finding of state action. Instead, the determination whether a public defender is a state actor for a particular purpose depends on the nature and context of the function he is performing. For example, in Branti v. Finkel, 445 U. S. 507 (1980), this Court held that a public defender, in making personnel decisions on behalf of the State, is a state actor who must comply with constitutional requirements. And the Polk County Court itself noted, without deciding, that a public defender may act under color of state law while performing certain administrative, and possibly investigative, functions. See 454 U. S., at 325.
The exercise of a peremptory challenge differs significantly from other actions taken in support of a defendant’s defense. In exercising a peremptory challenge, a criminal defendant is wielding the power to choose a quintessential governmental body — indeed, the institution of government on which our judicial system depends. Thus, as we held in Edmonson, when “a government confers on a private body the power to choose the government’s employees or officials, the private body will be bound by the constitutional mandate of race neutrality.” 500 U. S., at 625.
Lastly, the fact that a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to further his interest in acquittal does not conflict with a finding of state action. Whenever a private actor’s conduct is deemed “fairly attributable” to the government, it is likely that private motives will have animated the actor’s decision. Indeed, in Edmonson, the Court recognized that the private party’s exercise of peremptory challenges constituted state action, even though the motive underlying the exercise of the peremptory challenge may be to protect a private interest. See id., at 626.
C
Having held that a defendant’s discriminatory exercise of a peremptory challenge is a violation of equal protection, we move to the question whether the State has standing to challenge a defendant’s discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. In Powers, 499 U. S., at 416, this Court held that a white criminal defendant has standing to raise the equal protection rights of black jurors wrongfully excluded from jury service. While third-party standing is a limited exception, the Powers Court recognized that a litigant may raise a claim on behalf of a third party if the litigant can demonstrate that he has suffered a concrete injury, that he has a close relation to the third party, and that there exists some hindrance to the third party’s ability to protect its own interests. Id., at 411. In Edmonson, the Court applied the same analysis in deciding that civil litigants had standing to raise the equal protection rights of jurors excluded on the basis of their race.
In applying the first prong of its standing analysis, the Powers Court found that a criminal defendant suffered cognizable injury “because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors ‘casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process/ and places the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt.” 499 U. S., at 411 (citation omitted). In Edmonson, this Court found that these harms were not limited to the criminal sphere. 500 U. S., at 6B0. Surely, a State suffers a similar injury when the fairness and integrity of its own judicial process is undermined.
In applying the second prong of its standing analysis, the Powers Court held that voir dire permits a defendant to “establish a relation, if not a bond of trust, with the jurors,” a relation that “continues throughout the entire trial.” 499 U. S., at 413. “Exclusion of a juror on the basis of race severs that relation in an invidious way.” Edmonson, 500 U. S., at 629.
The State’s relation to potential jurors in this case is closer than the relationships approved in Powers and Edmonson. As the representative of all its citizens, the State is the logical and proper party to assert the invasion of the constitutional rights of the excluded jurors in a criminal trial. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the State to deny persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In applying the final prong of its standing analysis, the Powers Court recognized that, although individuals excluded from jury service on the basis of race have a right to bring suit on their own behalf, the “barriers to a suit by an excluded juror are daunting.” 499 U. S., at 414. See also Edmonson, 500 U. S., at 629. The barriers are no less formidable in this context. See Note, Discrimination by the Defense: Peremptory Challenges after Batson v. Kentucky, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 355, 367 (1988); Underwood, 92 Colum. L. Rev., at 757 (summarizing barriers to suit by excluded juror). Accordingly, we hold that the State has standing to assert the excluded jurors’ rights.
D
The final question is whether the interests served by Bat-son must give way to the rights of a criminal defendant. As a preliminary matter, it is important to recall that peremptory challenges are not constitutionally protected fundamental rights; rather, they are but one state-created means to the constitutional end of an impartial jury and a fair trial. This Court repeatedly has stated that the right to a peremptory challenge may be withheld altogether without impairing the constitutional guarantee of an impartial jury and a fair trial. See Frazier v. United States, 335 U. S. 497, 505, n. 11 (1948); United States v. Wood, 299 U. S. 123, 145 (1936); Stilson v. United States, 250 U. S. 583, 586 (1919); see also Swain, 380 U. S., at 219.
Yet in Swain, the Court reviewed the “very old credentials,” id., at 212, of the peremptory challenge and noted the “long and widely held belief that the peremptory challenge is a necessary part of trial by jury,” id., at 219; see id., at 212-219. This Court likewise has recognized that “the role of litigants in determining the jury’s composition provides one reason for wide acceptance of the jury system and of its verdicts.” Edmonson, 500 U. S., at 630.
We do not believe that this decision will undermine the contribution of the peremptory challenge to the administration of justice. Nonetheless, “if race stereotypes are the price for acceptance of a jury panel as fair,” we reaffirm today that such a “price is too high to meet the standard of the Constitution.” Id., at 630. Defense counsel is limited to “legitimate, lawful conduct.” Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U. S. 157, 166 (1986) (defense counsel does not render ineffective assistance when he informs his client that he would disclose the client’s perjury to the court and move to withdraw from representation). It is an affront to justice to argue that a fair trial includes the right to discriminate against a group of citizens based upon their race.
Nor does a prohibition of the exercise of discriminatory peremptory challenges violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Counsel can ordinarily explain the reasons for peremptory challenges without revealing anything about trial strategy or any confidential client communications. In the rare case in which the explanation for a challenge would entail confidential communications or reveal trial strategy, an in camera discussion can be arranged. See United States v. Zolin, 491 U. S. 554 (1989); cf. Batson, 476 U. S., at 97 (expressing confidence that trial judges can develop procedures to implement the Court’s holding). In any event, neither the Sixth Amendment right nor the attorney-client privilege gives a criminal defendant the right to carry out through counsel an unlawful course of conduct. See Nix, 475 U. S., at 166; Zolin, 491 U. S., at 562-563. See Swift, Defendants, Racism and the Peremptory Challenge, 22 Colum. Hum. Rights L. Rev. 177, 207-208 (1991).
Lastly, a prohibition of the discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury. The goal of the Sixth Amendment is “jury impartiality with respect to both contestants.” Holland v. Illinois, 493 U. S. 474, 483 (1990). See also Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68 (1887).
We recognize, of course, that a defendant has the right to an impartial jury that can view him without racial animus, which so long has distorted our system of criminal justice. We have, accordingly, held that there should be a mechanism for removing those on the venire whom the defendant has specific reason to believe would be incapable of confronting and suppressing their racism. See Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524, 526-527 (1973); Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U. S. 182, 189-190 (1981) (plurality opinion of White, J.). Cf. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U. S. 719 (1992) (exclusion of juror in capital trial is permissible upon showing that juror is incapable of considering sentences other than death).
But there is a distinction between exercising a peremptory challenge to discriminate invidiously against jurors on account of race and exercising a peremptory challenge to remove an individual juror who harbors racial prejudice. This Court firmly has rejected the view that assumptions of partiality based on race provide a legitimate basis for disqualifying a person as an impartial juror. As this Court stated just last Term in Powers, “[w]e may not accept as a defense to racial discrimination the very stereotype the law condemns.” 499 U. S., at 410. “In our heterogeneous society policy as well as constitutional considerations militate against the divisive assumption — as a per se rule — that justice in a court of law may turn upon the pigmentation of skin, the accident of birth, or the choice of religion.” Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589, 596, n. 8 (1976). We therefore reaffirm today that the exercise of a peremptory challenge must not be based on either the race of the juror or the racial stereotypes held by the party.
IV
We hold that the Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Accordingly, if the State demonstrates a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the defendants, the defendants must articulate a racially neutral explanation for peremptory challenges. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Under Georgia law, the petit jury in a felony trial is selected from a panel of 42 persons. Ga. Code Ann. § 15-12-160 (1990).
When a defendant is indicted for an offense carrying a penalty of four or more years, Georgia law provides that he may “peremptorily challenge 20 of the jurors impaneled to try him.” § 15-12-165.
The Ninth Circuit recently has prohibited criminal defendants from exercising peremptory challenges on the basis of gender. United States v. De Gross, 960 F. 2d 1433 (1992) (en banc). Although the panel decision now has been vacated by the granting of rehearing en banc, a Fifth Circuit panel has held that criminal defendants may not exercise peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. See United States v. Greer, 939 F. 2d 1076, rehearing granted, 948 F. 2d 934 (1991).
The Batson majority specifically reserved the issue before us today. 476 U. S., at 89, n. 12. The two Batson dissenters, however, argued that the “clear and inescapable import” was that Batson would similarly limit defendants. Id., at 125-126. Justice Marshall agreed, stating: “[0]ur criminal justice system ‘requires not only freedom from any bias against the accused, but also from any prejudice against his prosecution. Between him and the state the scales are to be evenly held.’ Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 70 (1887).” Id., at 107 (concurring opinion).
In his dissent in Edmonson, Justice Scalia stated that the effect of that decision logically must apply to defendants in criminal prosecutions. 500 U. S., at 644.
The experience of many state jurisdictions has led to the recognition that a race-based peremptory challenge, regardless of who exercises it, harms not only the challenged juror, but the entire community. Acting pursuant to their state constitutions, state courts have ruled that criminal defendants have no greater license to violate the equal protection rights of prospective jurors than have prosecutors. See, e. g., State v. Levinson, 71 Haw. 492, 795 P. 2d 845 (1990); People v. Kern, 149 App. Div. 2d 187, 545 N. Y. S. 2d 4 (1989), aff'd, 75 N. Y. 2d 638, 555 N. Y. S. 2d 647 (1990); State v. Alvarado, 221 N. J. Super. 324, 534 A. 2d 440 (1987); State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984); Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, 387 N. E. 2d 499, cert. denied, 444 U. S. 881 (1979); People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258, 583 P. 2d 748 (1978).
The Court in Lugar held that a private litigant is appropriately characterized as a state actor when he “jointly participates” with state officials in securing the seizure of property in which the private party claims to have rights. 457 U. S., at 932-933, 941-942.
Indeed, it is common practice not to reveal the identity of the challenging party to the jurors and potential jurors, thus enhancing the perception that it is the court that has rejected them. See Underwood, Ending Race Discrimination in Jury Selection: Whose Right Is It, Anyway?, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 725, 751, n. 117 (1992).
Although Polk County determined whether or not the public defender’s actions were under color of state law, as .opposed to whether or not they constituted state action, this Court subsequently has held that the two inquiries are the same, see, e. g., Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U. S. 830, 838 (1982), and has specifically extended Polk County's, reasoning to state-action cases, see Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1009, n. 20 (1982).
Numerous commentators similarly have concluded that a defendant’s exercise of peremptory challenges constitutes state action. See generally Alschuler, The Supreme Court and the Jury: Voir Dire, Peremptory Challenges, and the Review of Jury Verdicts, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 163,197-198 (1989); Note, State Action and the Peremptory Challenge: Evolution of the Court’s Treatment and Implications for Georgia v. McCollum, 67 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1049, 1061-1074 (1992); Note, Discrimination by the Defense: Peremptory Challeges after Batson v. Kentucky, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 355, 358-361 (1988); Comment, The Prosecutor’s Right to Object to a Defendant’s Abuse of Peremptory Challenges, 93 Dick. L. Rev. 143, 158-162 (1988); Tanford, Racism in the Adversary System: The Defendant’s Use of Peremptory Challenges, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1015, 1027-1030 (1990); Underwood, 92 Colum. L. Rev., at 750-763.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Robinson was convicted in United States District Court for the District of Columbia of the possession and facilitation of concealment of heroin in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 4704 (a) (1964 ed.), and 21 U. S. C. § 174 (1964 ed.). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for these offenses. On his appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, that court first remanded the case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing concerning the scope of the search of respondent’s person which had occurred at the time of his arrest. 145 U. S. App. D. C. 46, 447 F. 2d 1215 (1971). The District Court made findings of fact and conclusions of law adverse to respondent, and he again appealed. This time the Court of Appeals en banc reversed the judgment of conviction, holding that the heroin introduced in evidence against respondent had been obtained as a result of a search which violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 153 U. S. App. D. C. 114, 471 F. 2d 1082 (1972). We granted certiorari, 410 U. S. 982 (1973), and set the case for argument together with Gustafson v. Florida, No. 71-1669, post, p. 260, also decided today.
On April 23, 1968, at approximately 11 p. m., Officer Richard Jenks, a 15-year veteran of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, observed the respondent driving a 1965 Cadillac near the intersection of 8th and C Streets, N. E., in the District of Columbia. Jenks, as a result of previous investigation following a check of respondent’s operator’s permit four days earlier, determined there was reason to believe that respondent was operating a motor vehicle after the revocation of his operator’s permit. This is an offense defined by statute in the District of Columbia which carries a mandatory minimum jail term, a mandatory minimum fine, or both. D. C. Code Ann. § 40-302 (d) (1967).
Jenks signaled respondent to stop the automobile, which respondent did, and all three of the occupants emerged from the car. At that point Jenks informed respondent that he was under arrest for “operating after revocation and obtaining a permit by misrepresentation.” It was assumed by the Court of Appeals, and is conceded by the respondent here, that Jenks had probable cause to arrest respondent, and that he effected a full-custody arrest.
In accordance with procedures prescribed in police department instructions, Jenks then began to search respondent. He explained at a subsequent hearing that he was “face-to-face” with the respondent, and “placed [his] hands on [the respondent], my right-hand to his left breast like this (demonstrating) and proceeded to pat him down thus [with the right hand].” During this patdown, Jenks felt an object in the left breast pocket of the heavy coat respondent was wearing, but testified that he “couldn't tell what it was” and also that he “couldn’t actually tell the size of it.” Jenks then reached into the pocket and pulled out the object, which turned out to be a “crumpled up cigarette package.” Jenks testified that at this point he still did not know what was in the package:
“As I felt the package I could feel objects in the package but I couldn’t tell what they were. ... I knew they weren’t cigarettes.”
The officer then opened the cigarette pack and found 14 gelatin capsules of white powder which .he thought to be, and which later analysis proved to be, heroin. Jenks then continued his search of respondent to completion, feeling around his waist and trouser legs, and examining the remaining pockets. The heroin seized from the respondent was admitted into evidence at the trial which resulted in his conviction in the District Court.
The opinion for the plurality judges of the Court of Appeals, written by Judge Wright, the concurring opinion of Chief Judge Bazelon, and the dissenting opinion of Judge Wilkey, concurred in by three judges, gave careful and comprehensive treatment to the authority of a police officer to search the person of one who has been validly arrested and taken into custody. We conclude that the search conducted by Jenks in this case did not offend the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
It is well settled that a search incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. This general exception has historically been formulated into two distinct propositions. The first is that a search may be made of the person of the arrestee by virtue of the lawful arrest. The second is that a search may be made of the area within the control of the arrestee.
Examination of this Court’s decisions shows that these two propositions have been treated quite differently. The validity of the search of a person incident to a lawful arrest has been regarded as settled from its first enunciation, and has remained virtually unchallenged until the present case. The validity of the second proposition, while likewise conceded in principle, has been subject to differing interpretations as to the extent of the area which may be searched.
Because the rule requiring exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment was first enunciated in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), it is understandable that virtually all of this Court’s search-and-seizure law has been developed since that time. In Weeks, the Court made clear its recognition of the validity of a search incident to a lawful arrest:
“What then is the present case? Before answering that inquiry specifically, it may be well by a process of exclusion to state what it is not. It is not an assertion of the right on the part of the Government, always recognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. This right has been uniformly maintained in many cases. 1 Bishop on Criminal Procedure, §211; Wharton, Crim. Plead, and Practice, 8th ed., § 60; Dillon v. O’Brien and Davis, 16 Cox C. C. 245.” Id., at 392.
Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20 (1925), decided 11 years after Weeks, repeats the categorical recognition of the validity of a search incident to lawful arrest:
“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.” Id., at 30.
Throughout the series of cases in which the Court has addressed the second proposition relating to a search incident to a lawful arrest — the permissible area beyond the person of the arrestee which such a search may cover — no doubt has been expressed as to the unqualified authority of the arresting authority to search the person of the arrestee. E. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925); Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192 (1927); Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344 (1931); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452 (1932); Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145 (1947); Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699 (1948); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56 (1950); Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364 (1964); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969). In Chimel, where the Court overruled Rabinowitz and Harris as to the area of permissible search incident to a lawful arrest, full recognition was again given to the authority to search the person of the arrestee:
“When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” 395 U. S., at 762-763.
Three years after the decision in Chimel, supra, we upheld the validity of a search in which heroin had been taken from the person of the defendant after his arrest on a weapons charge, in Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972), saying:
“Under the circumstances surrounding Williams’ possession of the gun seized by Sgt. Connolly, the arrest on the weapons charge was supported by probable cause, and the search of his person and of the car incident to that arrest was lawful.” Id., at 149.
Last Term in Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 295 (1973), we again reaffirmed the traditional statement of the authority to search incident to a valid arrest.
Thus the broadly stated rule, and the reasons for it, have been repeatedly affirmed in the decisions of this Court since Weeks v. United States, supra, nearly 60 years ago. Since the statements in the cases speak not simply in terms of an exception to the warrant requirement, but in terms of an affirmative authority to search, they clearly imply that such searches also meet the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.
II
In its decision of this case, the Court of Appeals decided that even after a police officer lawfully places a suspect under arrest for the purpose of taking him into custody, he may not ordinarily proceed to fully search the prisoner. He must, instead, conduct a limited frisk of the outer clothing and remove such weapons that he may, as a result of that limited frisk, reasonably believe and ascertain that the suspect has in his possession. While recognizing that Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), dealt with a permissible “frisk” incident to an investigative stop based on less than probable cause to arrest, the Court of Appeals felt that the principles of that case should be carried over to this probable-cause arrest for driving while one’s license is revoked. Since there would be no further evidence of such a crime to be obtained in a search of the arrestee, the court held that only a search for weapons could be justified.
Terry v. Ohio, supra, did not involve an arrest for probable cause, and it made quite clear that the “protective frisk” for weapons which it approved might be conducted without probable cause. Id., at 21-22, 24-25. This Court’s opinion explicitly recognized that there is a “distinction in purpose, character, and extent between a search incident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons.”
“The former, although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964), is also justified on other grounds, ibid., and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 310 (1967) (Mr. Justice Fortas, concurring). Thus it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a ‘full’ search, even though it remains a serious intrusion.
"... An arrest is a wholly different kind of intrusion upon individual freedom from a limited search for weapons, and the interests each is designed to serve are likewise quite different. An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society’s interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual’s freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. The protective search for weapons, on the other hand, constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion upon the sanctity of the person.” Id., at 25-26 (footnote omitted).
Terry, therefore, affords no basis to carry over to a probable-cause arrest the limitations this Court placed on a stop-and-frisk search permissible without probable cause.
The Court of Appeals also relied on language in Peters v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 66 (1968), a companion case to Terry. There the Court held that the police officer had authority to search Peters because he had probable cause to arrest him, and went on to say:
“[T]he incident search was obviously justified 'by the need to seize weapons and other things which might be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, as well as by the need to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime.’ Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964). Moreover, it was reasonably limited in scope by these purposes. Officer Lasky did not engage in an unrestrained and thorough-going examination of Peters and his personal effects.” Id., at 67.
It is, of course, possible to read the second sentence from this quotation as imposing a novel limitation on the established doctrine set forth in the first sentence. It is also possible to read it as did Mr. Justice Harlan in his opinion concurring in the result:
“The second possible source of confusion is the Court’s statement that 'Officer Lasky did not engage in an unrestrained and thorough-going examination of Peters and his personal effects.’ [392 U. S.], at 67. Since the Court found probable cause to arrest Peters, and since an officer arresting on probable cause is entitled to make a very full incident search, I assume that this is merely a factual observation. As a factual matter, I agree with it.” Id., at 77 (footnote omitted).
We do not believe that the Court in Peters intended in one unexplained and unelaborated sentence to impose a novel and far-reaching limitation on the authority to search the person of an arrestee incident to his lawful arrest. While the language from Peters was quoted with approval in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S., at 764, it is preceded by a full exposition of the traditional and unqualified authority of the arresting officer to search the arrestee’s person. Id., at 763. We do not believe that either Terry or Peters, when considered in the light of the previously discussed statements of this Court, justified the sort of limitation upon that authority which the Court of Appeals fashioned in this case.
Ill
Virtually all of the statements of this Court affirming the existence of an unqualified authority to search incident to a lawful arrest are dicta. We would not, therefore, be foreclosed by principles of stare decisis from further examination into history and practice in order to see- whether the sort of qualifications imposed by the Court of Appeals in this case were in fact intended by the Framers of the Fourth Amendment or recognized in cases decided prior to Weeks. Unfortunately such authorities as exist are sparse. Such common-law treatises as Blackstone’s Commentaries and Holmes’ Common Law are simply silent on the subject. Pollock and Maitland, in their History of English Law, describe the law of arrest as “rough and rude” before the time of Edward I, but do not address the authority to search incident to arrest. 2 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, The History of English Law 582 (2d ed. 1909).
The issue was apparently litigated in the English courts in Dillon v. O’Brien, 16 Cox C. C. 245 (Exch. Ireland, 1887), cited in Weeks v. United States, supra, There Baron Palles said:
“But the interest of the State in the person charged being brought to trial in due course necessarily extends, as well -to the preservation of material evidence of his guilt or innocence, as to his custody for the purpose of trial. His custody is of no value if the law is powerless to prevent the abstraction or destruction of this evidence, without which a trial would be no more than an empty form. But if there be a right to production or preservation of this evidence, I cannot see how it can be enforced otherwise than by capture.” 16 Cox C. C., at 250.
Spalding v. Preston, 21 Vt. 9 (1848), represents an early holding in this country that evidence may be seized from one who is lawfully arrested. In Closson v. Morrison, 47 N. H. 482 (1867), the Court made the following statement:
“[W]e think that an officer would also be justified in taking from a person whom he had arrested for crime, any deadly weapon he might find upon him, such as a revolver, a dirk, a knife, a sword cane, a slung shot, or a club, though it had not been used or intended to be used in the commission of the offence for which the prisoner had been arrested, and even though no threats of violence towards the officer had been made. A due regard for his own safety on the part of the officer, and also for the public safety, would justify a sufficient search to ascertain if such weapons were carried about the person of the prisoner, or were in his possession, and if found, to seize and hold them until the prisoner should be discharged, or until they could be otherwise properly disposed of. Spalding v. Preston, 21 Vt. 9, 16.
“So we think it might be with money or other articles of value, found upon the prisoner, by means of which, if left in his possession, he might procure his escape, or obtain tools, or implements, or weapons with which to effect his escape. We think the officer arresting a man for crime, not only may, but frequently should, make such searches and seizures; that in many cases they might be reasonable and proper, and courts would hold him harmless for so doing, when he acts in good faith, and from a regard to his own or the public safety, or the security of his prisoner.” Id., at 484-485.
Similarly, in Holker v. Hennessey, 141 Mo. 527, 42 S. W. 1090 (1897), the Supreme Court of Missouri said:
"Generally speaking, in the absence of a statute, an officer has no right to take any property from the person of the prisoner except such as may afford evidence of the crime charged, or means'of identifying the criminal, or may be helpful in making an escape.” Id., at 539, 42 S. W., at 1093.
Then Associate Judge Cardozo of the New York Court of Appeals summarized his understanding of the historical basis for the authority to search incident to arrest in these words:
“The basic principle is this: Search of the person is unlawful when the seizure of the body is a trespass, and the purpose of the search is to discover grounds as yet unknown for arrest or accusation [citation omitted]. Search of the person becomes lawful when grounds for arrest and accusation have been discovered, and the law is in the act of subjecting the body of the accused to its physical dominion.
“The distinction may seem subtle, but in truth it is founded in shrewd appreciation of the necessities of government. We are not to strain an immunity to the point at which human nature rebels against honoring it in conduct. The peace officer empowered to arrest must be empowered to disarm. If he may disarm, he may search, lest a. weapon be concealed. The search being lawful, he retains what he finds if connected with the crime.” People v. Chiagles, 237 N. Y. 193, 197, 142 N. E. 583, 584 (1923).
While these earlier authorities are sketchy, they tend to support the broad statement of the authority to search incident to arrest found in the successive decisions of this Court, rather than the restrictive one which was applied by the Court of Appeals in this case. The scarcity of case law before Weeks is doubtless due in part to the fact that the exclusionary rule there enunciated had been first adopted only 11 years earlier in Iowa; but it would seem to be also due in part to the fact that the issue was regarded as well settled.
The Court of Appeals in effect determined that the only reason supporting the authority for a full search incident to lawful arrest was the possibility of discovery of evidence or fruits. Concluding that there could be no evidence or fruits in the case of an offense such as that with which respondent was charged, it held that any protective search would have to be limited by the conditions laid down in Terry for a search upon less than probable cause to arrest. Quite apart from the fact that Terry clearly recognized the distinction between the two types of searches, and that a different rule governed one than governed the other, we find additional reason to disagree with the Court of Appeals.
The justification or reason for the authority to search incident to a lawful arrest rests quite as much on the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody as it does on the need to preserve evidence on his person for later use at trial. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20 (1925); Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217 (1960). The standards traditionally governing a search incident to lawful arrest are not, therefore, commuted to the stricter Terry standards by the absence of probable fruits or further evidence of the particular crime for which the arrest is made.
Nor are we inclined, on the basis of what seems to us to be a rather speculative judgment, to qualify the breadth of the general authority to search incident to a lawful custodial arrest on an assumption that persons arrested for the offense of driving while their licenses have been revoked are less likely to possess dangerous weapons than are those arrested for other crimes. It is scarcely open to doubt that the danger to an officer is far greater in the case of the extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and transporting him to the police station than in the case of the relatively fleeting contact resulting from the typical Terry-type stop. This is an adequate basis for treating all custodial arrests alike for purposes of search justification.
But quite apart from these distinctions, our more fundamental disagreement with the Court of Appeals arises from its suggestion that there must be litigated in each case the issue of whether or not there was present one of the reasons supporting the authority for a search of the person incident to a lawful arrest. We do not think the long line of authorities of this Court dating back to Weeks, or what we can glean from the history of practice in this country and in England, requires such a case-by-case adjudication. A police officer's determination as to how and where to search the person of a suspect whom he has arrested is necessarily a quick ad hoc judgment which the Fourth Amendment does not require to be broken down in each instance into an analysis of each step in the search. The authority to search the person incident to a lawful custodial arrest, while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence, does not depend on what a court may later decide was the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found upon the person of the suspect. A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a “reasonable” search under that Amendment.
IV
The search of respondent’s person conducted by Officer Jenks in this case and the seizure from him of the heroin, were permissible under established Fourth Amendment law. While thorough, the search partook of none of the extreme or patently abusive characteristics which were held to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952). Since it is the fact of custodial arrest which gives rise to the authority to search, it is of no moment that Jenks did not indicate any subjective fear of the respondent or that he did not himself suspect that respondent was armed. Having in the course of a lawful search come upon the crumpled package of cigarettes, he was entitled to inspect it; and when his inspection revealed the heroin capsules, he was entitled to seize them as “fruits, instrumentalities, or contraband” probative of criminal conduct. Harris v. United States, 331 U. S., at 154-155; Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 299, 307 (1967); Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S., at 149. The judgment of the Court of Appeals holding otherwise is
Reversed.
The Court of Appeals noted that there was a difference in the presentation of the facts in the various proceedings that were conducted in the District Court. Counsel for respondent on appeal stressed that respondent had a record of two prior narcotics convictions, and suggested that Officer Jenks may have been aware of that record through his investigation of criminal records, while Jenks was cheeking out the discrepancies in the birthdates on the operator’s permit and on the Selective Service card that had been given to him for examination when he had confronted the respondent on the previous occasion. Respondent argued below that Jenks may have used the subsequent traffic violation arrest as a mere pretext for a narcotics search which would not have been allowed by a neutral magistrate had Jenks sought a warrant. The Court of Appeals found that Jenks had denied he had any such motive, and for the purposes of its opinion accepted the Government’s version of that factual question, since even accepting that version it still found the search involved to be unconstitutional. 153 U. S. App. D. C. 114, 120 n. 3, 471 F. 2d 1082, 1088 n. 3. We think it is sufficient for purposes of our decision that respondent was lawfully arrested for an offense, and that Jenks’ placing him in custody following that arrest was not a departure from established police department practice. See n. 2, infra. We leave for another day questions which would arise on facts different from these.
The Government introduced testimony at the evidentiary hearing upon the original remand by the Court of Appeals as to certain standard operating procedures of the Metropolitan Police Department. Sergeant Dennis C. Donaldson, a Metropolitan Police Department Training Division instructor, testified that when a police officer makes "a full custody arrest,” which he defined as one where an officer “would arrest a subject and subsequently transport him to a police facility for booking,” the officer is trained to make a full “field type search”:
“Q. Would you describe the physical acts the officer is instructed to perform with respect to this field search in a full custody arrest situation?
“A. (Sgt. Donaldson). Basically, it is a thorough search of the individual. We would expect in a field search that the officer completely search the individual and inspect areas such as behind the collar, underneath the collar, the waistband of the trousers, the cuffs, the socks and shoes. Those are the areas we would ask a complete thorough search of.
“Q. What are the instructions in a field type search situation when an officer feels something on the outside of the garment?
“A. If it is a full custody arrest and he is conducting a field search, we expect him to remove anything and examine it to determine exactly what it is.
“THE COURT: That is a full custody arrest. What is the last part of it?
“THE WITNESS: In conducting a field search, which is done any time there is a full custody arrest, we expect the officer to examine anything he might find on the subject.
“THE COURT: Would he do the same thing in a pat-down search?
“THE WITNESS: If he could determine in his pat-down or frisk by squeezing that it was not, in fact, a weapon that could be used against him, then we don’t instruct him to go further.
“THE COURT: But in a field search, even though he may feel something that he believes is not a weapon, is he instructed, to take it out?
“THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.”
Sergeant Donaldson testified that officers are instructed to examine the “contents of all of the pockets” of the arrestee in the course of the field search. It was stated that these standard operating procedures were initiated bjr the police department “ [primarily, for [the officer’s] own safety and, secondly, for the safety of the individual he has placed under arrest and, thirdly, to search for evidence of the crime.” While the officer is instructed to make a full field search of the person of the individual he arrests, he is instructed, and police department regulations provide, that in the case of a full-custody arrest for driving after revocation, "areas beyond [the arrestee’s] immediate control should not be searched because there is no probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains fruits, instrumentalities, contraband or evidence of the offense of driving after revocation.” Those regulations also provide that in the case of some traffic offenses, including the crime of operating a motor vehicle after revocation of an operator’s permit, the officer shall make a summary arrest of the violator and take the violator, in custody, to the station house for booking. D. C. Metropolitan Police Department General Order No. 3, series 1959 (Apr. 24, 1959).
Such operating procedures are not, of course, determinative of the constitutional issues presented by this case.
See T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 44-45 (1969).
Taylor suggests that there “is little reason to doubt that search of an arrestee’s person and premises is as old as the institution of arrest itself.” Id., at 28. “Neither in the reported cases nor the legal literature is there any indication that search of the person of an arrestee, or the premises in which he was taken, was ever challenged in England until the end of the nineteenth century . . . [and] the English courts gave the point short shrift.” Id., at 29.
Where the arrest is made for a crime for which it is reasonable to believe that evidence exists, the Court of Appeals recognizes that “warrantless intrusion into the pockets of the arrestee to discover such evidence is reasonable under the 'search incident’ exception.” 153 U. S. App. D. C., at 127, 471 F. 2d, at 1095. The court then states that the officer may use this “reasonable [evidentiary] intrusion” to simultaneously look for weapons. Ibid.
Such an assumption appears at least questionable in light of the available statistical data concerning assaults on police officers who are in the course of making arrests. The danger to the police officer flows from the fact of the arrest, and its attendant proximity, stress, and uncertainty, and not from the grounds for arrest. One study concludes that approximately 30% of the shootings of police officers occur when an officer stops a person in an automobile. Bristow, Police Officer Shootings — A Tactical Evaluation, 54 J. Crim. L. C. & P. S. 93 (1963), cited in Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 148 (1972). The Government in its brief notes that the Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, indicate that a significant percentage of murders of police officers occurs when the officers are making traffic stops. Brief for the United States 23. Those reports indicate that during January-March 1973, 35 police officers were murdered; 11 of those officers were killed while engaged in making traffic stops. Ibid.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals also discussed its understanding of the law where the police officer makes what the court characterized as “a routine traffic stop,” i. e., where the officer would simply issue a notice of violation and allow the offender to proceed. Since in this case the officer did make a full-custody arrest of the violator, we do not reach the question discussed by the Court of Appeals.
The United States concedes that “in searching respondent, [Officer Jenks] was not motivated by a feeling of imminent danger and was not specifically looking for weapons.” Brief for the United States 34. Officer Jenks testified, “I just searched him [Robinson], I didn't think about what I was looking for. I just searched him.” As previously noted, Officer Jenks also testified that upon removing the cigarette package from the respondent’s custody, he was still unsure what was in the package, but that he knew it was not cigarettes.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state prosecutor carries out a threat made during plea negotiations to reindict the accused on more serious charges if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged.
I
The respondent, Paul Lewis Hayes, was indicted by a Fayette County, Ky., grand jury on a charge of uttering a forged instrument in the amount of $88.30, an offense then punishable by a term of 2 to 10 years in prison. Ky. Rev. Stat. §434.130 (1973) (repealed 1975). After arraignment, Hayes, his retained counsel, and the Commonwealth’s Attorney met in the presence of the Clerk of the Court to discuss a possible plea agreement. During these conferences the prosecutor offered to recommend a sentence of five years in prison if Hayes would plead guilty to the indictment. He also said that if Hayes did not plead guilty and “save the court the inconvenience and necessity of a trial,” he would return to the grand jury to seek an indictment under the Kentucky Habitual Criminal Act, then Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.190 (1973) (repealed 1975), which would subject Hayes to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment by reason of his two prior felony convictions. Hayes chose not to plead guilty, and the prosecutor did obtain an indictment charging him under the Habitual Criminal Act. It is not disputed that the recidivist charge was fully justified by the evidence, that the prosecutor was in possession of this evidence at the time of the original indictment, and that Hayes’ refusal to plead guilty to the original charge was what led to his indictment under the habitual criminal statute.
A jury found Hayes guilty on the principal charge of uttering a forged instrument and, in a separate proceeding, further found that he had twice before been convicted of felonies. As required by the habitual offender statute, he was sentenced to a life term in the penitentiary. The Kentucky Court of Appeals rejected Hayes’ constitutional objections to the enhanced sentence, holding in an unpublished opinion that imprisonment for life with the possibility of parole was constitutionally permissible in light of the previous felonies of which Hayes had been convicted, and that the prosecutor’s decision to indict him as a habitual offender was a legitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process.
On Hayes’ petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky agreed that there had been no constitutional violation in the sentence or the indictment procedure, and denied the writ. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment. Hayes v. Cowan, 547 F. 2d 42. While recognizing “that plea bargaining now plays an important role in our criminal justice system,” id., at 43, the appellate court thought that the prosecutor’s conduct during the bargaining negotiations had violated the principles of Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21, which “protected] defendants from the vindictive exercise of a prosecutor’s discretion.” 547 F. 2d, at 44. Accordingly, the court ordered that Hayes be discharged “except for his confinement under a lawful sentence imposed solely for the crime of uttering a forged instrument.”. Id., at 45. We granted certiorari to consider a constitutional question of importance in the administration of criminal justice. 431 U. S. 953.
II
It may be helpful to clarify at the outset the nature of the issue in this case. While the prosecutor did not actually obtain the recidivist indictment until after the plea conferences had ended, his intention to do SO' was clearly expressed at the outset of the plea negotiations. Hayes was thus fully informed of the true terms of the offer when he made his decision to plead not guilty. This is not a situation, therefore, where the prosecutor without notice brought an additional and more serious charge after plea negotiations relating, only to the original indictment had ended with the defendant’s insistence on pleading not guilty. As a practical matter, in short, this case would be no different if the grand jury had indicted Hayes as a recidivist from the outset, and the prosecutor had offered to drop that charge as part of the plea bargain.
The Court of Appeals nonetheless drew a distinction between “concessions relating to prosecution under an existing indictment,” and threats to bring more severe charges not contained in the original indictment — a line it thought necessary in order to establish a prophylactic rule to guard against the evil of prosecutorial vindictiveness. Quite apart from this chronological distinction, however, the Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor had acted vindictively in the present case since he had conceded that the indictment was influenced by his desire to induce a guilty plea. The ultimate conclusion of the Court of Appeals thus seems to have been that a prosecutor acts vindictively and in violation of due process of law whenever his charging decision is influenced by what he hopes to gain in the course of plea bargaining negotiations.
Ill
We have recently had occasion to observe: “Whatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country’s criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U. S. 63, 71. The open acknowledgment of this previously clandestine practice has led this Court to recognize the importance of counsel during plea negotiations, Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 758, the need for a public record indicating that a plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242, and the requirement that a prosecutor’s plea-bargaining promise must be kept, Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257, 262. The decision of the Court of Appeals in the present case, however, did not deal with considerations such as these, but held that the substance of the plea offer itself violated the limitations imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Brady v. United States, supra, at 751 n. 8. For the reasons that follow, we have concluded that the Court of Appeals was mistaken in so ruling.
IV
This Court held in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 725, that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “requires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial.” The same principle was later applied to prohibit a prosecutor from reindicting a convicted misdemeanant on a felony charge after the defendant had invoked an appellate remedy, since in this situation there was also a “realistic likelihood of Vindictiveness.’ ” Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S., at 27.
In those cases the Court was dealing with the State’s unilateral imposition of a penalty upon a defendant who had chosen to exercise a legal right to attack his original conviction — a situation “very different from the give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining between the prosecution and defense, which arguably possess relatively equal bargaining power.” Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790, 809 (opinion of Brennan, J.). The Court has emphasized that the due process violation in cases such as Pearce and Perry lay not in the possibility that a defendant might be deterred from the exercise of a legal right, see Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104; Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, but rather in the danger that the State might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully attacking his conviction. See Blackledge v. Perry, supra, at 26-28.
To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort, see North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, at 738 (opinion of Black, J.), and for an agent of the State to< pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person’s reliance on his legal rights is “patently unconstitutional.” Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 32-33, n. 20. See United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570. But in the “give-and-take” of plea bargaining, there is no such element of punishment or retaliation so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecution’s offer.
Plea bargaining flows from “the mutuality of advantage” to defendants and prosecutors, each with his own reasons for wanting to avoid trial. Brady v. United States, supra, at 752. Defendants advised by competent counsel and protected by other procedural safeguards are presumptively capable of intelligent choice in response to prosecutorial persuasion, and unlikely to be driven to false self-condemnation. 397 U. S., at 758. Indeed, acceptance of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining process. By hypothesis, the plea may have been induced by promises of a recommendation of a lenient sentence or a reduction of charges, and thus by fear of the possibility of a greater penalty upon conviction after a trial. See ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty § 3.1 (App. Draft 1968); Note, Plea Bargaining and the Transformation of the Criminal Process, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 564 (1977). Cf. Brady v. United States, supra, at 751; North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25.
While confronting a defendant with the risk of more severe punishment clearly may have a “discouraging effect on the defendant’s assertion of his trial rights, the imposition of these difficult choices [is] an inevitable” — and permissible — '“attribute of any legiiimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas.” Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 31. It follows that, by tolerating and encouraging the negotiation of pleas, this Court has necessarily accepted as constitutionally legitimate the simple reality that the prosecutor’s interest at the bargaining table is to persuade the defendant to forgo his right to plead not guilty.
It is not disputed here that Hayes was properly chargeable under the recidivist statute, since he had in fact been convicted of two previous felonies. In our system, so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion. Within the limits set by the legislature’s constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, “the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation” so long as “the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 456. To hold that the prosecutor’s desire to induce a guilty plea is an “unjustifiable standard,” which, like race or religion, may play no part in his charging decision, would contradict the very premises that underlie the concept of plea bargaining itself. Moreover, a rigid constitutional rule that would prohibit a prosecutor from acting forthrightly in his dealings with the defense could only invite unhealthy subterfuge that would drive the practice of plea bargaining back into the shadows from which it has so recently emerged. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U. S., at 76.
There is no doubt that the breadth of discretion that our country's legal system vests in prosecuting attorneys carries with it the potential for both individual and institutional abuse. And broad though that discretion may be, there are undoubtedly constitutional limits upon its exercise. We hold only that the course of conduct engaged in by the prosecutor in this case, which no more than openly presented the defendant with the unpleasant alternatives of forgoing trial or facing charges on which he was plainly subject to prosecution, did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
While cross-examining Hayes during the subsequent trial proceedings the prosecutor described the plea offer in the following language:
“Isn't it a fact that I told you at that time [the initial bargaining session] if you did not intend to plead guilty to five years for this charge and . . . save the court the inconvenience and necessity of a trial and taking up this time that I intended to return to the grand jury and ask them to indict you based upon these prior felony convictions?” Tr. 194.
At the time of Hayes’ trial the statute provided that “[a]ny person convicted a . . . third time of felony . . . shall be confined in the penitentiary during his life.” Ky. Rev. Stat. §431.190 (1973) (repealed 1975). That statute has been replaced by Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.080 (Supp. 1977) under which Hayes would have been sentenced to, at most, an indeterminate term of 10 to 20 years. § 532.080 (6) (b). In addition, under the new statute a previous conviction is a basis for enhanced sentencing only if a prison term of one year or more was imposed, the sentence or probation was completed within five years of the present offense, and the offender was over the age of 18 when the offense was committed. At least one of Hayes’ prior convictions did not meet these conditions. See n. 3, infra.
According to his own testimony, Hayes had pleaded guilty in 1961, when he was 17 years old, to a charge of detaining a female, a lesser included offense of rape, and as a result had served five years in the state reformatory. In 1970 he had been convicted of robbery and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, but had been released on probation immediately.
The opinion of the District Court is unreported.
Compare United States ex rel. Williams v. McMann, 436 F. 2d 103 (CA2), with United States v. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F. 2d 1367, 1370 (CA9). In citing these decisions we do not necessarily endorse them.
“Although a prosecutor may in the course of plea negotiations offer a defendant concessions relating to prosecution under an existing indictment ... he may not threaten a defendant with the consequence that more severe charges may be brought if he insists on going to trial. When a prosecutor obtains an indictment less severe than the facts known to him at the time might permit, he makes a discretionary determination that the interests of the state are served by not seeking more serious charges. . . . Accordingly, if after plea negotiations fail, he then procures an indictment charging a more serious crime, a strong inference is created that the only reason for the more serious charges is vindictiveness. Under these circumstances, the prosecutor should be required to justify his action.” 547 F. 2d, at 44-45.
“In this case, a vindictive motive need not be inferred. The prosecutor has admitted it.” Id., at 45.
This case does not involve the constitutional implications of a prosecutor’s offer during plea bargaining of adverse or lenient treatment for some person other than the accused, see ALI Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Commentary to §350.3, pp. 614-615 (1975), which might pose a greater danger of inducing a false guilty plea by skewing the assessment of the risks a defendant must consider. Cf. Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 758.
This potential has led to many recommendations that the prosecutor’s discretion should be controlled by means of either internal or external guidelines. See ALI Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure for Criminal Justice §§ 350.3 (2) — (3) (1975); ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function §§2.5, 3.9 (App. Draft 1971); Abrams, Internal Policy: Guiding the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion, 19 UCLA L. Rev. 1 (1971).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves eight defendants who were convicted in a Florida municipal court of violating a Jacksonville, Florida, vagrancy ordinance. Their convictions were affirmed by the Florida Circuit Court in a consolidated appeal, and their petition for certiorari was denied by the District Court of Appeal on the authority of Johnson v. State, 202 So. 2d 852. The case is here on a petition for certiorari, which we granted. 403 U. S. 917. For reasons which will appear, we reverse.
At issue are five consolidated cases. Margaret Papa-christou, Betty Calloway, Eugene Eddie Melton, and Leonard Johnson were all arrested early on a Sunday morning, and charged with vagrancy — “prowling by auto.”
Jimmy Lee Smith and Milton Henry were charged with vagrancy — ‘ 'vagabonds. ’ ’
Henry Edward Heath and a eodefendant were arrested for vagrancy — “loitering” and “common thief.”
Thomas Owen Campbell was charged with vagrancy— “common thief.”
Hugh Brown was charged with vagrancy — “disorderly loitering on street” and “disorderly conduct — resisting arrest with violence.”
The facts are stipulated. Papachristou and Calloway are white females. Melton and Johnson are black males. Papachristou was enrolled in a job-training program sponsored by the State Employment Service at Florida Junior College in Jacksonville. Calloway was a typing and shorthand teacher at a state mental institution located near Jacksonville. She was the owner of the automobile in which the four defendants were arrested. Melton was a Vietnam war veteran who had been released from the Navy after nine months in a veterans’ hospital. On the date of his arrest he was a part-time computer helper while attending college as a full-time student in Jacksonville. Johnson was a tow-motor operator in a grocery chain warehouse and was a lifelong resident of Jacksonville.
At the time of their arrest the four of them were riding in Calloway’s car on the main thoroughfare in Jacksonville. They had left a restaurant owned by Johnson’s uncle where they had eaten and were on their way to a nightclub. The arresting officers denied that the racial mixture in the car played any part in the decision to make the arrest. The arrest, they said, was made because the defendants had stopped near a used-car lot which had been broken into several times. There was, however, no evidence of any breaking and entering on the night in question.
Of these four charged with “prowling by auto” none had been previously arrested except Papachristou who had once been convicted of a municipal offense.
Jimmy Lee Smith and Milton Henry (who is not a petitioner) were arrested between 9 and 10 a. m. on a weekday in downtown Jacksonville, while waiting for a friend who was to lend them a car so they could apply for a job at a produce company. Smith was a part-time produce worker and part-time organizer for a Negro political group. He had a common-law wife and three children supported by him and his wife. He had been arrested several times but convicted only once. Smith’s companion, Henry, was an 18-year-old high school student with no previous record of arrest.
This morning it was cold, and Smith had no jacket, so they went briefly into a dry cleaning shop to wait, but left when requested to do so. They thereafter walked back and forth two or three times over a two-block stretch looking for their friend. The store owners, who apparently were wary of Smith and his companion, summoned two police officers who searched the men and found neither had a weapon. But they were arrested because the officers said they had no identification and because the officers did not believe their story.
Heath and a codefendant were arrested for “loitering” and for “common thief.” Both were residents of Jacksonville, Heath having lived there all his life and being employed at an automobile body shop. Heath had previously been arrested but his codefendant had no arrest record. Heath and his companion were arrested when they drove up to a residence shared by Heath’s girl friend and some other girls. Some police officers were already there in the process of arresting another man. When Heath and his companion started backing out of the driveway, the officers signaled to them to stop and asked them to get out of the car, which they did. Thereupon they and the automobile were searched. Although no contraband or incriminating evidence was found, they were both arrested, Heath being charged with being a “common thief” because he was reputed to be a thief. The codefendant was charged with “loitering” because he was standing in the driveway, an act which the officers admitted was done only at their command.
Campbell was arrested as he reached his home very early one morning and was charged with “common thief.” He was stopped by officers because he was traveling at a high rate of speed, yet no speeding charge was placed against him.
Brown was arrested when he was observed leaving a downtown Jacksonville hotel by a police officer seated in a cruiser. The police testified he was reputed to be a thief, narcotics pusher, and generally opprobrious character. The officer called Brown over to the car, intending at that time to arrest him unless he had a good explanation for being on the street. Brown walked over to the police cruiser, as commanded, and the officer began to search him, apparently preparatory to placing him in the car. In the process of the search he came on two small packets which were later found to contain heroin. When the officer touched the pocket where the packets were, Brown began to resist. He was charged with “disorderly loitering on street” and “disorderly conduct — resisting arrest with violence.” While he was also charged with a narcotics violation, that charge was nolled.
Jacksonville’s ordinance and Florida’s statute were “derived from early English law,” Johnson v. State, 202 So. 2d, at 854, and employ “archaic language” in their definitions of vagrants. Id., at 855. The history is an oftentold tale. The breakup of feudal estates in England led to labor shortages which in turn resulted in the Statutes of Laborers, designed to stabilize the labor force by prohibiting increases in wages and prohibiting the movement of workers from their home areas in search of improved conditions. Later vagrancy laws became criminal aspects of the poor laws. The series of laws passed in England on the subject became increasingly severe. But “the theory of the Elizabethan poor laws no longer fits the facts,” Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160, 174. The conditions which spawned these laws may be gone, but the archaic classifications remain.
This ordinance is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it “fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute,” United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617, and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242.
Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is that “[all persons] are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.” Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453.
Lametta is one of a well-recognized group of cases insisting that the law give fair notice of the offending conduct. See Connolly v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U. S. 445; United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81. In the field of regulatory statutes governing business activities, where the acts limited are in a narrow category, greater leeway is allowed. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U. S. 337; United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29; United States v. Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1.
The poor among us, the minorities, the average householder are not in business and not alerted to the regulatory schemes of vagrancy laws; and we assume they would have no understanding of their meaning and impact if they read them. Nor are they protected from being caught in the vagrancy net- by the necessity of having a specific intent to commit an unlawful act. See Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91; Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, supra.
The Jacksonville ordinance makes criminal activities which by modern standards are normally innocent. “Nightwalking” is one. Florida construes the ordinance not to make criminal one night’s wandering, Johnson v. State, 202 So. 2d, at 855, only the “habitual” wanderer or, as the ordinance describes it, “common night walkers.” We know, however, from experience that sleepless people often walk at night, perhaps hopeful that sleep-inducing relaxation will result.
Luis Munoz-Marin, former Governor of Puerto Rico, commented once that “loafing” was a national virtue in his Commonwealth and that it should be encouraged. It is, however, a crime in Jacksonville.
“[Pjersons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children” — like habitually living “without visible means of support” — might implicate unemployed pillars of the community who have married rich wives.
“[P]ersons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children” may also embrace unemployed people out of the labor market, by reason of a recession or disemployed by reason of technological or so-called structural displacements.
Persons “wandering or strolling” from place to place have been extolled by Walt Whitman and Yachel Lindsay. The qualification “without any lawful purpose or object” may be a trap for innocent acts. Persons “neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting . . . places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served” would literally embrace many members of golf clubs and city clubs.
Walkers and strollers and wanderers may be going to or coming from a burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be “casing” a place for a holdup. Letting one’s wife support him is an intra-family matter, and normally of no concern to the police. Yet it may, of course, be the setting for numerous crimes.
The difficulty is that these activities are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them. They are not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. These unwritten amenities have been in part responsible for giving our people the feeling of independence and self-confidence, the feeling of creativity. These amenities have dignified the right of dissent and have honored the right to be nonconformists and the right to defy submissiveness. They have encouraged lives of high spirits rather than hushed, suffocating silence.
They are embedded in Walt Whitman’s writings, especially in his “Song of the Open Road.” They are reflected, too, in the spirit of Vachel Lindsay’s “I Want to Go Wandering,” and by Henry D. Thoreau.
This aspect of the vagrancy ordinance before us is suggested by what this Court said in 1876 about a broad criminal statute enacted by Congress: “It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.” United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221.
While that was a federal case, the due process implications are equally applicable to the States and to this vagrancy ordinance. Here the net cast is large, not to give the courts the power to pick and choose but to increase the arsenal of the police. In Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, the Court struck down a New York statute that made criminal the distribution of a magazine made up principally of items of criminal deeds of bloodshed or lust so massed as to become vehicles for inciting violent and depraved crimes against the person. The infirmity the Court found was vagueness — the absence of “ascertainable standards of guilt” (id., at 515) in the sensitive First Amendment area. Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented. But concerned as he, and many others, had been over the vagrancy laws, he added:
“Only a word needs to be said regarding Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451. The case involved a New Jersey statute of the type that seek to control ‘vagrancy.’ These statutes are in a class by themselves, in view of the familiar abuses to which they are put. . . . Definiteness is designedly avoided so as to allow the net to be cast at large, to enable men to be caught who are vaguely undesirable in the eyes of police and prosecution, although not chargeable with any particular offense. In short, these ‘vagrancy statutes’ and laws against ‘gangs’ are not fenced in by the text of the statute or by the subject matter so as to give notice of conduct to be avoided.” Id., at 540.
Where the list of crimes is so all-inclusive and generalized as the one in this ordinance, those convicted may be punished for no more than vindicating affronts to police authority:
“The common ground which brings such a motley assortment of human troubles before the magistrates in vagrancy-type proceedings is the procedural laxity which permits 'conviction’ for almost any kind of conduct and the existence of the House of Correction as an easy and convenient dumping-ground for problems that appear to have no other immediate solution.” Foote, Vagrancy-Type Law and Its Administration, 104 U. Pa. L. Rev. 603, 631.
Another aspect of the ordinance’s vagueness appears when we focus, not on the lack of notice given a potential offender, but on the effect of the unfettered discretion it places in the hands of the Jacksonville police. Caleb Foote, an early student of this subject, has called the vagrancy-type law as offering “punishment by analogy.” Id., at 609. Such crimes, though long common in Russia, are not compatible with our constitutional system. We allow our police to make arrests only on “probable cause,” a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment standard applicable to the States as well as to the Federal Government. Arresting a person on suspicion, like arresting a person for investigation, is foreign to our system, even when the arrest is for past criminality. Future criminality, however, is the common justification for the presence of vagrancy statutes. See Foote, supra, at 625. Florida has, indeed, construed her vagrancy statute “as necessary regulations,” inter alia, “to deter vagabondage and prevent crimes.” Johnson v. State, 202 So. 2d 852; Smith v. State, 239 So. 2d 250, 251.
A direction by a legislature to the police to arrest all “suspicious” persons would not pass constitutional muster. A vagrancy prosecution may be merely the cloak for a conviction which could not be obtained on the real but undisclosed grounds for the arrest. People v. Moss, 309 N. Y. 429, 131 N. E. 2d 717. But as Chief Justice Hewart said in Frederick Dean, 18 Crim. App. 133, 134 (1924):
“It would be in the highest degree unfortunate if in any part of the country those who are responsible for setting in motion the criminal law should entertain, connive at or coquette with the idea that in a case where there is not enough evidence to charge the prisoner with an attempt to commit a crime, the prosecution may, nevertheless, on such insufficient evidence, succeed in obtaining and upholding a conviction under the Vagrancy Act, 1824.”
Those generally implicated by the imprecise terms of the ordinance — poor people, nonconformists, dissenters, idlers — may be required to comport themselves according to the lifestyle deemed appropriate by the Jacksonville police and the courts. Where, as here, there are no standards governing the exercise of the discretion granted by the ordinance, the scheme permits and encourages an arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law. It furnishes a convenient tool for “harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials, against particular groups deemed to merit their displeasure.” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97-98. It results in a regime in which the poor and the unpopular are permitted to “stand on a public sidewalk . . . only at the whim of any police officer.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87, 90. Under this ordinance,
“[I]f some carefree type of fellow is satisfied to work just so much, and no more, as will pay for one square meal, some wine, and a flophouse daily, but a court thinks this kind of living subhuman, the fellow can be forced to raise his sights or go to jail as a vagrant.” Amsterdam, Federal Constitutional Restrictions on the Punishment of Crimes of Status, Crimes of General Obnoxiousness, Crimes of Displeasing Police Officers, and the Like, 3 Crim. L. Bull. 205, 226 (1967).
A presumption that people who might walk or loaf or loiter or stroll or frequent houses where liquor is sold, or who are supported by their wives or who look suspicious to the police are to become future criminals is too precarious for a rule of law. The implicit presumption in these generalized vagrancy standards — that crime is being nipped in the bud — is too extravagant to deserve extended treatment. Of course, vagrancy statutes are useful to the police. Of course, they are nets making easy the roundup of so-called undesirables. But the rule of law implies equality and justice in its application. Vagrancy laws of the Jacksonville type teach that the scales of justice are so tipped that even-handed administration of the law is not possible. The rule of law, evenly applied to minorities as well as majorities, to the poor as well as the rich, is the great mucilage that holds society together. •
The Jacksonville ordinance cannot be squared with our constitutional standards and is plainly unconstitutional.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 26-57 provided at the time of these arrests and convictions as follows:
“Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall be punished as provided for Class D offenses.”
Class D offenses at the time of these arrests and convictions were punishable by 90 days’ imprisonment, $500 fine, or both. Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 1-8 (1965). The maximum punishment has since been reduced to 75 days or $450. §304.101 (1971). We are advised that that downward revision was made to avoid federal right-to-counsel decisions. The Fifth Circuit case extending right to counsel in misdemeanors where a fine of $500 or 90 days’ imprisonment could be imposed is Harvey v. Mississippi, 340 F. 2d 263 (1965).
We are advised that at present the Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance is § 330.107 and identical with the earlier one except that “juggling” has been eliminated.
Florida also has a vagrancy statute, Fla. Stat. §856.02 (1965), which reads quite closely on the Jacksonville ordinance. Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 27-43 makes the commission of any Florida misdemeanor a Class D offense against the City of Jacksonville. In 1971 Florida made minor amendments to its-statute. See Laws 1971, c. 71-132.
Section 856.02 was declared unconstitutionally overbroad in Lazarus v. Faircloth, 301 F. Supp. 266. The court said: “All loitering, loafing, or idling on the streets and highways of a city, even though habitual, is not necessarily detrimental to the public welfare nor is it under all circumstances an interference with travel upon them. It may be and often is entirely innocuous. The statute draws no distinction between conduct that is calculated to harm and that which is essentially innocent.” Id., at 272, quoting Hawaii v. Anduha, 48 F. 2d 171, 172. See also Smith v. Florida, post, p. 172.
The Florida disorderly conduct ordinance, covering “loitering about any hotel, block, barroom, dramshop, gambling house or disorderly house, or wandering about the streets either by night or by day without any known lawful means of support, or without being able to give a satisfactory account of themselves” has also been held void for “excessive broadness and vagueness” by the Florida Supreme Court, Headley v. Selkowitz, 171 So. 2d 368, 370.
23 Edw. 3, c. 1 (1349); 25 Edw. 3, c. 1 (1350).
See 3 J. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England 203-206, 266-275; 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *169.
Ledwith v. Roberts, [1937] 1 K. B. 232, 271, gives the following summary:
“The early Vagrancy Acts came into being under peculiar conditions utterly different to those of the present time. From the time of the Black Death in the middle of the 14th century till the middle of the 17th century, and indeed, although in diminishing degree, right down to the reform of the Poor Law in the first half of the 19th century, the roads of England were crowded with masterless men and their families, who had lost their former employment through a variety of causes, had no means of livelihood and had taken to a vagrant life. The main causes were the gradual decay of the feudal system under which the labouring classes had been anchored to the soil, the economic slackening of the legal compulsion to work for fixed wages, the break up of the monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII, and the consequent disappearance of the religious orders which had previously administered a kind of 'public assistance’ in the form of lodging, food and alms; and, lastly, the economic changes brought about by the Enclosure Acts. Some of these people were honest labourers who had fallen upon evil days, others were the ‘wild rogues,’ so common in Elizabethan times and literature, who had been born to a life of idleness and had no intention of following any other. It was they and their confederates who formed themselves into the notorious ‘brotherhood of beggars’ which flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries. They were a definite and serious menace to the community and it was chiefly against them and their kind that the harsher provisions of the vagrancy laws of the period were directed.”
And see Sherry, Vagrants, Rogues and Vagabonds—Old Concepts in Need of Revision, 48 Calif. L. Rev. 557, 560-561 (1960); Note, The Vagrancy Concept Reconsidered: Problems and Abuses of Status Criminality, 37 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 102 (1962).
In Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160, 177, in referring to City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 142, decided in 1837, we said: “Whatever may have been the notion then prevailing, we do not think that it will now be seriously contended that because a person is without employment and without funds he constitutes a ‘moral pestilence.’ Poverty and immorality are not synonymous.”
And see Reich, Police Questioning of Law Abiding Citizens, 75 Yale L. J. 1161, 1172 (1966): “If I choose to take an evening walk to see if Andromeda has come up on schedule, I think I am entitled to look for the distant light of Almach and Mirach without finding myself staring into the blinding beam of a police flashlight.”
“I have met with but one or two persons in the course of my life who understood the art of Walking, that is, of taking walks,— who had a genius, so to speak, for sauntering: which word is beautifully derived ‘from idle people who roved about the country, in the Middle Ages, and asked charity, under pretence of going á la Sainte Terre,’ to the Holy Land, till the children exclaimed, ‘There goes a Sainte Terrer,’ a Saunterer, a Holy-Lander. They who never go to the Holy Land in their walks, as they pretend, are indeed mere idlers and vagabonds; but they who do go there are saunterers in the good sense, such as I mean. Some, however, would derive the word from sons terre, without land or a home, which, therefore, in the good sense, will mean, having no particular home, but equally at home everywhere. For this is the secret of successful sauntering. He who sits still in a house all the time may be the greatest vagrant of all; but the saunterer, in the good sense, is no more vagrant than the meandering river, which is all the while sedulously seeking the shortest course to the sea. But I prefer the first, which, indeed, is the most probable derivation. For every walk is a sort of crusade, preached by some Peter the Hermit in us, to go forth and reconquer this Holy Land from the hands of the Infidels.” Excursions 251-252 (1893).
For a discussion of the void-for-vagueness doctrine in the area of fundamental rights see Note, The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev, 67, 104 et seq.; Amsterdam, Federal Constitutional Restrictions on the Punishment of Crimes of Status, Crimes of General Obnoxiousness, Crimes of Displeasing Police Officers, and the Like, 3 Crim. L. Bull. 205, 224 et seq. (1967).
See Edelman v. California, 344 U. S. 357, 362 (Black, J., dissenting) ; Hicks v. District of Columbia, 383 U. S. 252 (Douglas, J., dissenting); District of Columbia v. Hunt, 82 U. S. App. D. C. 159, 163 F. 2d 833 (Judge Stephens writing for a majority of the Court of Appeals); Judge Rudkin for the court in Hawaii v. Anduha, 48 F. 2d 171.
The opposing views are numerous: Ex parte Branch, 234 Mo. 466, 137 S. W. 886; H. R. Rep. No. 1248, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 2; Perkins, The Vagrancy Concept, 9 Hastings L. J. 237 (1958); People v. Craig, 152 Cal. 42, 91 P. 997.
President Roosevelt, in vetoing a vagrancy law for the District of Columbia, said:
“The bill contains many provisions that constitute an improvement over existing law. Unfortunately, however, there are two provisions in the bill that appear objectionable.
“Section 1 of the bill contains a number of clauses defining a ‘vagrant.’ Clause 6 of this section would include within that category ‘any able-bodied person who lives in idleness upon the wages, earnings, or property of any person having no legal obligation to support him.’ This definition is so broadly and loosely drawn that in many cases it would make a vagrant of an adult daughter or son of a well-to-do family who, though amply provided for and not guilty of any improper or unlawful conduct, has no occupation and is dependent upon parental support.
“Under clause 9 of said section ‘any person leading an idle life . . . and not giving a good account of himself’ would incur guilt and liability to punishment unless he could prove, as required by section 2, that he has lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source. What constitutes ‘leading an idle life’ and ‘not giving a good account of oneself’ is not indicated by the statute but is left to the determination in the first place of a police officer and eventually of a judge of the police court, subject to further review in proper cases. While this phraseology may be suitable for general purposes as a definition of a vagrant, it does not conform with accepted standards of legislative practice as a definition of a criminal offense. I am not willing to agree that a person without lawful means of support, temporarily or otherwise, should be subject to the risk of arrest and punishment under provisions as indefinite and uncertain in their meaning and application as those employed in this clause.
“It would hardly be a satisfactory answer to say that the sound judgment and decisions of the police and prosecuting officers must be trusted to invoke the law only in proper cases. The law itself should be so drawn as not to make it applicable to cases which obviously should not be comprised within its terms.” H. R. Doc. No. 392, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.
Thus, “prowling by auto,” which formed the basis for the vagrancy arrests and convictions of four of the petitioners herein, is not even listed in the ordinance as a crime. But see Hanks v. State, 195 So. 2d 49, 51, in which the Florida District Court of Appeal construed “wandering or strolling from place to place” as including travel by automobile.
J. Hazard, The Soviet Legal System 133 (1962):
“The 1922 code was a step in the direction of precision in definition of crime, but it was not a complete departure from the concept of punishment in accordance with the dictates of the social consciousness of the judge. Laying hold of an old tsarist code provision that had been in effect from 1864 to 1903 known by the term ‘analogy,’ the Soviet draftsmen inserted an article permitting a judge to consider the social danger of an individual even when he had committed no act defined as a crime in the specialized part of the code. He was to be guided by analogizing the dangerous act to some act defined as crime, but at the outset the analogies were not always apparent, as when a husband was executed for the sadistic murder of a wife, followed by dissection of her torso and shipment in a trunk to a remote railway station, the court arguing that the crime was analogous to banditry. At the time of this decision the code permitted the death penalty for banditry but not for murder without political motives or very serious social consequences.”
“On the traditionally important subject of criminal law, Algeria is rejecting the flexibility introduced in the Soviet criminal code by the ‘analogy’ principle, as have the East-Central European and black African states.” Hazard, The Residue of Marxist Influence in Algeria, 9 Colum. J. of Transnat’l L. 194, 224 (1970).
Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 15-17.
Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560.
On arrests for investigation, see Secret Detention by the Chicago Police, A Report by the American Civil Liberties Union (1959). The table below contains nationwide data on arrests for “vagrancy” and for “suspicion” in the three-year period 1968-1970.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Fortas would reverse the judgment of the court below for the reasons stated in the opinion of The Chief Justice in Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 569.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent George J. Wilson, Jr., was tried in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for converting union funds to his own use, in violation of § 501 (c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 536, 29 U. S. C. §501 (c). The jury entered a guilty verdict, but on a postverdict motion the District Court dismissed the indictment. The court ruled that the delay between the offense and the indictment had prejudiced the defendant, and that dismissal was called for under this Court’s decision in United States v. Marion, 404 U. S. 307 (1971). The Government sought to appeal the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but that court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred review of the District Court’s ruling. 492 F. 2d 1345 (1973). We granted certiorari to consider the applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause to appeals from postverdict rulings by the trial court. 417 U. S. 908 (1974). We reverse.
I
In April 1968 the FBI began an investigation of respondent Wilson, the business manager of Local 367 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The investigation focused on Wilson’s suspected conversion in 1966 of $1,233.15 of union funds to pay part of the expenses of his daughter’s wedding reception. The payment was apparently made by a check drawn on union funds and endorsed by the treasurer and the president of the local union. Respondent contended at trial that he had not authorized the two union officials to make the payment on his behalf and that he did not know the bill for the reception had been paid out of union funds. In June 1970 the FBI completed its investigation and reported to the Organized Crime Strike Force and the local United States Attorney’s Office. There the matter rested for some 16 months until, three days prior to the running of the statute of limitations, respondent was indicted for illegal conversion of union funds.
Wilson made a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Government’s delay in filing the action had denied him the opportunity for a fair trial. His chance to mount an effective defense was impaired, Wilson argued, because the two union officers who had signed the check for the reception were unavailable to testify. One had died in 1968, and the other was suffering from a terminal illness. After a hearing, the court denied the pretrial motion, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, after which the defendant filed various motions including a motion for arrest of judgment, a motion for a judgment of acquittal, and a motion for a new trial.
The District Court reversed its earlier ruling and dismissed the indictment on the ground that the preindictment delay was unreasonable and had substantially prejudiced the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The union treasurer had died prior to 1970, the court noted, so the loss of his testimony could not be attributed to the preindictment delay. The union president, however, had become unavailable during the period of delay. The court ruled that since he was the only remaining witness who could explain the circumstances of the payment of the check, the preindictment delay violated the respondent’s Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial. This disposition of the Marion claim made it unnecessary to rule on the defendant’s other postverdict motions.
The Government sought to appeal the District Court’s ruling pursuant to the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in a judgment order, citing our decision in United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267 (1970). On the Government’s petition for rehearing, the court wrote an opinion in which it reasoned that since the District Court had relied on facts brought out at trial in finding prejudice from the preindictment delay, its ruling was in effect an acquittal. Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Court of Appeals held, the Government could not constitutionally appeal the acquittal, even though it was rendered by the judge after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty.
II
The Government argues that the Court of Appeals read the Double Jeopardy Clause too broadly and that it mischaracterized the District Court’s ruling in terming it an acquittal. In the Government’s view, the constitutional restriction on governmental appeals is intended solely to protect against exposing the defendant to multiple trials, not to shield every determination favorable to the defendant from appellate review. Since a new trial would not be necessary where the trier of fact has returned a verdict of guilty, the Government argues that it should be permitted to appeal from any adverse post-verdict ruling. In the alternative, the Government urges that even if the Double Jeopardy Clause is read to bar appeal of any judgment of acquittal, the District Court's order in this case was not an acquittal and it should therefore be appealable. The respondent argues that under our prior cases the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits appeal of any order discharging the defendant when, as here, that order is based on facts outside the indictment. Because we agree with the Government that the constitutional protection against Government appeals attaches only where there is a danger of subjecting the defendant to a second trial for the same offense, we have no occasion to determine whether the ruling in Wilson’s favor was actually an “acquittal” even though the District Court characterized it otherwise.
A
This Court early held that the Government could not take an appeal in a criminal case without express statutory authority. United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 (1892). Not reaching the underlying constitutional issue, the Court held only that the general appeals provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 827, 828, were not sufficiently explicit to overcome the common-law rule that the State could not sue out a writ of error in a criminal case unless the legislature had expressly granted it that right. 144 U. S., at 318, 322-323.
Fifteen years later, Congress' passed the first Criminal Appeals Act, which conferred jurisdiction on this Court to consider criminal appeals by the Government in limited circumstances. 34 Stat. 1246. The Act permitted the Government to take an appeal from a decision dismissing an indictment or arresting judgment where the decision was based on “the invalidity, or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded,” and from a decision sustaining a special plea in bar, when the defendant had not been put in jeopardy. The Act was construed in accordance with the common-law meaning of the terms employed, and the rules governing the conditions of appeal became highly technical. This Court had a number of occasions to struggle with the vagaries of the Act; in one of the last of these unhappy efforts, we concluded that the Act was “a failure... a most unruly child that has not improved with age.” United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S., at 307.
Congress finally disposed of the statute in 1970 and replaced it with a new Criminal Appeals Act intended to broaden the Government's appeal rights. While the language of the new Act is not dispositive, the legislative history makes it clear that Congress intended to remove all statutory barriers to Government appeals and to allow appeals whenever the Constitution would permit.
A bill proposed by the Department of Justice would have permitted an appeal by the United States “from a decision, judgment or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information or terminating a prosecution in favor of a defendant as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal [would] lie from a judgment of acquittal.” S. 3132; H. R. 14588. The Senate Report on this bill indicated that the Judiciary Committee intended to extend the Government's appeal rights to the constitutional limits. S. Rep. No. 91-1296, p. 18 (1970). Both the report and the wording of the bill, however, suggested that the Committee thought the Double Jeopardy Clause would bar appeal of any acquittal, whether a verdict of acquittal by a jury or a judgment of acquittal entered by a judge. Id., at 2,8-12. At the same time, the Committee appears to have thought that the Constitution would permit review of any other ruling by a judge that terminated a prosecution, even if the ruling came in the midst of a trial. Id., at 11.
The Conference Committee made two important changes in the bill, although it offered no explanation for them. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1768, p. 21 (1970). The Committee omitted the language purporting to permit an appeal from an order “terminating a prosecution in favor of a defendant,” and it removed the phrase that would have barred appeal of an acquittal. In place of that provision, the Committee substituted the language that was ultimately enacted, under which an appeal was authorized “from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information... except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.”
These changes are consistent with the Senate Committee’s desire to authorize appeals whenever constitutionally permissible, but they suggest that Congress decided to rely upon the courts to define the constitutional boundaries rather than to create a statutory scheme that might be in some respects narrower or broader than the Fifth Amendment would allow. In light of this background it seems inescapable that Congress was determined to avoid creating nonconstitutional bars to the Government’s right to appeal. The District Court’s order in this case is therefore appealable unless the appeal is barred by the Constitution.
B
The statutory restrictions on Government appeals long made it unnecessary for this Court to consider the constitutional limitations on the appeal rights of the prosecution except in unusual circumstances. Even in the few relevant cases, the discussion of the question has been brief. Now that Congress has removed the statutory limitations and the Double Jeopardy Clause has been held to apply to the States, see Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), it is necessary to take a closer look at the policies underlying the Clause in order to determine more precisely the boundaries of the Government’s appeal rights in criminal cases.
As has been documented elsewhere, the idea of double jeopardy is very old. See Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, 151-155 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting); United States v. Jenkins, 490 F. 2d 868, 870-873 (CA2 1973). The early development of the principle can be traced through a variety of sources ranging from legal maxims to casual references in contemporary commentary. Although the form and breadth of the prohibition varied widely, the underlying premise was generally that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense. J. Sigler, Double Jeopardy 2-16 (1969). Writing in the 17th century, Lord Coke described the protection afforded by the principle of double jeopardy as a function of three related common-law pleas: autrefois acquit, autre-fois convict, and pardon. With some exceptions, these pleas could be raised to bar the second trial of a defendant if he could prove that he had already been convicted of the same crime. 3 E. Coke, Institutes 212-213 (6th ed. 1680). Blackstone later used the ancient term “jeopardy” in characterizing the principle underlying the two pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. That principle, he wrote, was a “universal maxim of the common law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *335-336.
The history of the adoption of the Double Jeopardy Clause sheds some light on what the drafters thought Blaekstone’s “universal maxim” should mean as applied in this country. At the time of the First Congress, only one State had a constitutional provision embodying anything resembling a prohibition against double jeopardy. In the course of their ratification proceedings, however, two other States suggested that a double jeopardy clause be included among the first amendments to the Federal Constitution. Apparently attempting to accommodate these suggestions, James Madison added a ban against double jeopardy to the proposed version of the Bill of Rights that he presented to the House of Representatives in June 1789. Madison’s provision read: “No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence.” 1 Annals of Cong. 434 (1789). Several members of the House challenged Madison’s wording on the ground that it might be misconstrued to prevent a defendant from seeking a new trial on appeal of his conviction. Id., at 753. One of Madison’s supporters assured the doubters that the proposed clause merely stated the current law, and that this protection for defendants was implicit in the language as it stood. Madison’s wording survived in the House, but in the Senate, his proposal was rejected in favor of the more traditional language employing the familiar concept of “jeopardy.” S. Jour., 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 71, 77 (1820 ed.). The Senate’s choice of language that tracked Blackstone’s statement of the principles of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict was adopted by the Conference Committee and approved by both Houses with no apparent dissension. Id., at 87 — 88; H. R. Jour., 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 121 (1826 ed.).
In the course of the debates over the Bill of Rights, there was no suggestion that the Double Jeopardy Clause imposed any general ban on appeals by the prosecution. The only restriction on appeal rights mentioned in any of the proposed versions of the Clause was in Maryland’s suggestion that “there shall be... no appeal from matter of fact,” which was apparently intended to apply equally to the prosecution and the defense. Nor does the common-law background of the Clause suggest an implied prohibition against state appeals. Although in the late 18th century the King was permitted to sue out a writ of error in a criminal case under certain circumstances, the principles of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict imposed no apparent restrictions on this right. It was only when the defendant was indicted for a second time after either a conviction or an acquittal that he could seek the protection of the common-law pleas. The development of the Double Jeopardy Clause from its common-law origins thus suggests that it was directed at the threat of multiple prosecutions, not at Government appeals, at least where those appeals would not require a new trial.
C
This Court’s cases construing the Double Jeopardy Clause reinforce this view of the constitutional guarantee. In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), we observed that the Double Jeopardy Clause provides three related protections:
“It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Id., at 717.
The interests underlying these three protections are quite similar. When a defendant has been once convicted and punished for a particular crime, principles of fairness and finality require that he not be subjected to the possibility of further punishment by being again tried or sentenced for the same offense. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (1874); In re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176 (1889). When a defendant has been acquitted of an offense, the Clause guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict him, “thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187-188 (1957).
The policy of avoiding multiple trials has been regarded as so important that exceptions to the principle have been only grudgingly allowed. Initially, a new trial was thought to be unavailable after appeal, whether requested by the prosecution or the defendant. See United States v. Gibert, 25 F. Cas. 1287 (No. 15, 204) (CCD Mass. 1834) (Story, J.). It was not until 1896 that it was made clear that a defendant could seek a new trial after conviction, even though the Government enjoyed no similar right. United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662. Following the same policy, the Court has granted the Government the right to retry a defendant after a mistrial only where “there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.” United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580 (1824).
By contrast, where there is no threat of either multiple punishment or successive prosecutions, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not offended. In various situations where appellate review would not subject the defendant to a second trial, this Court has held that an order favoring the defendant could constitutionally be appealed by the Government. Since the 1907 Criminal Appeals Act, for example, the Government has been permitted without serious constitutional challenge to appeal from orders arresting judgment after a verdict has been entered against the defendant. See, e. g., United States v. Bramblett, 348 U. S. 503 (1955); United States v. Green, 350 U. S. 415 (1956); Pratt v. United States, 70 App. D. C. 7, 11, 102 F. 2d 275, 279 (1939). Since reversal on appeal would merely reinstate the jury’s verdict, review of such an order does not offend the policy against multiple prosecution.
Similarly, it is well settled that an appellate court’s order reversing a conviction is subject to further review even when the appellate court has ordered the indictment dismissed and the defendant discharged. Forman v. United States, 361 U. S. 416, 426 (1960). If reversal by a court of appeals operated to deprive the Government of its right to seek further review, disposition in the court of appeals would be “tantamount to a verdict of acquittal at the hands of the jury, not subject to review by motion for rehearing, appeal, or certiorari in this Court.” Ibid. See also United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U. S. 233, 243 (1957).
It is difficult to see why the rule should be any different simply because the defendant has gotten a favorable post-verdict ruling of law from the District Judge rather than from the Court of Appeals, or because the District Judge has relied to some degree on evidence presented at trial in making his ruling. Although review of any ruling of law discharging a defendant obviously enhances the likelihood of conviction and subjects him to continuing expense and anxiety, a defendant has no legitimate claim to benefit from an error of law when that error could be corrected without subjecting him to a second trial before a second trier of fact.
As we have noted, this Court has had relatively few occasions to comment directly on the constitutional restrictions on Government appeals. The few relevant cases are nonetheless consistent with double jeopardy cases from rélated areas, in focusing on the prohibition against multiple trials as the controlling constitutional principle.
The Court first addressed the question in United States v. Ball, supra. After trial on an indictment for murder, the jury found one of the defendants not guilty. The indictment was later determined to be defective, but this Court held that an acquittal, even on a defective indictment, was sufficient to bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. 163 U. S., at 669. “The verdict of acquittal was final,” the Court wrote, “and could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting him twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.” Id., at 671.
Eight years later the Court was again faced with a double jeopardy challenge to a Government appeal. In Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100 (1904), the prosecution sought what was in essence a trial de novo after the defendant had been acquitted by the court in a bench trial. The Court, relying on the Ball case, held that “to try a man after a verdict of acquittal is to put him twice in jeopardy, although the verdict was not followed by judgment.” Id., at 133. Permitting an appeal in Kepner would in effect have exposed the defendant to a second trial, in violation of the constitutional protection against multiple trials for the same offense.
Respondent contends that Ball and Kepner stand for the proposition that the key to invoking double jeopardy protection is not whether the defendant might be subjected to multiple trials, but whether he can point to a prior verdict or judgment of acquittal. In Ball, however, the Court explained that review of the verdict of acquittal was barred primarily because it would expose the defendant to the risk of a second trial after the finder of fact had ruled in his favor in the first. And, although the Kepner case technically involved only a single proceeding, the Court regarded the practice as equivalent to two separate trials, and the evil that the Court saw in the procedure was plainly that of multiple prosecution:
“The court of first instance, having jurisdiction to try the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused, found Kepner not guilty; to try him again upon the merits, even in an appellate court, is to put him a second time in jeopardy for the same offense.” 195 U. S., at 133.
The respondent seeks some comfort from this Court’s more recent decision in Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141 (1962), but that case, too, reflects the policy against multiple trials in limiting the Government’s appeal rights. In Fong Foo the trial court had interrupted the Government’s case and directed the jury to return verdicts of acquittal as to all the defendants. This Court held that even if the District Court had erred in directing the acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause was offended “when the Court of Appeals set aside the judgment of acquittal and directed that the petitioners be tried again for the same offense.” Id., at 143. The Court noted that although retrial is sometimes permissible after a mistrial is declared but no verdict or judgment has been entered, the verdict of acquittal foreclosed retrial and thus barred appellate review.
Finally, respondent places great weight on our decision in United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267 (1970). He claims that Sisson extends the constitutional protection against Government appeals to any case in which the ruling appealed from is based upon facts outside the face of the indictment.
Sisson arose under the former Criminal Appeals Act and came here on direct appeal from the District Court. The defendant had been tried for refusing to submit to induction, and the jury had found him guilty. On a postverdict motion, however, the District Court entered what it termed an “arrest of judgment,” dismissing the indictment on the ground that Sisson could not be convicted because his sincere opposition to the war in Vietnam outweighed the country’s need to draft him. The Government sought to appeal the District Court’s ruling on the theory that it was within the “arresting judgment” provision of the Criminal Appeals Act. We held that the ruling was not appealable under either the “arresting judgment” or the “motion in bar” provisions of the Act and dismissed the case for want of appellate jurisdiction.
Writing for a plurality of four Justices, Mr. Justice Harlan gave three reasons for his conclusion that the District Court’s ruling was not appealable as an arrest of judgment. First, he wrote, the District Court’s ruling was not within the common-law definition of an arrest of judgment since it went beyond the face of the record. The Criminal Appeals Act, he noted, was drafted against a common-law background in which the statutory phrase had a “well-defined and limited meaning” that did not incorporate rulings that relied upon evidence introduced at trial. Second, the District Court’s ruling failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that the decision arresting judgment be “for insufficiency of the indictment.” The issue of the sincerity of Sisson’s beliefs was not presented by the indictment; accordingly, the indictment was not “insufficient” under the appeals statute, since it was sufficient to charge an offense and it did not allege facts that in themselves established the availability of a constitutional privilege. In Part II-C of the opinion, for which Mr. Justice Black provided a majority of the Court, Mr. Justice Harlan explained the third reason for concluding that the District Court’s order was not an arrest of judgment: because the order was “bottomed on factual conclusions not found in the indictment but instead made on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial,” it was an acquittal “rendered by the trial court after the jury’s verdict of guilty.” 399 U. S., at 288. The District Court’s post-verdict ruling, he wrote, was indistinguishable from a hypothetical verdict of acquittal entered by a jury on an instruction incorporating the constitutional defense that the judge had recognized in his ruling. If the jury had been so instructed and had acquitted, he pointed out, there would plainly have been no appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act. The legislative history of the Act made it clear that Congress did not contemplate review of verdicts of acquittal, no matter how erroneous the constitutional theory underlying the instructions. Nor, he added, could an appeal have been taken consistently with the Double Jeopardy Clause. The latter point was made in the following passage:
“Quite apart from the statute, it is, of course, well settled that an acquittal can 'not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting [the defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.... [I] n this country a verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offence.' United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 671 (1896).” 399 U. S., at 289-290.
Respondent argues that this passage was meant to provide an alternative holding for Sisson, that even if the Criminal Appeals Act would permit an appeal on the facts in Sisson, the Double Jeopardy Clause would not. In essence, respondent rests his case on what he perceives to be the Court’s syllogism in this portion of the Sisson opinion: (1) the postverdict ruling was not a common-law arrest of judgment, but an acquittal; (2) under the Ball case, an acquittal cannot be appealed without offending the Double Jeopardy Clause; thus, (3) the District Court’s ruling in Sisson was shielded from review as a matter of constitutional law.
We are constrained to disagree. A more natural reading of this passage suggests that the reference to the Double Jeopardy Clause was meant to apply to the hypothetical jury verdict, not to the order entered by the trial court in Sisson itself. Appeal from the hypothetical jury verdict would have been precluded both by the statute and by the Constitution; appeal from the District Court’s actual ruling in the case, however, was barred solely by the statute. The only direct effect of the Constitution on the case was, as the Court pointed out in a footnote following the quoted passage, that after this Court’s jurisdictional dismissal, Sisson could not be retried. 399 U. S., at 290 n. 18. Accordingly, we find Sisson no authority for the proposition that the Government cannot constitutionally appeal any postverdict order that would have been an unappealable acquittal under the former Criminal Appeals Act.
D
The Government has not seriously contended in this case that any ruling of law by a judge in the course of a trial is reviewable on the prosecution’s motion, although this view has had some support among the commentators since Mr. Justice Holmes adopted it in his dissent to Kepner v. United States, supra. Mr. Justice Holmes accepted as common ground that the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids “a trial in a new and independent case where a man already had been tried once.” 195 U. S., at 134. But in his view the first jeopardy should be treated as continuing until both sides have exhausted their appeals on claimed errors of law, regardless of the possibility that the defendant may be subjected to retrial after a verdict of acquittal.
A system permitting review of all claimed legal errors would have symmetry to recommend it and would avoid the release of some defendants who have benefited from instructions or evidentiary rulings that are unduly favorable to them. But we have rejected this position in the past, and we continue to be of the view that the policies underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause militate against permitting the Government to appeal after a verdict of acquittal. Granting the Government such broad appeal rights would allow the prosecutor to seek to persuade a second trier of fact of the defendant's guilt after having failed with the first; it would permit him to re-examine the weaknesses in his first presentation in order to strengthen the second; and it would disserve the defendant’s legitimate interest in the finality of a verdict of acquittal. These interests, however, do not apply in the case of a postverdict ruling of law by a trial judge. Correction of an error of law at that stage would not grant the prosecutor a new trial or subject the defendant to the harassment traditionally associated with multiple prosecutions. We therefore conclude that when a judge rules in favor of the defendant after a verdict of guilty has been entered by the trier of fact, the Government may appeal from that ruling without running afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Ill
Applying these principles to the present case is a relatively straightforward task. The jury entered a verdict of guilty against Wilson. The ruling in his favor on the Marion motion could be acted on by the Court of Appeals or indeed this Court without subjecting him to a second trial at the Government’s behest. If he prevails on appeal, the matter will become final, and the Government will not be permitted to bring a second prosecution against him for the same offense. If he loses, the case must go back to the District Court for disposition of his remaining motions. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for the Court of Appeals to consider the merits of the Government’s appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
The Court of Appeals noted that the portion of the investigation that focused on Wilson was completed by June 1969. 492 F. 2d 1345, 1346. The FBI agent who conducted the investigation testified that he had communicated with representatives of the Strike Force and the United States Attorney’s Office about the case as early as December 1969. App. 28.
Significantly, the statute expressly provided that the Government could not have a. writ of error ‘'‘in any case where there has been a verdict in favor of the defendant.” The legislative history indicates that this provision was added to ensure that the statute would not conflict with the principles of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See 41 Cong. Dec. 2749-2762, 2819.
The statute was amended several times, but the amendments did not render its construction any simpler. The most significant change in the statute was the 1942 amendment, 56 Stat. 271, in which Congress provided that some dismissals should be reviewed in the courts of appeals and that the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction should extend to prosecutions by information. In 1968, the statute was further amended to authorize Government appeals from pretrial rulings granting motions to suppress or to return seized property. 82 Stat. 237.
See, e. g., United States v. Weller, 401 U. S. 254 (1971); United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267 (1970); United States v. Mersky, 361 U. S. 431 (1960); United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188 (1939).
The new statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, was passed as Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-644, 84 Stat. 1890.
Expressions of the principle can be found in English law from the time of the Year Books, and as early as the 15th century the English courts had begun to use the term “jeopardy” in connection with the principle against multiple trials. See Kirk, “Jeopardy” During the Period of the Year Books, 82 U. Pa. L. Rev. 602 (1934).
Part I, Art. XVI, of New Hampshire’s Constitution of 1784 read: “No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime or offence.” It contained no prohibition, however, against retrial after conviction. 4 E, Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions 2455 (1909).
Among the suggested amendments that New York sent to the Congress with its ratification declaration was one that read: “That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, for one and the same offence; nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.” 1 J. Elliott, Debates on the Federal Constitution 328 (1876). This language borrowed heavily from Blackstone’s formulation. Maryland also sent a proposed version of the Double Jeopardy Clause, which read: “That there shall be... no appeal from matter of fact, or second trial after acquittal; but this provision shall not extend to such cases as may arise in the government of the land or naval forces.” 2 Elliott, supra, at 550.
From the brief report of the debate it appears that both sides agreed that a defendant could have a second trial after a conviction, but the Government could not have a new trial after an acquittal. Representative Sherman commented: “If the [defendant] was acquitted on the first trial, he ought not to be tried a second time; but if he was convicted on the first, and any thing should appear to set the judgment aside, he was entitled to a second, which was certainly favorable to him.” 1 Annals of Cong. 753 (1789).
The prosecution's appeal rights were generally limited to cases in which the error appeared on the face of the record, or in which the defendant had obtained his acquittal by fraud or treachery. See M. Friedland, Double Jeopardy 287 (1969).
This exception to the “one trial” rule has been explained on the conclusory theories that the defendant waives his double jeopardy claim by appealing his conviction, or that the first jeopardy continues until he is acquitted or his conviction becomes final, see Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 189 (1957). As Mr. Justice Harlan noted in United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S. 463, 465-466 (1964), however, the practical justification for the exception is simply that it is fairer to both the defendant and the Government.
In Perez, the Court emphasized the limited scope of this exception by adding: “To be sure, the power [to declare a mistrial and subject the defendant to retrial] ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes.” 9 Wheat., at 580.
On a number of occasions, the Court has observed that the Double Jeopardy Clause “prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391, 399 (1938). See also One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S. 232, 235-236 (1972); Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15, 18 (1919); cf. United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 479 (1971).
Judge Learned Hand took this position in United States 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: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether, because of an earlier illegal entry, the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of evidence seized later from a private residence pursuant to a valid search warrant which was issued on information obtained by the police before the entry into the residence.
I
Resolution of this issue requires us to consider two separate questions: first, whether the entry and internal securing of the premises constituted an impermissible seizure of all the contents of the apartment, seen and unseen; second, whether the evidence first discovered during the search of the apartment pursuant to a valid warrant issued the day after the entry should have been suppressed as “fruit” of the illegal entry. Our disposition of both questions is carefully limited.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s holding that there were no exigent circumstances to justify the war-rantless entry into petitioners’ apartment. That issue is not before us, and we have no reason to question the courts’ holding that that search was illegal. The ensuing interference with petitioners’ possessory interests in their apartment, however, is another matter. On this first question, we conclude that, assuming that there was a seizure of all the contents of the petitioners’ apartment when agents secured the premises from within, that seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, we hold that where officers, having probable cause, enter premises, and with probable cause, arrest the occupants who have legitimate pos-sessory interests in its contents and take them into custody and, for no more than the period here involved, secure the premises from within to preserve the status quo while others, in good faith, are in the process of obtaining a warrant, they do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable seizures.
The illegality of the initial entry, as we will show, has no bearing on the second question. The resolution of this second question requires that we determine whether the initial entry tainted the discovery of the evidence now challenged. On this issue, we hold that the evidence discovered during the subsequent search of the apartment the following day pursuant to the valid search warrant issued wholly on information known to the officers before the entry into the apartment need not have been suppressed as “fruit” of the illegal entry because the warrant and the information on which it was based were unrelated to the entry and therefore constituted an independent source for the evidence under Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920).
II
In January 1981, the New York Drug Enforcement Task Force received information indicating that petitioners Andres Segura and Luz Marina Colon probably were trafficking in cocaine from their New York apartment. Acting on this information, Task Force agents maintained continuing surveillance over petitioners until their arrest on February 12, 1981. On February 9, agents observed a meeting between Segura and Enrique Rivudalla-Vidal, during which, as it later developed, the two discussed the possible sale of cocaine by Segura to Rivudalla-Vidal. Three days later, February 12, Segura telephoned Rivudalla-Vidal and agreed to provide him with cocaine. The two agreed that the delivery would be made at 5 p. m. that day at a designated fast-food restaurant in Queens, N. Y. Rivudalla-Vidal and one Esther Parra, arrived at the restaurant at 5 p. m., as agreed. While Segura and Rivudalla-Vidal visited inside the restaurant, agents observed Colon deliver a bulky package to Parra, who had remained in Rivudalla-Vidal’s car in the restaurant parking lot. A short time after the delivery of the package, Rivudalla-Vidal and Parra left the restaurant and proceeded to their apartment. Task Force agents followed. The agents stopped the couple as they were about to enter Rivudalla-Vidal’s apartment. Parra was found to possess cocaine; both Rivudalla-Vidal and Parra were immediately arrested.
After Rivudalla-Vidal and Parra were advised of their constitutional rights, Rivudalla-Vidal agreed to cooperate with the agents. He admitted that he had purchased the cocaine from Segura and he confirmed that Colon had made the delivery at the fast-food restaurant earlier that day, as the agents had observed. Rivudalla-Vidal informed the agents that Segura was to call him at approximately 10 o’clock that evening to learn if Rivudalla-Vidal had sold the cocaine, in which case Segura was to deliver additional cocaine.
Between 6:30 and 7 p. m., the same day, Task Force agents sought and received authorization from an Assistant United States Attorney to arrest Segura and Colon. The agents were advised by the Assistant United States Attorney that because of the lateness of the hour, a search warrant for petitioners’ apartment probably could not be obtained until the following day, but that the agents should proceed to secure the premises to prevent the destruction of evidence.
At about 7:80 p. m., the agents arrived at petitioners’ apartment and established external surveillance. At 11:15 p. m., Segura, alone, entered the lobby of the apartment building where he was immediately arrested by agents. He first claimed he did not reside in the building. The agents took him to his third floor apartment, and when they knocked on the apartment door, a woman later identified as Colon appeared; the agents then entered with Segura, without requesting or receiving permission. There were three persons in the living room of the apartment in addition to Colon. Those present were informed by the agents that Segura was under arrest and that a search warrant for the apartment was being obtained.
Following this brief exchange in the living room, the agents conducted a limited security check of the apartment to ensure that no one else was there who might pose a threat to their safety or destroy evidence. In the process, the agents observed, in a bedroom in plain view, a triple-beam scale, jars of lactose, and numerous small cellophane bags, all accouterments of drug trafficking. None of these items was disturbed by the agents. After this limited security check, Colon was arrested. In the search incident to her arrest, agents found in her purse a loaded revolver and more than $2,000 in cash. Colon, Segura, and the other occupants of the apartment were taken to Drug Enforcement Administration headquarters.
Two Task Force agents remained in petitioners’ apartment awaiting the warrant. Because of what is characterized as “administrative delay” the warrant application was not presented to the Magistrate until 5 p. m. the next day. The warrant was issued and the search was performed at approximately 6 p. m., some 19 hours after the agents’ initial entry into the apartment. In the search pursuant to the warrant, agents discovered almost three pounds of cocaine, 18 rounds of.38-caliber ammunition fitting the revolver agents had found in Colon’s possession at the time of her arrest, more than $50,000 cash, and records of narcotics transactions. Agents seized these items, together with those observed during the security check the previous night.
Before trial in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York, petitioners moved to suppress all of the evidence seized from the apartment — the items discovered in plain view during the initial security check and those not in plain view first discovered during the subsequent warrant search. After a full evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted petitioners’ motion. The court ruled that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the initial entry into the apartment. Accordingly, it held that the entry, the arrest of Colon and search incident to her arrest, and the effective seizure of the drug paraphernalia in plain view were illegal. The District Court ordered this evidence suppressed as “fruits” of illegal searches.
The District Court held that the warrant later issued was supported by information sufficient to establish probable cause; however, it read United States v. Griffin, 502 F. 2d 959 (CA6), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1050 (1974), as requiring suppression of the evidence seized under the valid warrant. The District Court reasoned that this evidence would not necessarily have been discovered because, absent the illegal entry and “occupation” of the apartment, Colon might have arranged to have the drugs removed or destroyed, in which event they would not have been in the apartment when the warrant search was made. Under this analysis, the District Court held that even the drugs seized under the valid warrant were “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
On an appeal limited to the admissibility of the incriminating evidence, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. 663 F. 2d 411 (1981). It affirmed the District Court holding that the initial warrantless entry was not justified by exigent circumstances and that the evidence discovered in plain view during the initial entry must be suppressed. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument advanced by the United States that the evidence in plain view should not be excluded because it was not actually “seized” until after the search warrant was secured.
Relying upon its holding in United States v. Agapito, 620 F. 2d 324 (CA2), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 834 (1980), the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s holding requiring suppression of the evidence seized under the valid warrant executed on the day following the initial entry. The Court of Appeals described as “prudentially unsound” the District Court’s decision to suppress that evidence simply because it could have been destroyed had the agents not entered.
Petitioners were convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846, and of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 841(a)(1). On the subsequent review of these convictions, the Second Circuit affirmed, 697 F. 2d 300 (1982), rejecting claims by petitioners that the search warrant was procured through material misrepresentations and that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support their convictions. We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 1200 (1983), and we affirm.
Ill
At the outset, it is important to focus on the narrow and precise question now before us. As we have noted, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the initial warrantless entry and the limited security search were not justified by exigent circumstances and were therefore illegal. No review of that aspect of the case was sought by the Government and no issue concerning items observed during the initial entry is before the Court. The only issue here is whether drugs and the other items not observed during the initial entry and first discovered by the agents the day after the entry, under an admittedly valid search warrant, should have been suppressed.
The suppression or exclusionary rule is a judicially prescribed remedial measure and as “with any remedial device, the 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). Under this Court’s holdings, the exclusionary rule reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341 (1939). It “extends as well to the indirect as the direct products” of unconstitutional conduct. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 484 (1963).
Evidence obtained as a direct result of an unconstitutional search or seizure is plainly subject to exclusion. The question to be resolved when it is claimed that evidence subsequently obtained is “tainted” or is “fruit” of a prior illegality is whether the challenged evidence was
“ ‘come at by exploitation of [the initial] illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’” Id., at 488 (citation omitted; emphasis added).
It has been well established for more than 60 years that evidence is not to be excluded if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is “so attenuated as to dissipate the taint,” Nardone v. United States, supra, at 341. It is not to be excluded, for example, if police had an “independent source” for discovery of the evidence:
“The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all. Of course this does not mean that the facts thus obtained become sacred and inaccessible. If knowledge of them is gained from an independent source they may be proved like any others.” Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S., at 392 (emphasis added).
In short, it is clear from our prior holdings that “the exclusionary rule has no application [where] the Government learned of the evidence ‘from an independent source.’” Wong Sun, supra, at 487 (quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co., supra, at 392); see also United States v. Crews, 445 U. S. 463 (1980); United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 242 (1967); Costello v. United States, 365 U. S. 265, 278-280 (1961).
> I — I
Petitioners argue that all of the contents of the apartment, seen and not seen, including the evidence now in question, were “seized” when the agents entered and remained on the premises while the lawful occupants were away from the apartment in police custody. The essence of this argument is that because the contents were then under the control of the agents and no one would have been permitted to remove the incriminating evidence from the premises or destroy it, a “seizure” took place. Plainly, this argument is advanced to avoid the Silverthorne “independent source” exception. If all the contents of the apartment were “seized” at the time of the illegal entry and securing, presumably the evidence now challenged would be suppressible as primary evidence obtained as a direct result of that entry.
We need not decide whether, when the agents entered the apartment and secured the premises, they effected a seizure of the cocaine, the cash, the ammunition, and the narcotics records within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. By its terms, the Fourth Amendment forbids only “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Assuming, arguendo, that the agents seized the entire apartment and its contents, as petitioners suggest, the seizure was not unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
Different interests are implicated by a seizure than by a search. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113, and n. 5, 122-126 (1984); Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730 (1983); id., at 747-748 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 13-14, n. 8 (1977); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 51-52 (1970). A seizure affects only the person’s possessory interests; a search affects a person’s privacy interests. United States v. Jacobsen, supra, at 113, and n. 5; United States v. Chadwick, supra, at 13-14, n. 8; see generally Texas v. Brown, supra, at 747-751 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). Recognizing the generally less intrusive nature of a seizure, Chadwick, supra, at 13-14, n. 8; Chambers v. Maroney, supra, at 51, the Court has frequently approved warrantless seizures of property, on the basis of probable cause, for the time necessary to secure a warrant, where a warrantless search was either held to be or likely would have been held impermissible. Chambers v. Maroney, supra; United States v. Chadwick, supra; Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753 (1979).
We focused on the issue notably in Chambers, holding that it was reasonable to seize and impound an automobile, on the basis of probable cause, for “whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search.” 399 U. S., at 51 (footnote omitted). We acknowledged in Chambers that following the car until a warrant could be obtained was an alternative to impoundment, albeit an impractical one. But we allowed the seizure nonetheless because otherwise the occupants of the car could have removed the “instruments or fruits of crime” before the search. Id., at 51, n. 9. The Court allowed the warrantless seizure to protect the evidence from destruction even though there was no immediate fear that the evidence was in the process of being destroyed or otherwise lost. The Chambers Court declared:
“For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding the car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to search, either course is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 52 (emphasis added)
In Chadwick, we held that the warrantless search of the footloeker after it had been seized and was in a secure area of the Federal Building violated the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches, but neither the respondents nor the Court questioned the validity of the initial warrantless seizure of the footloeker on the basis of probable cause. The seizure of Chadwick’s footloeker clearly interfered with his use and possession of the footloeker — his possessory interest — but we held that this did not “diminish [his] legitimate expectation that the footlocker’s contents would remain private.” 433 U. S., at 13-14, n. 8 (emphasis added). And again, in Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, we held that absent exigent circumstances a warrant was required to search luggage seized from an automobile which was already in the possession and control of police at the time of the search. However, we expressly noted that the police acted not only “properly,” but “commendably” in seizing the suitcase without a warrant on the basis of probable cause to believe that it contained drugs. 442 U. S., at 761. The taxi into which the suitcase had been placed was about to drive away. However, just as there was no immediate threat of loss or destruction of evidence in Chambers — since officers could have followed the car until a warrant issued — so too in Sanders officers could have followed the taxicab. Indeed, there arguably was even less fear of immediate loss of the evidence in Sanders because the suitcase at issue had been placed in the vehicle’s trunk, thus rendering immediate access unlikely before police could act.
Underlying these decisions is a belief that society’s interest in the discovery and protection of incriminating evidence from removal or destruction can supersede, at least for a limited period, a person’s possessory interest in property, provided that there is probable cause to believe that that property is associated with criminal activity. See United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983).
The Court has not had occasion to consider whether, when officers have probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity is on the premises, the temporary securing of a dwelling to prevent the removal or destruction of evidence violates the Fourth Amendment. However, in two cases we have suggested that securing of premises under these circumstances does not violate the Fourth Amendment, at least when undertaken to preserve the status quo while a search warrant is being sought. In Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385 (1978), we noted with approval that, to preserve evidence, a police guard had been stationed at the entrance to an apartment in which a homicide had been committed, even though “[t]here was no indication that evidence would be lost, destroyed, or removed during the time required to obtain a search warrant.” Id., at 394. Similarly, in Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98 (1980), although officers secured, from within, the home of a person for whom they had an arrest warrant, and detained all occupants while other officers were obtaining a search warrant, the Court did not question the admissibility of evidence discovered pursuant to the warrant later issued.
We see no reason, as Mincey and Rawlings would suggest, why the same principle applied in Chambers, Chadwick, and Sanders, should not apply where a dwelling is involved. The sanctity of the home is not to be disputed. But the home is sacred in Fourth Amendment terms not primarily because of the occupants' possessory interests in the premises, but because of their privacy interests in the activities that take place within. “[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967); see also Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 615 (1980) (White, J., dissenting).
As we have noted, however, a seizure affects only pos-sessory interests, not privacy interests. Therefore, the heightened protection we accord privacy interests is simply not implicated where a seizure of premises, not a search, is at issue. We hold, therefore, that securing a dwelling, on the basis of probable cause, to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence while a search warrant is being sought is not itself an unreasonable seizure of either the dwelling or its contents. We reaffirm at the same time, however, that, absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless search — such as that invalidated in Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U. S. 30, 33-34 (1970) — is illegal.
Here, the agents had abundant probable cause in advance of their entry to believe that there was a criminal drug operation being carried on in petitioners' apartment; indeed petitioners do not dispute the probable-cause determination. The agents had maintained surveillance over petitioners for weeks, and had observed petitioners leave the apartment to make sales of cocaine. Wholly apart from observations made during that extended surveillance, Rivudalla-Vidal had told agents after his arrest on February 13, that petitioners had supplied him with cocaine earlier that day, that he had not purchased all of the cocaine offered by Segura, and that Segura probably had more cocaine in the apartment. On the basis of this information, a Magistrate duly issued a search warrant, the validity of which was upheld by both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, and which is not before us now.
In this case, the agents entered and secured the apartment from within. Arguably, the wiser course would have been to depart immediately and secure the premises from the outside by a “stakeout” once the security check revealed that no one other than those taken into custody were in the apartment. But the method actually employed does not require a different result under the Fourth Amendment, insofar as the seizure is concerned. As the Court of Appeals held, absent exigent' circumstances, the entry may have constituted an illegal search, or interference with petitioners’ privacy interests, requiring suppression of all evidence observed during the entry. Securing of the premises from within, however, was no more an interference with the petitioners’ possessory interests in the contents of the apartment than a perimeter “stakeout.” In other words, the initial entry — legal or not— does not affect the reasonableness of the seizure. Under either method — entry and securing from within or a perimeter stakeout — agents control the apartment pending arrival of the warrant; both an internal securing and a perimeter stakeout interfere to the same extent with the possessory interests of the owners.
Petitioners argue that we heighten the possibility of illegal entries by a holding that the illegal entry and securing of the premises from the inside do not themselves render the seizure any more unreasonable than had the agents staked out the apartment from the outside. We disagree. In the first place, an entry in the absence of exigent circumstances is illegal. We are unwilling to believe that officers will routinely and purposely violate the law as a matter of course. Second, as a practical matter, officers who have probable cause and who are in the process of obtaining a warrant have no reason to enter the premises before the warrant issues, absent exigent circumstances which, of course, would justify the entry. United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38 (1976); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948). Third, officers who enter illegally will recognize that whatever evidence they discover as a direct result of the entry may be suppressed, as it was by the Court of Appeals in this case. Finally, if officers enter without exigent circumstances to justify the entry, they expose themselves to potential civil liability under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971).
Of course, a seizure reasonable at its inception because based upon probable cause may become unreasonable as a result of its duration or for other reasons. Cf. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983). Here, because of the delay in securing the warrant, the occupation of the apartment continued throughout the night and into the next day. Such delay in securing a warrant in a large metropolitan center unfortunately is not uncommon; this is not, in itself, evidence of bad faith. And there is no suggestion that the officers, in bad faith, purposely delayed obtaining the warrant. The asserted explanation is that the officers focused first on the task of processing those whom they had arrested before turning to the task of securing the warrant. It is not unreasonable for officers to believe that the former should take priority, given, as was the case here, that the proprietors of the apartment were in the custody of the officers throughout the period in question.
There is no evidence that the agents in any way exploited their presence in the apartment; they simply awaited issuance of the warrant. Moreover, more than half of the 19-hour delay was between 10 p. m. and 10 a. m. the following day, when it is reasonable to assume that judicial officers are not as readily available for consideration of warrant requests. Finally, and most important, we observed in United States v. Place, supra, at 705, that
“[t]he intrusion on possessory interests occasioned by a seizure... can vary both in its nature and extent. The seizure may be made after the owner has relinquished control of the property to a third party or... from the immediate custody and control of the owner.”
Here, of course, Segura and Colon, whose possessory interests were interfered with by the occupation, were under arrest and in the custody of the police throughout the entire period the agents occupied the apartment. The actual interference with their possessory interests in the apartment and its contents was, thus, virtually nonexistent. Cf. United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U. S. 249 (1970). We are not prepared to say under these limited circumstances that the seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
V
Petitioners also argue that even if the evidence was not subject to suppression as primary evidence “seized” by virtue of the initial illegal entry and occupation of the premises, it should have been excluded as “fruit” derived from that illegal entry. Whether the initial entry was illegal or not is irrelevant to the admissibility of the challenged evidence because there was an independent source for the warrant under which that evidence was seized. Exclusion of evidence as derivative or “fruit of the poisonous tree” is not warranted here because of that independent source.
None of the information on which the warrant was secured was derived from or related in any way to the initial entry into petitioners’ apartment; the information came from sources wholly unconnected with the entry and was known to the agents well before the initial entry. No information obtained during the initial entry or occupation of the apartment was needed or used by the agents to secure the warrant. It is therefore beyond dispute that the information possessed by the agents before they entered the apartment constituted an independent source for the discovery and seizure of the evidence now challenged. This evidence was discovered the day following the entry, during the search conducted under a valid warrant; it was the product of that search, wholly unrelated to the prior entry. The valid warrant search was a “means sufficiently distinguishable” to purge the evidence of any “taint” arising from the entry. Wong Sun, 371 U. S., at 488. Had police never entered the apartment, but instead conducted a perimeter stakeout to prevent anyone from entering the apartment and destroying evidence, the contraband now challenged would have been discovered and seized precisely as it was here. The legality of the initial entry is, thus, wholly irrelevant under Wong Sun, supra, and Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920).
Our conclusion that the challenged evidence was admissible is fully supported by our prior cases going back more than a half century. The Court has never held that evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree” simply because “it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police.” See Wong Sun, supra, at 487-488; Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98 (1980); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 599 (1975). That would squarely conflict with Silverthome and our other cases allowing admission of evidence, notwithstanding a prior illegality, when the link between the illegality and that evidence was sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the taint. By the same token, our cases make clear that evidence will not be excluded as “fruit” unless the illegality is at least the “but for” cause of the discovery of the evidence. Suppression is not justified unless “the challenged evidence is in some sense the product of illegal governmental activity.” United States v. Crews, 445 U. S., at 471. The illegal entry into petitioners’ apartment did not contribute in any way to discovery of the evidence seized under the warrant; it is clear, therefore, that not even the threshold “but for” requirement was met in this case.
The dissent contends that the initial entry and securing of the premises are the “but for” causes of the discovery of the evidence in that, had the agents not entered the apartment, but instead secured the premises from the outside, Colon or her friends if alerted, could have removed or destroyed the evidence before the warrant issued. While the dissent embraces this “reasoning,” petitioners do not press this argument. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument as “prudentially unsound” and because it rested on “wholly speculative assumptions.” Among other things, the Court of Appeals suggested that, had the agents waited to enter the apartment until the warrant issued, they might not have decided to take Segura to the apartment and thereby alert Colon. Or, once alerted by Segura’s failure to appear, Colon might have attempted to remove the evidence, rather than destroy it, in which event the agents could have intercepted her and the evidence.
We agree fully with the Court of Appeals that the District Court’s suggestion that Colon and her cohorts would have removed or destroyed the evidence was pure speculation. Even more important, however, we decline to extend the exclusionary rule, which already exacts an enormous price from society and our system of justice, to further “protect” criminal activity, as the dissent would have us do.
It may be that, if the agents had not entered the apartment, petitioners might have arranged for the removal or destruction of the evidence, and that in this sense the agents’ actions could be considered the “but for” cause for discovery of the evidence. But at this juncture, we are reminded of Justice Frankfurter’s warning that “[s]ophisticated argument may prove a causal connection between information obtained through [illegal conduct] and the Government’s proof,” and his admonition that the courts should consider whether “[a]s a matter of good sense... such connection may have become so attenuated, as to dissipate the taint.” Nardone, 308 U. S., at 341. The essence of the dissent is that there is some “constitutional right” to destroy evidence. This concept defies both logic and common sense.
rH i>
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the cocaine, cash records, and ammunition were properly admitted into evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice White, Justice Powell, and Justice Rehnquist join all but Part IV of this opinion.
See Griswold, Criminal Procedure, 1969 — Is It a Means or an End?, 29 Md. L. Rev. 307, 317 (1969); see generally 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §6.5 (1978).
Rivudalla-Vidal and Parra were indicted with petitioners and were charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute one-half kilogram of cocaine on one occasion and one kilogram on another occasion. Both pleaded guilty to the charges. They moved in the District Court to suppress the one-half kilogram of cocaine found on Parra’s person at the time of their arrests on the ground that the Task Force agents had stopped them in violation of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). The court denied the motion. Rivudalla-Vidal and Parra absconded prior to sentencing by the District Court.
In Griffin, absent exigent circumstances, police officers forcibly entered an apartment and discovered in plain view narcotics and related paraphernalia. The entry took place while other officers sought a search warrant. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of the defendant’s suppression motion.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that the initial entry into the apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances, and thus that the items discovered in plain view during the limited security check had to be suppressed to effect the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The United States, although it does not concede the correctness of this holding, does not contest it in this Court. Because the Government has decided not to press its argument that exigent circumstances existed, we need not and do not address this aspect of the Court of Appeals decision. We are concerned only with whether the Court of Appeals properly determined that the Fourth Amendment did not require suppression of the evidence seized during execution of the valid warrant.
In Agapito, DEA agents, following a 2-day surveillance of the defendant’s hotel room, arrested the suspected occupants of the room in the lobby of the hotel. After the arrests, the agents entered the hotel room and remained within, with the exception of periodic departures, for almost 24 hours until a search warrant issued. During their stay in the room, the agents seized but did not open a suitcase found in the room. In the search pursuant to the warrant, the agents found cocaine in the suitcase. Although the Second Circuit held that the initial entry was illegal, it held that the cocaine need not be suppressed because it was discovered in the search under the valid warrant.
In two instances, the Court has allowed temporary seizures and limited detentions of property based upon less than probable cause. In United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U. S. 249 (1970), the Court refused to invalidate the seizure and detention — on the basis of only reasonable suspicion — of two packages delivered to a United States Post Office for mailing. One of the packages was detained on mere suspicion for only 1% hours; by the end of that period enough information had been obtained to establish probable cause that the packages contained stolen coins. But the other package was detained for 29 hours before a search warrant was finally served. Both seizures were held reasonable. In fact, the Court suggested that both seizures and detentions for these “limited times” were “prudent” under the circumstances.
Only last Term, in United States 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: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was convicted under 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a) (1) for distribution of a hallucinogenic drug commonly known as LSD. Prior to trial he filed a motion to dismiss his indictment claiming that the master lists from which his grand jury had been, and petit jury would be, selected systematically excluded disproportionate numbers of people with Spanish surnames, students, and blacks. These exclusions, petitioner alleged, violated both his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and the provisions of the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U. S. C. § 1861 et seq. Attached to this motion was an affidavit by petitioner's counsel stating facts that had been disclosed by testimony at a jury challenge in another case, and which petitioner claimed supported his challenge. Also accompanying the motion was another motion requesting permission to inspect and copy the jury lists “pertaining to the grand and petit juries in the instant indictment.” Petitioner asserted that inspection was necessary for discovering evidence to buttress his claims.
The District Court rejected the jury challenge and denied the motion to inspect the lists. Petitioner renewed his claims before the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but that court affirmed his conviction without discussing these issues. We granted certiorari to decide whether the Jury Selection and Service Act required that petitioner be permitted to inspect the jury lists. 417 U. S. 967.
In its brief and oral argument before this Court, the United States has agreed that petitioner was erroneously denied access to the lists and urges us to remand the case. We also agree with petitioner. Section 1867 (f) of the Act, in relevant part, provides:
“The contents of records or papers used by the jury commission or clerk in connection with the jury selection process shall not be disclosed, except . . . as may be necessary in the preparation or presentation of a motion [challenging compliance with selection procedures] under . . . this section . . . . The parties in a case shall be allowed to inspect, reproduce, and copy such records or papers at all reasonable times during the preparation and pend-ency of such a motion. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
This provision makes clear that a litigant has essentially an unqualified right to inspect jury lists. It grants access in order to aid parties in the “preparation” of motions challenging jury-selection procedures. Indeed, without inspection, a party almost invariably would be unable to determine whether he has a potentially meritorious jury challenge. Thus, an unqualified right to inspection is required not only by the plain text of the statute, but also by the statute’s overall purpose of insuring “grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community.” 28 U. S. C. § 1861.
Since petitioner was denied an opportunity to inspect the jury lists, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court with instructions to remand to the District Court so that petitioner may attempt to support his challenge to the jury-selection procedures. We express no views on the merits of that challenge.
It is so ordered.
These lists were based on Colorado voter-registration records.
Petitioner further argues that the affidavit accompanying his motion to inspect established a prima facie ease of jury exclusion thereby entitling him to inspection under 28 U. S. C. § 1867 (d). Since we conclude that petitioner had an unqualified right to inspection under § 1867 (f) we do not decide whether his counsel’s affidavit was sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The statute grants the rights to challenge selection procedures and inspect lists to the United States and the defendant in a criminal case, and to any party in a civil case.
The statute does limit inspection to “reasonable times.” No issue of timeliness has been raised in this Court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question of law which brings this controversy here is whether § 1006 of the Civil Aeronautics Act, 49 U. S. C. § 646, authorizing judicial review of described orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, includes those which grant or deny applications by citizen carriers to engage in overseas and foreign air transportation which are subject to approval by the President under § 801 of the Act. 49 U. S. C. § 601.
By proceedings not challenged as to regularity, the Board, with express approval of the President, issued an order which denied Waterman Steamship Corporation a certificate of convenience and necessity for an air route and granted one to Chicago and Southern Air Lines, a rival applicant. Routes sought by both carrier interests involved overseas air transportation, § 1 (21) (b), between Continental United States and Caribbean possessions and also foreign air transportation, § 1 (21) (c), between the United States and foreign countries. Waterman filed a petition for review under § 1006 of the Act with the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Chicago and Southern intervened. Both the latter and the Board moved to dismiss, the grounds pertinent here being that because the order required and had approval of the President, under § 801 of the Act, it was not reviewable. The Court of Appeals disclaimed any power to question or review either the President’s approval or his disapproval, but it regarded any Board order as incomplete until court review, after which “the completed action must be approved by the President as to citizen air carriers in cases under Sec. 801.” 159 F. 2d 828. Accordingly, it refused to dismiss the petition and asserted jurisdiction. Its decision conflicts with one by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pan American Airways Co. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 121 F. 2d 810. We granted certiorari both to the Chicago and Southern Air Lines, Inc. (No. 78) and to the Board (No. 88) to resolve the conflict.
Congress has set up a comprehensive scheme for regulation of common carriers by air. Many statutory provisions apply indifferently whether the carrier is a foreign air carrier or a citizen air carrier, and whether the carriage involved is “interstate air commerce,” “overseas air commerce” or “foreign air commerce,” each being appropriately defined. 49 U. S. C. § 401 (20). All air carriers by similar procedures must obtain from the Board certificates of convenience and necessity by showing a public interest in establishment of the route and the applicant's ability to serve it. But when a foreign carrier asks for any permit, or a citizen carrier applies for a certificate to engage in any overseas or foreign air transportation, a copy of the application must be transmitted to the President before hearing; and any decision, either to grant or to deny, must be submitted to the President before publication and is unconditionally subject to the President’s approval. Also the statute subjects to judicial review “any order, affirmative or negative, issued by the Board under this Act, except any order in respect of any foreign air carrier subject to the approval of the President as provided in section 801 of this Act.” It grants no express exemption to an order such as the one before us, which concerns a citizen carrier but which must have Presidential approval because it involves overseas and foreign air transportation. The question is whether an exemption is to be implied.
This Court long has held that statutes which employ broad terms to confer power of judicial review are not always to be read literally. Where Congress has authorized review of “any order” or used other equally inclusive terms, courts have declined the opportunity to magnify their jurisdiction, by self-denying constructions which do not subject to judicial control orders which, from their nature, from the context of the Act, or from the relation of judicial power to the subject-matter, are inappropriate for review. Examples are set forth by Chief Justice Hughes in Federal Power Commission v. Edison Co., 304 U. S. 375, 384. Cf. Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125, 130.
The Waterman Steamship Corporation urges that review of the problems involved in establishing foreign air routes are of no more international delicacy or strategic importance than those involved in routes for water carriage. It says, “It is submitted that there is no basic difference between the conduct of the foreign commerce of the United States by air or by sea.” From this premise it reasons that we should interpret this statute to follow the pattern of judicial review adopted in relation to orders affecting foreign commerce by rail, Lewis-Simas-Jones Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 283 U. S. 654; News Syndicate Co. v. New York Central R. Co., 275 U. S. 179, or communications by wire, United States v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 272 F. 893, or by radio, Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 68 App. D. C. 336, 97 F. 2d 641; and it likens the subject-matter of aeronautics legislation to that of Title VI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 46 U. S. C. § 1171, and the function of the Aeronautics Board in respect to overseas and foreign air transportation to that of the Maritime Commission to such commerce when water-borne.
We find no indication that the Congress either entertained or fostered the narrow concept that air-borne commerce is a mere outgrowth or overgrowth of surface-bound transport. Of course, air transportation, water transportation, rail transportation, and motor transportation all have a kinship in that all are forms of transportation and their common features of public carriage for hire may be amenable to kindred regulations. But these resemblances must not blind us to the fact that legally, as well as literally, air commerce, whether at home or abroad, soared into a different realm than any that had gone before. Ancient doctrines of private ownership of the air as appurtenant to land titles had to be revised to make aviation practically serviceable to our society. A way of travel which quickly escapes the bounds of local regulative competence called for a more penetrating, uniform and exclusive regulation by the nation than had been thought appropriate for the more easily controlled commerce of the past. While transport by land and by sea began before any existing government was established and their respective customs and practices matured into bodies of carrier law independently of legislation, air transport burst suddenly upon modern governments, offering new advantages, demanding new rights and carrying new threats which society could meet with timely adjustments only by prompt invocation of legislative authority. However useful parallels with older forms of transit may be in adjudicating private rights, we see no reason why the efforts of the Congress to foster and regulate development of a revolutionary commerce that operates in three dimensions should be judicially circumscribed with analogies taken over from two-dimensional transit.
The “public interest” that enters into awards of routes for aerial carriers, who in effect obtain also a sponsorship by our government in foreign ventures, is not confined to adequacy of transportation service, as we have held when that term is applied to railroads. Texas v. United States, 292 U. S. 522, 531. That aerial navigation routes and bases should be prudently correlated with facilities and plans for our own national defenses and raise new problems in conduct of foreign relations, is a fact of common knowledge. Congressional hearings and debates extending over several sessions and departmental studies of many years show that the legislative and administrative processes have proceeded in full recognition of these facts.
In the regulation of commercial aeronautics, the statute confers on the Board many powers conventional in other carrier regulation under the Congressional commerce power. They are exercised through usual procedures and apply settled standards with only customary administrative finality. Congress evidently thought of the administrative function in terms used by this Court of another of its agencies in exercising interstate commerce power: “Such a body cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive. Its duties are performed without executive leave and, in the contemplation of the statute, must be free from executive control.” Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 628. Those orders which do not require Presidential approval are subject to judicial review to assure application of the standards Congress has laid down.
But when a foreign carrier seeks to engage in public carriage over the territory or waters of this country, or any carrier seeks the sponsorship of this Government to engage in overseas or foreign air transportation, Congress has completely inverted the usual administrative process. Instead of acting independently of executive control, the agency is then subordinated to it. Instead of its order serving as a final disposition of the application, its force is exhausted when it serves as a recommendation to the President. Instead of being handed down to the parties as the conclusion of the administrative process, it must be submitted to the President, before publication even can take place. Nor is the President’s control of the ultimate decision a mere right of veto. It is not alone issuance of such authorizations that are subject to his approval, but denial, transfer, amendment, cancellation or suspension, as well. And likewise subject to his approval are the terms, conditions and limitations of the order. 49 U. S. C. § 601. Thus, Presidential control is not limited to a negative but is a positive and detailed control over the Board’s decisions, unparalleled in the history of American administrative bodies.
Congress may of course delegate very large grants of its power over foreign commerce to the President. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294; United States v. Bush & Co., 310 U. S. 371. The President also possesses in his own right certain powers conferred by the Constitution on him as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation’s organ in foreign affairs. For present purposes, the order draws vitality from either or both sources. Legislative and Executive powers are pooled obviously to the end that commercial strategic and diplomatic interests of the country may be coordinated and advanced without collision or deadlock between agencies.
These considerations seem controlling on the question whether the Board’s action on overseas and foreign air transportation applications by citizens are subject to revision or overthrow by the courts.
It may be conceded that a literal reading of § 1006 subjects this order to re-examination by the courts. It also appears that the language was deliberately employed by Congress, although nothing indicates that Congress foresaw or intended the consequences ascribed to it by the decision of the Court below. The letter of the text might with equal consistency be construed to require any one of three things: first, judicial review of a decision by the President; second, judicial review of a Board order before it acquires finality through Presidential action, the court’s decision on review being a binding limitation on the President’s action; third, a judicial review before action by the President, the latter being at liberty wholly to disregard the court’s judgment. We think none of these results is required by usual canons of construction.
In this case, submission of the Board’s decision was made to the President, who disapproved certain portions of it and advised the Board of the changes which he required. The Board complied and submitted a revised order and opinion which the President approved. Only then were they made public, and that which was made public and which is before us is only the final order and opinion containing the President’s amendments and bearing his approval. Only at that stage was review sought, and only then could it be pursued, for then only was the decision consummated, announced and available to the parties.
While the changes made at direction of the President may be identified, the reasons therefor are not disclosed beyond the statement that “because of certain factors relating to our broad national welfare and other matters for which the Chief Executive has special responsibility, he has reached conclusions which require” changes in the Board’s opinion.
The court below considered, and we think quite rightly, that it could not review such provisions of the order as resulted from Presidential direction. The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation’s organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret. Nor can courts sit in camera in order to be taken into executive confidences. But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 454; United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 319-321; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297, 302. We therefore agree that whatever of this order emanates from the President is not susceptible of review by the Judicial Department.
The court below thought that this disability could be overcome by regarding the Board as a regulatory agent of Congress to pass on such matters as the fitness, willingness and ability of the applicant, and that the Board’s own determination of these matters is subject to review. The court, speaking of the Board’s action, said: “It is not final till the Board and the court have completed their functions. Thereafter the completed action must be approved by the President as to citizen air carriers in cases under Sec. 801.” The legal incongruity of interposing judicial review between the action by the Board and that by the President are as great as the practical disadvantages. The latter arise chiefly from the inevitable delay and obstruction in the midst of the administrative proceedings. The former arises from the fact that until the President acts there is no final administrative determination to review. The statute would hardly have forbidden publication before submission if it had contemplated interposition of the courts at this intermediate stage. Nor could it have expected the courts to stay the President’s hand after submission while they deliberate on the inchoate determination. The difficulty is manifest in this case. Review could not be sought until the order was made available, and at that time it had ceased to be merely the Board’s tentative decision and had become one finalized by Presidential discretion.
Until the decision of the Board has Presidential approval, it grants no privilege and denies no right. It can give nothing and can take nothing away from the applicant or a competitor. It may be a step which if erroneous will mature into a prejudicial result, as an order fixing valuations in a rate proceeding may fore-show and compel a prejudicial rate order. But administrative orders are not reviewable unless and until they impose an obligation, deny a right or fix some legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process. United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. Co., 273 U. S. 299; United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., 244 U. S. 82; Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 131. The dilemma faced by those who demand judicial review of the Board’s order is that before Presidential approval it is not a final determination even of the Board’s ultimate action, and after Presidential approval the whole order, both in what is approved without change as well as in amendments which he directs, derives its vitality from the exercise of unreviewable Presidential discretion.
The court below considered that after it reviewed the Board’s order its judgment would be submitted to the President, that his power to disapprove would apply after as well as before the court acts, and hence that there would be no chance of a deadlock and no conflict of function. But if the President may completely disregard the judgment of the court, it would be only because it is one the courts were not authorized to render. Judgments within the powers vested in courts by the Judiciary Article of the Constitution may not lawfully be revised, overturned or refused faith and credit by another Department of Government.
To revise or review an administrative decision which has only the force of a recommendation to the President would be to render an advisory opinion in its most obnoxious form — advice that the President has not asked, tendered at the demand of a private litigant, on a subject concededly within the President’s exclusive, ultimate control. This Court early and wisely determined that it would not give advisory opinions even when asked by the Chief Executive. It has also been the firm and unvarying practice of Constitutional Courts to render no judgments not binding and conclusive on the parties and none that are subject to later review or alteration by administrative action. Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dali. 409; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697; In re Sanborn, 148 U. S. 222; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447; La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 423; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346; United States v. Jefferson Electric Co., 291 U. S. 386.
We conclude that orders of the Board as to certificates for overseas or foreign air transportation are not mature and are therefore not susceptible of judicial review at anytime before they are finalized by Presidential approval. After such approval has been given, the final orders embody Presidential discretion as to political matters beyond the competence of the courts to adjudicate. This makes it unnecessary to examine the other questions raised. The petition of the Waterman Steamship Corp. should be dismissed.
Judgment 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: | I | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.